Archives For Interpretation

Are Some People Better Than Others Are?

March 30, 2015

You often hear people say that no one is any better than anyone else is. A statement by Samuel the prophet that explicitly compares two key people does not support this common statement:

KJV 1Sa 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.

NAU 1Sa 15:28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you.

NET 1Sa 15:28 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to one of your colleagues who is better than you!

NIV 1Sa 15:28 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors– to one better than you.

NKJ 1Sa 15:28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.

ESV 1Sa 15:28 And Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.

CSB 1Sa 15:28 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingship of Israel away from you today and has given it to your neighbor who is better than you.

As the biblical data above shows, every one of these major translations reads the same—God said that David was better than Saul was! Based on this explicit biblical teaching, we must adjust what we say in this regard to account for what God has revealed to us in this passage.

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

In Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

How to Apply Romans 14:1-15:13 Properly to the Debates about Christian Music: Part I

March 21, 2015

Many evangelicals as well as other Christians use Romans 14:1-15:13 frequently to challenge the views of Christians who hold conservative music positions. Typically, these believers who hold non-conservative music positions regard themselves as the strong believers of this passage and view those with conservative positions as the weak believers spoken of here.

To apply Romans 14:1-15:13 properly to any disputed area of Christian belief and practice requires thorough attention both to the larger context of the book of Romans and to the nature of the issues under consideration in this passage. Through giving such attention to this passage, we are able to assess correctly the validity of the common contention that those with conservative music positions are the weak believers of this passage.

In Part I of this series, I consider how putting Romans 14:1-15:13 in its larger context of the book of Romans is necessary for determining its proper application to the debates about Christian music. In Part II of this series, I intend to examine how the nature of the issues under consideration in Romans 14:1-15:13 itself bears upon its application to the debates about Christian music.

Romans 14:1-15:13 in Light of Its Larger Context of the Book of Romans

God did not give Romans 14:1-15:13 as a self-contained revelation of His mind about how to handle the issues that Christians debate; He gave this passage as part of the whole book of Romans. We can only rightly understand and apply this passage, therefore, when we properly relate it to other teaching by Paul in the book of Romans that has direct bearing on what sort of issues are in view in this passage.

The following six points bring out various aspects of Pauline teaching in the book of Romans that directly relate to the debates about Christian music:

1. Inventors of Evil Things — Paul taught that reprobate humans are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). I have previously discussed (in this post) the relevance of this statement for the debates about Christian music. Concerning what issues Romans 14:1-15:13 pertains to, we can be certain that the teaching of this passage does not apply to issues concerning musical styles that evil humans have originated as inventors of evil.

2. The Whole Creation is in Bondage to Corruption — Paul testifies that the entire universe is under the bondage of corruption:

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

To support their music positions, many Christian proponents of non-conservative music positions espouse views that in effect exempt instrumental music from the effects of the Fall of man. Scripture, however, provides no basis for holding that the bondage of the whole creation to corruption has not affected human creation of and use of instrumental musical styles.

3. Conformity to the World — Paul commands believers not to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). Many of those who hold non-conservative music positions in effect argue that this teaching does not apply to the instrumental musical styles created by humans who oppose God because they hold that all musical styles are inherently good and fit for human use by virtue of their being divinely created. Not only is there no Scripture to support such a view about the necessary inherent fitness of all musical styles, but also Scripture provides revelation that refutes the validity of such an assertion.

4. Casting off the Works of Darkness — Paul commands believers to “cast off the works of darkness” (Rom. 13:12). Scripture teaches that Satan is the prince who is energizing and ruling over the darkness of this evil world (Eph. 2:2; Col. 1:13).

Many rock musicians have testified to the controlling and originating role of demons in the production of their music. We can be certain that Paul never intended Romans 14:1-15:13 to be applied to things and practices that entail humans engaging in such demonically sourced works of darkness.

5. Turning from Dissolute Living — Paul enjoins believers not to live dissolute lifestyles:

Rom 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

Those who have originated rock music are infamous for their evil lifestyles, and they have testified that they created this music with the intent of promoting such wicked lifestyles. We can be certain that Romans 14:1-15:13 does not apply to music and other things that are so closely associated in these ways to people who live and promote such dissolute lifestyles.

