Archives For Interpretation

Learning From Peter as a Witness of Christ

February 27, 2015

Jesus chose Peter to be the leader of the apostolic company and entrusted him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:16-19). After giving them instructions about how He wanted them all to be witnesses of Him to the whole world (Acts 1:8), we first see in the book of Acts that Peter led the believers in choosing the necessary replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26).

In Acts 2, we read of Peter’s preaching the first apostolic message in obedience to Jesus’ directive for them to be His witnesses. This premier gospel message has many instructive features that we need to learn from so that we will be the witnesses of Christ that we should be.

Peter as a Witness in Jerusalem

Peter preached to men who were devout Jews (Acts 2:5) from every nation, but before he did so, they all heard supernaturally produced testimony to the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11). Because the Spirit has chosen not to give us any more information about what that testimony included, we cannot be certain of what specific content they received through this precursor to his message.

Following this initial supernatural testimony, Peter explained to his hearers what they had just witnessed signified (Acts 2:14-21). This means that his hearers received a lengthy two-part precursor to his actual message.

When we look at Peter’s message (Acts 2:22-36), we see that it was preeminently a God-and-Jesus message that highlighted that God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted Him (Acts 2: 22; 32, 36). When the people responded by asking him and the rest of the apostles what they should do in light of what he had preached to them (Acts 2:37), Peter instructed them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38-39), just as Jesus had commanded the apostles to proclaim to the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Lk. 24:44-49).

Peter then extensively warned them after his message and urged them to be saved (Acts 2:40). Because the Spirit has chosen only to give us a brief summary of this lengthy exhortation after Peter’s message, we again note that God has not given us an exhaustive record of the witness that these people received on this occasion.

Three thousand people from among his hearers joyfully received his message and were baptized (Acts 2:41). This vast multitude of people was genuinely saved not by hearing just “a simple gospel message” that only told them that Jesus is God and that He died for their sins—they actually received a very lengthy witness that climaxed with an emphatic proclamation of Jesus as the God-resurrected and God-exalted Christ (Acts 2:36)!

What Being a Witness of Christ Does Not Mean

Although we do learn many things from this premier message about what being a witness of Christ entails, the inspired record of Peter’s first witnessing of Christ in Jerusalem (Acts 2) also teaches us many key truths about what being a witness of Christ does not mean:

  1. Being a witness of Christ does not mean that we should necessarily give people as short and simple a message as possible. These people heard a four-part vast testimony (Acts 2:11; 2:14-21; 2:22-36; 2:38-40) that plainly declared to them many profound truths (cf. Acts 2:11, 33, 36, 38), including truth about the day of the Lord (Acts 2:16-21) that Bible interpreters even today have difficulty fully understanding and explaining.
  2. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly just about Jesus Himself. In fact, Peter bore vital testimony many times in his message to what God the Father did in relation to Jesus (Acts 2:22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36).
  3. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about the Crucifixion of Jesus. Although Peter, naturally, did testify of the Crucifixion (Acts 2:23), he emphasized the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ far more than he did the Crucifixion (Acts 2:24-36).
  4. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about Jesus as God. Although what Peter preached did testify to the deity of Jesus, he also testified that Jesus was the Christ whom God approved (Acts 2:22), worked through (Acts 2:22), raised (Acts 2:24, 32), and exalted (Acts 2:33, 36).
  5. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about Jesus as Savior. Peter did testify to that truth, but he climaxed his message with a declaration of Jesus as the God-exalted Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), which statement is not reducible to testimony merely about Jesus as Savior.
  6. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about believing on Jesus. Peter emphatically demanded that his hearers also repent (Acts 2:38).
  7. Being a witness of Christ does not mean talking only or mainly about getting saved. Although Peter did provide testimony to them about being saved (Acts 2:21) and did urge them to be saved (Acts 2:40), he also demanded that they be baptized (Acts 2:38).

Conclusion

The inspired record of Peter’s testimony of Christ in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 2 provides us with vital instruction about being a witness of Christ. Let us all profit fully from this glorious passage!

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Evangelism, Exposition, Preaching
 permalink

Ten Examples of the Value of Learning Biblical Greek!

February 21, 2015

If you have ever studied New Testament Greek, I think that these ten previous posts would help confirm to you the truth that using Biblical Greek is very valuable for understanding the Bible and the things of God better!

A Good Example of the Value of Learning NT Greek

Paul’s Commission to Proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God!

The Teaching of Nature (1 Cor. 11:14-15)

Haman, Head Coverings, and First Corinthians 11:1-16

Who Did John the Baptist Identify Jesus to Be

Understanding the Biblical Use of “Dunamai” More Accurately

God Made Jesus Both Lord and Christ

The King’s Words about Everlasting Fire

Interpreting the Word “Lord” in the NT

The “Sabbath” Psalms

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Biblical Greek, Biblical Languages, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Beware This “News Report” Approach to Using John 11 in Evangelism!

February 9, 2015

This morning, I used a creative approach with some other believers to help them understand better how many believers have not rightly understood why Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead the way that He did. I believe that a vast number of believers need to understand this key point and then use that understanding to adjust in a very important way their use of John 11 in evangelizing people.

An Imaginary News Report of Jesus’ Raising Lazarus from the Dead

Imagine that a news crew from a leading TV network is able to go back in time to videotape one key Bible event, and they choose when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. This crew has the ability to record what takes place without any of the people even seeing that they are present.

As they watch Jesus and others coming to the tomb, they choose to begin recording only at the exact moment when He actually commands Lazarus to come forth. Getting what they want on tape, they return to the present to share their highly selective eyewitness account with the world.

On a prime time news program, they present the stunning video, which instantly creates a worldwide sensation. As teams of news reporters and analysts all around the world go back and forth discussing the remarkable footage, leading news anchors here in the US carry on a torrid debate about what the world should make of this miraculous event.

The Internet explodes with a never-before-seen deluge of discussion on social media. Many bloggers chime in with their take on what significance the world should attach to seeing Jesus do something that no one else had ever been recorded doing—raising a person back to life who had been dead for four days!

Everywhere, people fiercely dispute why Jesus did what He did the way that He did it and what His doing so reveals about who He was. An endless stream of world leaders, political and religious, gives their opinions on whether they believe that the video proves that Jesus was God.

All too often, many Christians have evangelized people by using the account of Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead in a very similar way to what I concocted in this hypothetical story. By focusing on a very small portion of the Bible record about this event, they have in many cases not given people a right understanding of why Jesus raised Lazarus the way that He did and what His doing so shows about who He was.

The Foreground Significance of Jesus’ Raising Lazarus the Way That He Did

An examination of the Holy Spirit’s inspired report of what happened shows clearly how this has been the case. When John relates to us what happened immediately before Jesus commanded Lazarus to come out of the grave, he says,

Joh 11:38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

Only after relating these events does John tell us the very selective part that the fictitious news story I gave above provided:

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Had the Spirit only inspired John to write verses 43-44 after he had given enough preceding material to give the basic information about the setting of this event, the news report would have been a more valid representation of what took place on this occasion. John, however, provided vital information in the verses immediately preceding verses 43 and 44 that the news report failed to provide.

Right before Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth, John says that Jesus lifted up His eyes and talked aloud with God the Father (John 11:41). In this conversation, Jesus thanked the Father for hearing Him and for His always hearing Him. These statements show that Jesus communicated that He had prayed to the Father just before His raising Lazarus from the dead and that the Father had heard His prayer, just as He always had done before this event!

Moreover, John then recorded that Jesus then remarked to the Father, “But because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 11:42). Here John reports from the mouth of Jesus Himself what is the key to understanding why Jesus raised Lazarus the way that He did—He wanted the people to believe the vital truth that the Father had sent Him!

Saying this, Jesus told all those who were present on that occasion that the foreground significance of His raising Lazarus the way that He did was that people would believe that God the Father had sent Him! What He Himself said prior to what He was about to do thus made known that His intent through this miraculous event did not have proving His own deity as its foremost significance.