6. Making No Provision for the Lusts of the Flesh — Paul directs believers not to make any provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts (Rom. 13:14). Because testimony directly from rock musicians abounds that they created their music for the purpose of influencing people to fulfill various lusts of the flesh, we can confidently hold that Romans 14:1-15:13 does not apply to such music that was specifically created to have these effects on people.

Conclusion

An examination of the larger context of Romans 14:1-15:13 within the book of Romans shows that Paul provides teaching in at least six passages that addresses considerations that show that issues that involve these considerations are issues to which Romans 14:1-15:13 does not apply. Because all six of these passages have direct bearing on certain aspects of key issues involved in the debates about Christian music, believers who hold conservative music positions because they heed the application of these passages to these issues are not the weak believers spoken of in Romans 14:1-15:13.

See my post Resources That Provide Answers to Key Issues Concerning CCM for much more biblical information about issues concerning what music God accepts in corporate worship.

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

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

How “Inventors of Evil Things” (Rom. 1:30) Applies to Our Assessment of Certain Musical Styles

March 19, 2015

The apostle Paul concludes Romans 1 with a lengthy list that relates various sinful aspects of the evil lifestyles of humans who have depraved minds because of God’s judgment upon them:

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

In the midst of the numerous specific vices that Paul names here, he writes that these people are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). This statement has great importance for our understanding of how we are to assess certain musical styles, as can be seen by the following observations that are based upon it in various ways:

1. Paul says that these evil people invent evil things. Whatever things Paul has in mind here, therefore, cannot be said in any sense to be things that are created by God.

Scripture provides no evidence for saying that rock music was created by God, and it provides key teaching about human creative activity with things that were created by God that shows that no product of such human creative activity must necessarily be something that is fit for human use (see this post). Saying, therefore, that Romans 1:30 does not apply to rock music because rock music was created by God is an invalid argument against applying Romans 1:30 to our assessment of rock music.

2. Paul does not bother to specify at all what these evil things are that these evil people invent. Because he does not do so, we learn that there are humanly created evil aspects of these people’s lives that Paul had in mind that he did not believe he had to list out for his readers.Without his specifying what these evil inventions were, Paul expected his readers to know what these evil things were that these evil humans had invented.

Furthermore, his not specifying these evil aspects of the lives of these reprobate humans shows that this is another instance (cf. “and such like” [Gal. 5:21]) when Paul communicates to his readers that Scripture does not provide an exhaustive listing of human sinful activities. This very important observation shows that Scripture does not have to say explicitly that some human practice or invention is sinful for us to be able to say legitimately that it is unfit for human use.

The fact that Scripture does not say anything directly about rock music does not mean that we cannot say that we should reject it. Romans 1:30 and other passages provide believers with ample justification to reject rock music categorically.

3. When evil human beings who reject the knowledge of God and manifest in their lives many of the evils listed here specifically say that they have invented things to promote many of the very evils that are listed here, believers must heed what they say and not have anything to do with such evil things that these people have invented. Because many of the evil people who originated rock music and popularized it have testified directly of their evil intent in what they were doing, God-fearing Christians should reject rock music categorically as an evil invention of those who are “inventors of evil things.”

4. Careful Christians who reject rock music and all other styles of music derived from it based on the application of Romans 1:30 (and its surrounding context) to such testimonies do not have to be able to explain (with specific explanations about the music itself) why these styles are evil to know that they are evil. Scripture never places such a burden on believers, and it is sufficient to make such assessments based on the authority of the many statements by God that repeatedly tell believers not to fashion themselves according to the practices of the wicked (for example, Ps. 1:1; Rom. 12:1-2).

5. Because Paul gave this revelation about reprobate humans who are inventors of evil things in the same book that he gives his teaching about certain things that believers disagree upon (Rom. 14:1-15:3), we can be certain that Paul’s teaching about those questionable things does not apply to Christian use of any of the evil things invented by the evil people that he speaks of in Romans 1:30. Romans 14:1-15:13, therefore, does not justify Christian use of rock music and other styles based on rock music simply because believers disagree about the propriety of doing so.