Yes, what He did testified to His deity but that clearly was not the sum total of what this event testified about Him. In fact, by Jesus’ own statement that John relates, we know that His own deity was not even the foremost truth to which His raising Lazarus the way that He did gave witness to His original audience.

How We Must Use John 11 Properly in Evangelism

As we have seen, this conversation between Jesus and the Father about His hearing Jesus’ prayer was a vital facet of this miracle that the news report completely left out. What Jesus testified about His purpose for doing this miracle the way that He did it is also a vital facet of this event that many, many believers do not account for when they use this account to witness to people.

In using John 11 in evangelism, we must not use this “news report” approach to sharing this glorious event with lost people. We must rather faithfully tell them that Jesus raised Lazarus the way that He did so that they will believe that the Father sent Him!

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Evangelism, Exhortation, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Beware “Theological Reductionism” that Overemphasizes the Deity of Jesus!

February 3, 2015

Is overemphasizing the deity of Jesus even possible? Mark 1:1-3 is a crucial passage for showing that such overemphasis is not only possible, but also is very widespread and has negatively affected the theological understanding of many believers.

The Proper Approach to Interpreting Mark 1:1

The Gospel of Mark begins with vital teaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). This theologically pregnant statement juxtaposes many key theological terms: “gospel,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “the Son of God.”

Self-evidently, a right handling of this text is of preeminent importance. How then should we approach interpreting what Mark affirms here?

The Holy Spirit answers that question by how He has inspired what immediately follows in the passage: “As it is written in the prophets …” (Mark 1:2a). To interpret Mark 1:1 properly, we must relate it properly to how the Spirit has signified that Mark 1:1 is to be understood through our attention to previous biblical teaching.

What Does Mark 1:2-3 Itself Teach Us?

Before we can understand how Mark 1:1 relates properly with Mark 1:2-3, we must examine what Mark 1:2-3 teaches us itself. Mark 1:2-3 directs our attention to teaching found elsewhere in Scripture:

Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

A careful analysis of verse 2 reveals that this biblical citation speaks of three distinct persons:

(1) the Speaker of the statement (“I,” “my”);

(2) the one who is sent by the Speaker as His messenger and who will prepare the way of another Person to whom the Speaker addresses the statement;

(3) the One Whom the Speaker addresses the statement to and Whose face the Speaker will send His messenger before and Whose way the messenger will prepare before Him (the third Person spoken of in the passage who is the referent of both occurrences of the pronoun “thy” in this verse).

The Speaker is God the Father, the one whom He sends as His messenger is John the Baptist (cf. especially 1:4-6), and the third Person in the passage is Jesus (Mark 1:7ff.).

Because Mark 1:3 informs us that the messenger would proclaim that the One whose way he would prepare (Mark 1:2) is the Lord, interpreters rightly understand that the passage is affirming the deity of Jesus. Is this affirmation of His deity, however, the only essential teaching of the passage about the gospel of Jesus Christ?

What Mark 1:1 Signifies Based on Its Relation to Mark 1:2-3

Many interpreters hold that the phrase “the Son of God” at its essence signifies Jesus’ deity in this passage and support this understanding by noting how that phrase is used elsewhere and by how 1:3 speaks of Him as the Lord whose way the messenger would prepare. Arguing in this way, they affirm that the essential truth about the gospel that Mark is stressing here is that Jesus Christ is deity Himself.

All too often, as they handle the passage in this way, however, they lose sight of another essential truth that the passage plainly affirms about Jesus before it speaks of Him as the Lord—Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a distinct Person from the Father who sent His messenger before Him to prepare His way and His paths! Yes, this passage affirms the full deity of Jesus Christ, but what it teaches about His deity is not the only essential truth that this passage provides us about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Discussion

When interpreters emphasize one truth that a passage teaches to such an extent that they obscure or minimize without biblical warrant other key truths that the passage also teaches, they engage in what I call “theological reductionism.” Such reductionism, when it is repeatedly done, easily leads to widespread neglect of key biblical teaching and the mishandling of key passages of Scripture.

Yes, Mark 1:1-3 affirms the deity of Jesus Christ as the Lord. No, the passage does not teach that Jesus Christ as the Son of the God means only that Jesus is God Himself.

Rather, through inspiring Mark 1:2-3 as the essential explanation of the meaning that He intends for us to understand about the gospel significance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Holy Spirit teaches us to hold that “the Son of God” here denotes both His deity and His being a distinct person from God the Father. To emphasize the former at the expense of the latter is to engage in theological reductionism.

Moreover, the passage teaches us that the Father sent His messenger to prepare the way for the coming of Jesus to people as the Lord. The emphasis on the preparatory ministry of the messenger shows us that what would take place in Jesus’ life as the Lord was not a self-determined expression of and exercise of His own deity; Jesus came as the Lord whose paths His Father directed and determined.

Conclusion

Mark 1:1-3 teaches that a right understanding of the gospel significance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God includes both His deity and His distinction in person from God the Father. It also teaches us that another key truth about the gospel significance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is that the Father prepared His way to come to people as the Lord.

We must take care not to reduce the vital theological teaching of this passage about the gospel in such a way that we communicate that the gospel at its essence is reducible to merely an affirmation of and an expression of the deity of Jesus Christ. To furnish people with a proper understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we must communicate to them not only the deity of Jesus but also both His distinction in person from God the Father and the Father’s essential working in the life of Jesus.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Exposition, Gospel, Theology
 permalink

Are You Rightly Receiving the Bible in Your Life?

January 29, 2015

Paul ends Second Timothy 3 with a profound statement that is rightly stressed for what it teaches about the inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). An examination of that statement in its surrounding context provides crucial understanding that every believer needs to have in order that he would be rightly receiving the Bible in his life.

Scripture Makes People Wise unto Salvation

Paul taught Timothy that the holy Scriptures were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith that is in Jesus Christ:

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This statement shows that genuine salvation results in a person’s life from his contact with the Bible only if he allows it to impart to him the wisdom that he lacks. Specifically, he must accept God’s wisdom that Scripture reveals to him by believing what the Scripture presents to him about Jesus Christ.

People who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ through the ministry of the Bible that they receive are people who reject divine wisdom that is essential for salvation. Until a person repents of such rejection, he will never rightly receive the Bible in his life.

Scripture Profits Believers unto All Good Works

When a person repents toward God and believes in Jesus Christ through rightly receiving the Scripture in his life, he is saved. After his salvation, God intends for him to continue rightly receiving the Bible in his life:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Here Paul taught Timothy that as a believer in Jesus Christ, he was to receive profit from all Scripture such that it all would perfect him as a man of God. Paul then expanded on how Scripture was to perfect Timothy as a man of God by telling him that through his rightly receiving all Scripture in his life, Timothy would be thoroughly furnished for all good works.

By concluding this teaching as he did, Paul expressed that God’s intent for providing the entirety of the Bible to every believer was so that he would be fully equipped to do all the good works that God wants him to do! Saying this, Paul taught the profound truth that a believer’s doing all the good works that God intends for him to do is the essential outcome that must result from his contact with all Scripture.

When a believer is not doing all the good works in his life that God wants him to do, he shows that he is not rightly receiving the Bible in his life. He must repent and believe what Scripture teaches him about all the good works that he is to do.

Conclusion

We must all assess ourselves with all diligence to see if we are rightly receiving the Bible in our lives. To whatever extent we are failing to do all the good works that God wants us to do, we are not rightly receiving the Bible in our lives.

Are you rightly receiving the Bible in your life?

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Like Jesus from Childhood to Death!

January 24, 2015

Two profound statements in Scripture about Jesus arrest my attention nearly every time I read them:

Luk 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The first shows that as a child who was waxing strong in Spirit and filled with wisdom, Jesus had the grace of God upon Him. The second shows that Jesus tasted death for every man by the grace of God.

Comparing these two verses, we see that Jesus—both as a sinless child and as a dying Christ who died for our sins—was what He was by the grace of God! Obviously, these verses do not have as their primary focus that Jesus Himself was “very God of very God” because God does not need grace to be or do anything.