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

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Fig Leaf Aprons and Christian Use of Rock Music

March 14, 2015

After God made Adam, He put him in the Garden of Eden “to dress and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Although Scripture does not provide any more information about these activities, we can be sure that Adam’s work involved the use of various tools to take care of the garden that God had planted (Gen. 2:8).1

Genesis 3 confirms this inference by informing us that Adam and Eve engaged in some skilled activity that involved their using an unspecified tool for fabricating for a specific purpose something that had never existed before:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

A close consideration of this revelation about their first actions after they had fallen shows that it has direct applicability to some key issues pertaining to the debate about the propriety of Christian use of rock music.

Who Made These Fig Leaf Aprons?

God made the fig tree (or trees) that the leaves came from (Gen. 2:8-9), but the Spirit tells us that Adam and Eve took the fig leaves, sewed them together, and made aprons for themselves (Gen 3:7). Plainly, Scripture is saying that Adam and Eve, and not God, made these aprons.

Furthermore, the text does not say in any way that God directed them to make these aprons. In fact, we have no basis for holding that they had ever received any prior revelation concerning taking fig leaves and crafting aprons from them.

What Was Involved in Making These Aprons?

To make these aprons, Adam and Eve used their God-given creative abilities to invent an entirely new use of the leaves from the good fig tree that God made. In doing so, they in addition had either to invent or to put to a new use some kind of tool to sew them together and to do something similar about the thread or other material that they used to sew the fig leaves together.

What Was God’s Assessment of Their Making the Aprons?

After they had made the aprons (Gen. 3:7), Adam and Eve hid themselves from God (Gen. 3:8). God then dealt with them about their sinful eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:9-24).

After He had dealt with them about this sin, He made coats of skins and clothed Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). His doing so shows that He deemed the aprons that they had invented unfit for accomplishing the purpose for which they had made them.

Application to Issues Concerning the Propriety of Christian Use of Rock Music

The first recorded instance of human creative activity involved taking good preexisting materials that God had created and producing an entirely new entity that had never existed before. Even though everything that Adam and Eve used to make these fig leaf aprons was a good thing that God created, the resulting product was not fit for use for the purpose for which they made it.

The application of this revelation to issues concerning the propriety of Christian use of rock music becomes clear through an analysis of how many Christian proponents of the use of rock music argue for their position. As we consider their arguments, we must keep in mind vital points of correspondence between what they say and what we have discovered through our comparative examination of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21.

Some proponents of Christian use of rock music argue that instrumental rock music necessarily is inherently fit for human use because they hold that God created all music. Not only does the Bible provide no support for this view, but also it provides explicit revelation that points to fallen humans, and not God, as the originators of human musical styles (Gen. 4:21; see this post for an explanation of this key point).

In response to this biblical data, proponents of Christian use of rock music argue that all human musical styles are still good because God created as good all the elements of music that fallen humans have combined to form all the musical styles that they have originated. Because all the elements were created as good, they hold that all combinations of those elements must also necessarily be good and fit for human use.

Our analysis of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21, however, has shown that Scripture presents a key instance when human creative activity involving the combining of good things that God created did not result in a product that was suitable for the purpose for which it was made. Because Scripture provides us with this explicit evidence, we know that any argument that insists that every way of combining good musical elements that God has created necessarily must result in a musical style that is fit for human use is false.

Supporters of rock music, therefore, cannot legitimately argue that rock music necessarily is inherently fit for human use because it merely combines good musical elements that God created. No such necessity for the fitness of such a combination exists and making such an argument is refuted by the direct implications of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21.2

Conclusion

Biblical revelation about the unsuitability of the fig leaf aprons that Adam and Eve invented shows that Christians who use rock music cannot justify their doing so by arguing that rock music is necessarily a fit-for-human-use musical style because it was originated by combining good musical elements that God created. Proving that rock music is a musical style that is fit for human use requires more than asserting that it is merely a combination of good musical elements.