Yes, Jesus was “very God of very God,” but these verses forcefully teach us that we must not make that glorious truth the sum total of our understanding of Jesus’ life from childhood to death. A theology and practice that mostly overlooks or ignores the biblical teaching about the grace of God in Jesus’ life is a distorted and unbiblical theology and practice.

Although He was fully God Himself, Jesus yet both lived and died by the grace of God that was upon Him! Let us take great encouragement from these truths that we can be like Jesus (in the ways that we can and should be) from childhood to death by the grace of God!

Praise God for His marvelous grace that He pours out on all who repent toward Him and believe in His Son!

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Exhortation, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

How Acts 9:17 Teaches Us Not to Commit a Very Common and Serious Interpretational Error

January 9, 2015

Acts 9 is the first of three accounts in the book of Acts that relate the conversion of Saul. After Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was temporarily blinded, and as a result, other people had to lead him into the city of Damascus (Acts 9:8). He then spent three days there in his sightless condition (Acts 9:9).

During that time, the Lord appeared to Ananias, a devout disciple (Acts 9:10; cf. Acts 22:12), and commanded him to go minister to Saul (Acts 9:10-12). After having his objections answered with firm insistence by the Lord that he yet must do what the Lord had directed him to do (Acts 9:13-16), Ananias came to where Saul was staying and ministered to him (Acts 9:17-18).

As part of that ministry, Ananias laid hands on Saul and said to him, “Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 9:17). This statement provides us with some important information about Ananias that even many otherwise careful readers often overlook.

When Ananias said to Saul that he knew that the Lord had appeared to Saul on the way as he was coming, Ananias testified to his knowledge of something that he could not have known as an eyewitness because he was not present when the Lord appeared to Saul. How then did Ananias know that the Lord had appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus?

Based on the information supplied by Luke in Acts 9 and 22, we have no indication that any of the other people that were with Saul when the Lord appeared to him had come before Saul did to Ananias and told him what had happened to Saul. The only way that Ananias, therefore, could have known that the Lord had appeared to Saul on the way as he was coming to Damascus was for the Lord Himself to have informed Ananias about His doing so.

The report of the Lord’s appearing in a vision to Ananias (Acts 9:10-16), however, does not say anything about Jesus’ having told Ananias about His appearing to Saul on the road to Damascus. Because Ananias nevertheless testified to Saul of his knowing about that event, we must conclude that Luke has not provided us with an exhaustive record of what the Lord said to Ananias when He appeared to him to direct him to go to minister to Saul.

This observation is critical to keep in mind when we make statements about what was or was not said by people in other events recorded in Acts (as well as also in the rest of Scripture). We learn from this analysis of Acts 9:17 in its larger context that it is a serious error to assert that something was not said on a particular occasion just because a brief report of that event in Scripture does not say anything about such a statement.1

Let us learn from this study not to commit this very common and serious interpretational error!

1Here are four examples of false conclusions that people have come to by committing this error:

—Philip did not preach about the Resurrection of Jesus to the Ethiopian official, and he was saved without testimony to the Resurrection (Acts 8)

—Paul did not preach about repentance in Damascus (Acts 9)

—Paul and Silas did not testify to the Resurrection of Jesus to the Philippian jailor, and he was saved without hearing about the Resurrection (Acts 16)

—Paul failed to preach the gospel in Athens because he did not preach about the Cross or about the name of Jesus (Acts 17)

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Interpretation
 permalink

How James 4 Illumines Today’s Music Wars and How to End Them Properly

January 3, 2015

In some spirited online discussions that I have observed between evangelicals and fundamentalists concerning their differences about music that is acceptable for worship, evangelicals have often asserted that the fundamentalists are the root cause of the problems and disunity in worship that exist among Christians today. Of course, I categorically reject that assertion.

In support of my rejection of that assertion, I recently have seen that James 4 illumines key aspects of today’s music wars. The chapter also illumines how to end the music wars properly.

James 4:1-10

James first sets forth the reality of wars and fightings among God’s people and exposes the root cause of such problems—Christians who are seeking their own lustful pleasures and thereby creating strife and division (James 4:1-3).

Application: Concerning differences about music that should be used for Christian worship, believers who strive for the acceptability of music that appeals to fleshly lusts are the ones who are responsible for creating the music wars among God’s people.

James then challenges those believers who are causing strife— through seeking to satisfy their fleshly lusts— about their adulterously seeking friendship with the world (James 4:4-5).

Application: In the debates about what music is appropriate for Christian worship, believers who promote affinity to the world by setting forth as acceptable for worship music that the world has specifically created to promote fleshly lusts are the ones who are causing the strife and division among God’s people concerning worship music.

James further rebukes believers who cause strife for their arrogant lack of submission to God and their not resisting the devil. In effect, he counsels them that their seeking to fulfill their lusts by their friendship with the world is a manifestation of their proud resistance to God and failure to resist the devil (James 4:6-7).

Application: Concerning the disputes about worship music, believers who advocate as acceptable for worship music that the world created to appeal to fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences upon its creators and performers are the ones who are the root cause of today’s music wars.

James challenges believers who are causing wars and fightings among God’s people to humbly draw near to God and deal properly with their sins (James 4:7-10).

Application: Concerning the current battles about music that is acceptable for worship, believers who promote the use of music that was created by the world to feed fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences are the ones who must change if the music wars among God’s people today are to be resolved properly.

James 4:11-12

James next warns believers not to judge one another by speaking evil of one another (James 4:11-12). It is vital to note that the flow of thought in the chapter shows that James does not have in view speech that rightly assesses and confronts believers who through their lustful and adulterous friendship with the world are proudly resistant to God and failing to resist the devil.

Application: Those who advocate for the use of contemporary worship music often charge those who do not with judging them unjustly by what they say about the use of contemporary worship music. Such a charge is invalid because it is right to assess as wrong the use of music created by the world that feeds fleshly lusts and that is sourced in evil supernatural influences upon musicians.

James 4:13-17

James concludes the chapter by rebuking believers who arrogantly boast about what they are going to do in the future (James 4:13-16). He warns them that failure to do what one knows to be right is sinful (James 4:17).

Application: Some evangelical promoters of contemporary worship arrogantly speak assuredly of the future virtually complete triumph of contemporary worship among the people of God. Many of these people also profess that music choices are strictly about personal preferences and yet speak disdainfully of those who reject contemporary worship, which puts them in violation of what they know is right to do about how believers are to handle differences about things that they believe are disputable things.

Conclusion

If today’s music wars are to be ended properly, all believers must carefully and thoroughly examine themselves in light of how James 4 illumines these wars and fightings among God’s people concerning worship music. Through such an examination and a proper response to it, we can resolve these problems and the disunity among God’s people resulting from them.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

A Prophet, A Minstrel, and Resolving Today’s Worship Wars

December 20, 2014

To resolve today’s worship wars properly, all parties involved must profit fully from all divine revelation about music. To that end, this post examines a noteworthy passage about a prophet, a minstrel, and divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

Elisha’s Commitment to Separation from Those Who Had Compromised True Worship of the Lord

Second Kings begins by relating the miraculous end of Elijah’s prophetic ministry and the miraculous beginning of Elisha’s prophetic ministry (2 Kings 1-2). During the subsequent evil reign of king Jehoram over Israel (cf. 2 Kings 3:1-3), king Jehoram went with Jehoshaphat king of Judah and the king of Edom to inquire of the Lord through Elisha because Jehoshaphat knew that “the word of the Lord [was] with him [Elisha]” (2 Kings 3:7-12).

In this encounter with these three kings, Elisha initially rebuked Jehoram by protesting his seeking him out: “What have I to do with thee?” (2 Kings 3:13a). Elisha thereby made clear that he did not want to have contact with this evil king. He then instructed him to go instead and consult with the prophets of his parents (2 Kings 3:13b).

When Jehoram persisted (2 Kings 3:13c), Elisha testified to the all-important reality that he served in the presence of the living God (“As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand” [2 Kings 3:14a]). He then went so far as to say to Jehoram that he would not even have had anything to do with him had Jehoshaphat not been with him (2 Kings 3:14b).