1 We are unable to know definitively where Adam got these tools and how he learned to use them. It is possible that he invented them.

2 This examination of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21 does not prove that rock music is unfit for human use. It only proves that an argument for the necessity of the fitness of rock music for human use based on its being a combination of good elements is invalid.

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

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

How Genesis 4:21 Directly Applies to the CCM Debate

March 7, 2015

Whether or not all musical styles are inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship is a key point of dispute among believers concerning CCM. Because Genesis 4:21 is the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments, examining its relevance to the CCM debate is vital.

In my experience, however, Genesis 4:21 has not been considered thoroughly by most people on either side of the CCM debate. I have previously written several articles that treat various aspects of what Genesis 4:21 reveals, especially in relation to certain issues concerning CCM.1

This post brings out yet another facet of its teaching about music that applies to the CCM debate in a way that I have not previously discussed. To understand the application of this facet of Genesis 4:21 to the CCM debate, we have to examine it in relation to its surrounding context that includes many biblical references to divine creative activity and some other references to human creative activity.

References to God as the Creator of All Things in Genesis 1-11

Through at least 30 direct references to divine creative activity2 in Genesis 1-11,3 God indisputably asserts at the beginning of our canonical arrangement of Scripture that He is the Creator of all created things. It is worth noting also that all of these references speak of God’s creating things that man did not play any role in their creation (for example, light, the expanse, and the animals).

Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that only one of these 30 references speaks of God’s making something that humans could conceivably even have made or played a role in its making: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). Based on this data, we know that the Spirit is purposely directing to our attention numerous statements about distinctively divine creative activity in these chapters.

References to Humans as the Makers of Certain Things in Genesis 1-11

Only after we have read 24 statements about what God has created do we encounter the first statement about something that man made:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

This earliest reference to human creative activity speaks of humans taking something that they did not make (the fig leaves) and fashioning something else out of it (aprons; for a fuller explanation of the vital importance of this text for issues concerning the CCM debate, see this post).

Genesis 4 provides the next information that we have about human creative activity (Gen. 4:17, 20, 21, 22). Among those statements is the earliest statement that we have about human musical activity:

Gen 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

We must not fail to note that the first information that the Spirit gives to us about human musical activity directly concerns not their singing but their playing musical instruments. Moreover, the Spirit does not frame His presentation of this revelation in such a way as to highlight God’s working in these people to produce and do what they did.

Instead, the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.

Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.

Application to the CCM Debate

Christian supporters of the use of rock music and CCM rely heavily on an argument based on God as the Creator of all musical styles to support their views. They argue that God is the Creator of all musical styles, and therefore they are all inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship.4

Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created all musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.

Conclusion

When believers who hold to the propriety of Christian use of rock music and CCM seek to defend their views, they must not use an illegitimate argument from the supposed divine creation of these styles to justify their views. To defend their views properly, they must show from the Bible why they believe that these styles are fit for Christian use in spite of biblical evidence that shows that not even all the animals that God originally created as good were acceptable for offering to Him in worship even by the time of the Flood.

1 See these previous posts for more information.

2 Genesis 1:1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22; 3:3, 21; 5:1, 2; 6:6, 7; 7:4.

3 Genesis 1-11 is a natural place to limit our examination because these chapters naturally go together in providing us with information about early human history.

4 See my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a biblical treatment of evidence from Genesis that disproves the view that all musical styles are inherently moral.

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

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

How Genesis 7-8 Applies to the CCM Debate

March 2, 2015

Some supporters of CCM assert that because God made music, all instrumental musical styles, including rock music, are necessarily inherently acceptable for use in divine worship. An examination of certain statements in Genesis 7-8 points to why this argument is invalid.

Divine Instruction to Noah about Animals

In preparation for the Flood, God gave Noah specific instructions about the animals that he was to bring into the Ark:

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Among those animals, he was to bring specified numbers of clean animals and unclean animals:

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Scripture does not give us any further information about this distinction among the animals, but we can understand the following truths based on this revelation:

  1. The Lord expected Noah to know which animals were unclean and which ones were not and to act accordingly. Scripture does not tell us how Noah would know this information; it may be that God also specified this information to him at this time but chose not to record His doing so.
  2. Scripture does not reveal how or why this distinction among all the animals that God had created originated nor does it explain what this distinction signified concerning in what sense some of the animals were clean and others were unclean; we are simply told that this distinction existed.
  3. Scripture does not tell us whether this distinction had been in place prior to this time or it was established only at this time.

Furthermore, because later revelation shows that God had not yet given animals to humans as food (Gen. 9:3-4), we have no basis for saying that the distinction among the animals at this time had anything to do with human consumption of them as food.

Divine Worship by Noah Using Animals

After the Flood, Noah built an altar to the Lord and worshiped Him by offering burnt offerings on it:

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Notice that Noah offered these offerings only from every clean animal and bird—he did not offer any of the unclean animals in his worship of God.

God accepted Noah’s worship that offered to Him only these clean animals and birds (Gen. 8:21) that he had taken on the Ark in obedience to divine directive (Gen. 7:2-3). God blessed Noah and his family after he had worshiped Him (Gen. 9:1ff.), including now giving all animals to them for food (Gen. 9:3).

Strikingly, God then made a covenant with Noah and his sons that Scripture explicitly specifies four times was a covenant that was also with every living creature that was with them in the Ark (Gen. 9:10, 12, 15, 16)—the covenant therefore was also with those unclean animals and birds that were not offered to God in worship to Him!

Discussion

As the Creator, God made everything (Gen. 1), including all living beings (Gen. 1:20-28). After God had made all things, He pronounced that all that He had made was good (Gen. 1:21, 25, 31).

Just prior to the Flood, however, we read that God directed Noah concerning his bringing into the Ark both animals that were clean and animals that were unclean (Gen. 7:2-3). Scripture does not explain how, when, and why some animals received this designation of being unclean and others did not.

After the Flood, we see Noah offering only the clean animals in worship to God, even though God had also made all the unclean ones as good animals when He created them. After Noah had worshiped God, we read that God gave all animals to Noah and his family for food, including those animals that were designated as unclean and not offered in worship to Him.

Based on this biblical data, we see that although every animal that God created was originally pronounced by Him as good, He declared just before the Flood that an unspecified number of them were unclean animals. These unclean animals were not acceptable for use in divine worship even though God created them and pronounced them good at the Creation.

Because, however, God entered into an everlasting covenant with these unclean animals after the Flood—just as He did with the clean ones—we know that their unacceptability for divine worship was not because these animals were of no lasting value to Him. Moreover, because God gave these animals to humans as food after the Flood, we know that their unacceptability for divine worship was not because they were somehow unfit for human consumption.

Application to the CCM Debate

Many supporters of CCM argue that instrumental rock music is both inherently moral music and acceptable for use in divine worship because God created all music. From our study above, however, we have seen that such an argument from Creation is not valid because some of the animals that God created as good at the Creation were for some unspecified reason unclean and unfit for use in divine worship just prior to the Flood.

Even if it were true, therefore, that all instrumental musical styles were inherently good at the Creation because God created all music, it would still not necessarily follow that they all are inherently acceptable today for use in divine worship. Supporters of CCM, therefore, cannot legitimately use an argument from Creation to support their view that using CCM in divine worship is necessarily legitimate because all instrumental musical styles are inherently acceptable to God.

Conclusion

In the debate about the propriety of using CCM in divine worship, many supporters of CCM argue that rock music is inherently fit for use in divine worship because God created music and therefore all musical styles are necessarily acceptable for use in worshiping Him. A close examination of biblical revelation about divine worship in Genesis 8 has shown, however, that it is not true that everything that God created as good at the Creation is necessarily therefore still acceptable for use in worshiping Him. An argument from Creation, therefore, does not prove that God accepts the rock music that those who use CCM in divine worship offer to Him.

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

In CCM, Interpretation, Music, Theology
 permalink

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