These statements by Elisha attest to his commitment to separation from evil leaders who perpetuated horrifically compromised worship of the Lord (2 Kings 3:3). By divine design, we must therefore keep this reality in mind when we examine what Elisha did next in this encounter.

Elisha’s Request for a Minstrel to Play for Him and His Subsequent Prophesying

After he had rebuked Jehoram for seeking prophetic ministry from him, Elisha asked that a minstrel be brought to him (2 Kings 3:15a). When the minstrel played for him, “the hand of the Lord came upon him” (2 Kings 3:15b).

Elisha then prophesied what the Lord gave him to reveal on this occasion (2 Kings 3:16-19). The inspired writer of the book then records that what Elisha had prophesied took place the next morning (2 Kings 3:20).

Discussion

Why did Elisha request this musical ministry prior to his prophesying? Why did the Holy Spirit record this part of the encounter and what profit are we supposed to derive from it?

To understand the value of this revelation properly, we must first note that this passage does not say anything about the minstrel’s singing words to Elisha on this occasion. By divine design, this passage focuses our attention, therefore, on what resulted at this time from the playing of instrumental music.

Second, we must recognize that Elisha had no ability to bring about any divine response to the instrumental musical ministry that he requested and received. Because the Spirit has recorded that God did respond to that instrumental music, we learn that this passage is inspired revelation about divine attentiveness to and approbation of the instrumental music that Elisha received on this occasion!

Third, given Elisha’s intense commitment to separation from compromised worshipers of the Lord, the flow of thought in the passage points us to the truth of divine attention to and approbation of instrumental music ministered by a musician who is not a compromising worshiper of the Lord. By implication, we learn that both Elisha and God would have rejected instrumental music proffered by an ungodly instrumental musician (cf. Amos 5:23).

Conclusion

In a previous post, I treated a passage in Amos 5 that plainly teaches that God pays attention to the instrumental music that people use to worship Him. The account of Elisha, the minstrel’s playing, and God’s response to that playing similarly reveals divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

In discussions about issues concerning worship music, we must account properly for this vital biblical truth—God is not merely concerned with the words that are sung to Him; He also pays attention to the instrumental music that is used. In fact, through how the Spirit has chosen to inspire the revelation given to us in 2 Kings 3:15, we must accept the truth that He pays attention to and responds to instrumental music that is not accompanied by words!

Furthermore, the emphasis in the passage on Elisha’s separation from ungodly worshipers of the Lord directs us to scrutinize carefully the instrumental music that we use in divine worship and to reject instrumental music sourced in the evil activities of evil people, including people who profess to worship the Lord but compromise His worship. Attempts to resolve today’s worship wars that do not account for the truths revealed in 2 Kings 3, Amos 5, and other related passages will necessarily fail to resolve the issues involved properly.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

God Does Pay Attention to the Instrumental Music Used to Worship Him!

December 9, 2014

Every time that I read Amos 5, I am struck by what God says at the end of the passage concerning the instrumental music that His people offer to Him in their worship. Although I am still working on understanding the full significance of this passage for the debates about worship music in our day, I am convinced that it has great relevance to those issues.

Amos 5 and Divine Attentiveness to Instrumental Music

Because of the extreme offensiveness of His people’s religious hypocrisy, God made known that He intensely detested their ungodly worship. Tellingly, He said that He would not accept the things that they would offer Him:

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

 23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

 24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Remarkably, God rebuked His people by saying that He hated the special occasions of divine worship that He Himself had ordained for them!

It is noteworthy that God specifies here that He commanded them to take away the noise of their songs from Him and made known that He would not listen to the instrumental music that they would offer up to Him in their hypocritical worship. By direct and necessary implication, verse 23 reveals that God listens intently to the instrumental music that His people use in their worshiping Him and any music that is part of divine worship must be music that is a delight to Him.

Conclusion

Contrary to the notions that some believers seem to have, this passage makes clear that believers cannot legitimately hold that God only cares about the words that are sung to Him and doesn’t pay attention to the instrumental music that is used to worship Him. God has made known plainly in Amos 5:23 (and in other passages) that He does pay attention to the instrumental music used to worship Him!

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink