Interpretation | A People for His Name

Archives For Interpretation

The Relevance of Amos 6 for the Music Debates of Our Day

May 18, 2012

Amos 6:1-8 indicts God’s people for their great wickedness at that time in history:

1 Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria, which are named chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel came!

² Pass ye unto Calneh, and see; and from thence go ye to Hamath the great: then go down to Gath of the Philistines: be they better than these kingdoms? or their border greater than your border?

³ Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near;

⁴ That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall;

⁵ That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;

⁶ That drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments: but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.

⁷ Therefore now shall they go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed.

⁸ The Lord GOD hath sworn by himself, saith the LORD the God of hosts, I abhor the excellency of Jacob, and hate his palaces: therefore will I deliver up the city with all that is therein.

C. F. Keil comments on verse 5,

They lie stretched, as it were poured out . . . upon beds inlaid with ivory, to feast and fill their belly with the flesh of the best lambs and fattened calves, to the playing of harps and singing, in which they take such pleasure, that they invent new kinds of playing and singing. . . . Consequently the meaning of ver. 5 is the following: As David invented stringed instruments in honour of his God in heaven, so do these princes invent playing and singing for their god, the belly. (The Minor Prophets in KD, 10:299-300)

D. R. Sunukjian remarks on 6:4-8,

6:4-6. Rather than heed the prophet’s warning of judgment, the leaders of Samaria instead gave themselves to a decadent hedonism. They reclined on expensive beds whose wood was inlaid with ivory (cf. 3:15). At their opulent feasts, they “lounged” on their couches. The Hebrew word for lounge . . . conveys a sprawled stupor of satiation and drunkenness, with arms and legs hanging over the side. They ate gourmet food—choice lambs and fatted calves—the tastiest and tenderest meat they could get. In their drunken revelry they imagined themselves strumming like David as they attempted to improvise music at their parties. Yet they were vastly different from David! Not content to drink wine from goblets, they consumed it by the bowlful. Only the finest lotions would do for their skin.

Their sole concern was for their own luxurious lifestyle. They did not grieve over the coming ruin of Joseph, the Northern Kingdom (cf. 5:6, 15). They had no concern for their nation’s impending doom.

6:7. Therefore they, the first men of the first nation (v. 1), would be among the first to go to exile. Their festivities and drunken stupors would end. The sound of revelry would fade into bitter silence as they headed into captivity. (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 1443; bold in original)

J. Randolph Jaeggli helpfully explains the great sinfulness of these people:

They Abandon Themselves to Sensual Enjoyment (vv. 4-7).

The Israelites who heard Amos’s words of warning were convinced that they were safe from God’s judgment, so they were indulging themselves in every kind of sensual enjoyment available. They were indolent leaders, lounging around while others apparently worked to support their grand lifestyle. They ate only the choicest meat from the best lambs and fattened calves. Verse five says that they “chant to the sound of the viol.” The verb “chant” is parat, to improvise (see Holladay, p. 297). The “viol” (nebel) was some sort of stringed instrument. Music that is undisciplined in its composition and performance appeals to the sensual person of any age. Modern jazz is a good example of improvised music that fits the mood and loose living of those who love this musical genre. The men of Amos’s time were prolific song writers like David, but they certainly lacked his devotion to the Lord. People compose music that is a reflection of their lifestyle. Lyrics either warm the believer’s heart with thoughts of God’s grace or inflame the passions of the unsaved with unseemly accounts of debauched emotions and actions. Feinberg noted that “music which is degrading is a sure sign of an incipient national decline” . . . Not content to consume wine in smaller vessels, Amos’s contemporaries were drinking from bowls (v. 6). The same word for bowl (mizraq) occurs in Exodus 27:3 to describe the basin used to catch the blood of the sacrificial animal at the altar in the tabernacle. If these drunkards were consuming their intoxicating beverages from an item used in the sacrificial system, they were guilty of sacrilege as well as intoxication. Being careful not to miss out on any enjoyment, these gourmet revelers were treating their skin to the finest ointments available. They did not miss anything that would make them feel good.

If there is anything characteristic of our modern age, it is the same quest for sensual pleasure. People today will try anything to fill the void created by the empty pursuit of material prosperity. Money, possessions, and “good times” do not satisfy modern man any more than the people who heard Amos preach. The world system persuades men that they can find happiness in fleshly gratification apart from God. The empty promise leads only to the enslavement of the human heart, as men become addicted to the fulfillment of their own passions. (Biblical Viewpoint: Focus on Amos, 25-26; bold italic heading is bold italic in the original; other text in bold is in italics in the original).

These commentators (as well as others) understand that God’s pronouncements of woe on His people at this time stemmed from their wickedness that included their playing stringed instruments in a way and for purposes that were not pleasing to Him. On this reading, Amos 6:5 speaks strongly to the music debates of our day by being Scriptural teaching that there are ways of playing a stringed instrument and of singing that are a matter of concern to God and that He condemns.

In CCM, Interpretation, Music

Paul or John: A Noteworthy Comparison

May 12, 2012

Who went further in the knowledge of God—the apostle Paul or the apostle John? The following comparison points to an answer to this question that may be at odds with certain perspectives that many believers have been taught, especially concerning their understanding of gospel ministry.

COMPARISON

Based on the information that we have available, eight points of comparison between Paul and John should be noted:

Contact with John the Baptist

Paul : no information about his having contact personally with John the Baptist

John: disciple of John the Baptist

Discipleship experience with Jesus

Paul: disciple of Jesus after His resurrection appearance to Him; no information that Paul knew Him personally during His earthly ministry

John: disciple of Jesus since His earthly ministry who knew Him personally

Extent of knowledge of Jesus’ Miracles

Paul: no information that he knew of the miracles that Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture

John: had first-hand knowledge of a multitude of signs that Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture

Contact with Mary

Paul: no information about contact with Mary, the mother of Jesus

John: knew Mary personally; cared for her in his home after the Crucifixion; thus he very likely knew a vast amount of information about Jesus that we have no way of determining if Paul also had that information

Contact with the glorified Jesus

Paul: saw the glorified Jesus

John: last disciple to see the glorified Jesus

Vision of heaven

Paul: had a vision of heaven and saw and heard things that he was not allowed to share; thus we have no way of determining what Paul did or did not know as a result of that vision

John: had a vision of heaven and saw and heard a vast number of things that he was directed to write about for our profit; we have no way to know if Paul ever knew of this information or not; it is very likely that he never knew all that John knew in this respect

Profiting from other Scripture

Paul:

-likely had no knowledge of what John wrote in at least his letters and in Revelation;

-perhaps he also had only limited knowledge of much of what John wrote in his Gospel;

-may have profited from 1 & 2 Peter and Hebrews

-very likely did not have any access to the book of Jude

John:

-likely profited from all of Paul’s epistles for at least a decade and a half before writing any of his books

-very likely profited from 1 & 2 Peter and Hebrews

-likely profited from the book of Jude

Authoring of Scripture

Paul:

-Wrote 13 epistles; did not write a Gospel; did not write any book comparable to Revelation

-Did not write any of the final five books of the NT in the current topical order

-Did not write any of the final five books of the NT chronologically

John:

-Wrote 3 epistles (7 more epistles in Revelation 2-3); wrote the final Gospel long after the Synoptic Gospels (and also all the Pauline epistles) had been written; also wrote Revelation— John thus wrote three different genres of inspired NT books while Paul only wrote one; he has the unique honor of being the only one chosen by God to do so

-Wrote four of the five final books of the NT in the current topical order, including the last book

-Wrote all five of the final books of the NT chronologically; John thus gave us all the final inspired revelation that we have

DISCUSSION

Based on this information, it seems that we should hold that John, and not Paul, had the most profound knowledge of the things of God of any of the writers of Scripture. His writings, therefore, should be viewed as at least as theologically advanced as anything that Paul wrote.

Thus any analysis of a subject that does not thoroughly account for whatever John may have written about that subject is necessarily lacking and should not be accorded ultimate authoritative status for the doctrine and practice of the people of God. Moreover, when formulating our understanding of any subject, we should value whatever John may have written about that subject at least as much as anything that Paul has written.

APPLICATION

A key area in which our understanding of biblical truth and our practice needs to be addressed in light of the discussion above is our understanding of apostolic gospel ministry. Specifically, we must recognize that God did not give us everything that we need to know about this subject through Paul’s writings. For if he had, what need would there have been for yet another Gospel to be written after the Synoptics and the Pauline Epistles had already been written?

We must not, therefore, attach undue importance to passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 at the expense of key truths that we are taught through John’s record of Jesus’ own dealings with people in salvation accounts. For example, when each of the salvation accounts in John 3, 4, and 5 are thoroughly analyzed, we see that Jesus evangelized lost people with an emphasis on truths that are not mentioned explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (e.g., Jesus as the One sent by the Father; Christ as God’s judicial agent).

Our understanding, therefore, of apostolic gospel ministry cannot be limited basically to what Paul taught in this passage. We must fill out our understanding of it through truths that are taught in many other key passages, including several that are found in John 3-5.

In Gospel, Interpretation, Theology

David’s Remarkable Self-Designation Before God in Prayer

May 9, 2012

First Chronicles 17:16-27 records a marvelous prayer of David that he prayed after Nathan revealed to him (17:15) the wonderful things that God had ordained that He would do for him (17:3-14). In his prayer, David revealed his mindset before God by repeating a remarkable designation for himself ten times (17:17; 18 [2x]; 19; 23; 24; 25 [2x]; 26; 27):

1Ch 17:16 And David the king came and sat before the LORD, and said, Who am I, O LORD God, and what is mine house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?

¹⁷ And yet this was a small thing in thine eyes, O God; for thou hast also spoken of thy servant’s house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree, O LORD God.

¹⁸ What can David speak more to thee for the honour of thy servant? for thou knowest thy servant.

¹⁹ O LORD, for thy servant’s sake, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all this greatness, in making known all these great things.

²⁰ O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

²¹ And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?

²² For thy people Israel didst thou make thine own people for ever; and thou, LORD, becamest their God.

²³ Therefore now, LORD, let the thing that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning his house be established for ever, and do as thou hast said.

²⁴ Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified for ever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee.

²⁵ For thou, O my God, hast told thy servant that thou wilt build him an house: therefore thy servant hath found in his heart to pray before thee.

²⁶ And now, LORD, thou art God, and hast promised this goodness unto thy servant:

²⁷ Now therefore let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may be before thee for ever: for thou blessest, O LORD, and it shall be blessed for ever.

Though he was the God-appointed King (cf. 17:16), David never referred to himself as the king in his prayer. Instead, he spoke of himself exclusively with the designation, “thy servant.” This amazing emphasis on himself as God’s servant reveals the essence of his mindset in prayer.

Interestingly, the only reference to David in any recorded prayer of the apostles also features the same designation for him: “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? (Acts 4:25).” Based on this NT statement, it may be that we, too, should keep in our minds David’s remarkable self-designation before God in prayer and cultivate such a mindset in our own prayers.

Update on 3/14/23: Acts 4:29 shows that Peter, John, and some other NT Christians did in fact refer to themselves as God’s servants on an at least one occasion when they prayed to Him:

Acts 4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

In Interpretation, Prayer

Did Saul Inquire of God or Not?

May 5, 2012

First Samuel 28:6 says that Saul did inquire of the Lord, but 1 Chronicles 10:14 says that he did not:

1Sa 28:6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

1Ch 10:13 ¶ So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; ¹⁴ And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

How should we understand these seemingly contradictory statements?

John W. Haley argues,

It is sufficient to notice that two different Hebrew words [שָׁאוּל֙ vs. דָרַ֥שׁ ] of diverse meaning are employed here. Or, it may be correctly remarked that Saul’s attempts at inquiry were of so unworthy a nature that it would be an abuse of language to speak of him as really “inquiring of Jehovah.” (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, 360)

Matthew Henry comments on 1 Samuel 28:6,

In this distress Saul enquired of the Lord, v. 6. Need drives those to God who in the day of their prosperity slighted his oracles and altars. Lord, in trouble have they visited thee, Isa. 26:16. Did ever any seek the Lord and not find him? Yes, Saul did; the Lord answered him not, took no notice either of his petitions or of his enquiries; gave him no directions what to do, nor any encouragement to hope that he would be with him. Should he be enquired of at all by such a one as Saul? Eze. 14:3. No, he could not expect an answer of peace, for, 1. He enquired in such a manner that it was as if he had not enquired at all. Therefore it is said (1 Chr. 10:14), He enquired not of the Lord; for he did it faintly and coldly, and with a secret design, if God did not answer him, to consult the devil. He did not enquire in faith, but with a double unstable mind. 2. He enquired of the Lord when it was too late, when the days of his probation were over and he was finally rejected. Seek the Lord while he may be found, for there is a time when he will not be found. 3. He had forfeited the benefit of all the methods of enquiry. Could he that hated and persecuted Samuel and David, who were both prophets, expect to be answered by prophets? Could he that had slain the high priest, expect to be answered by Urim? Or could he that had sinned away the Spirit of grace, expect to be answered by dreams? No. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 431; bold is in italics in original)

On 1 Chronicles 10:14, he remarks,

It is said (1 Sa. 28:6) that Saul did enquire of the Lord and he answered him not: but here it is said, Saul did not enquire of God; for he did not till he was brought to the last extremity, and then it was too late. (Ibid., 567; bold is in italics in original)

Robert Jamieson comments on the words and enquired not of the Lord in 1 Chronicles 10:14,

He had done so in form (1 Sam. xxviii. 6), but not in the spirit of a humble penitent, nor with the believing confidence of a sincere worshipper. His enquiry was, in fact, a mere mockery, and his total want of all right religious impressions was manifested by his rushing from God to a wretched impostor in the service of the devil. (JFB, 1:475).

These sources provide satisfactory explanations that resolve the apparent contradiction between 1 Samuel 28:6 and 1 Chronicles 10:14.

These passages should warn us about inquiring of God in a manner, in a way, or at a point in time such that He would regard our doing so as our not inquiring of Him at all.

In Apologetics, Interpretation, Prayer

Learning From a Unique Distinction of David and Paul

April 24, 2012

David and Paul are certainly two of the most important Bible characters. It is interesting that these two men have the unique distinction in Scripture of being the only men who are spoken of in a particularly remarkable way.

David

Three people tell David that they regard him in one manner or another as an angel of God:

“And Achish answered and said to David, I know that thou art good in my sight, as an angel of God: notwithstanding the princes of the Philistines have said, He shall not go up with us to the battle” (1 Sam 29:9).

“Then thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable: for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad: therefore the LORD thy God will be with thee” (2 Sam. 14:17).

“To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth” (14:20).

“And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God: do therefore what is good in thine eyes” (2 Sam. 19:27).

In addition to the direct references about David himself, one reference speaks of David’s house being as God, as the angel of the LORD:

“In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them” (Zech. 12:8)

Paul

Paul is the only person in the NT who is likened to an angel of God, and remarkably, he goes on to add that he was received even as Christ Jesus:

“And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14)

Conclusion

David is the preeminent type of Christ in Scripture (cf. the use of Ps. 16 in Acts 2:25-33), and Paul is distinguished both as the exemplary follower of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1) and the only one who speaks of others receiving him as Christ Jesus (Gal. 4:14). The unique distinction that these two men share of being likened to an angel of God thus seems to be directly connected to how they were Christlike in one manner or another. For us, therefore, to be Christlike as fully as God would have us to be, we should give special attention to what we can learn from these men about being like Christ.

In Discipleship, Interpretation

Does "All" Mean "All" in Acts 26:29?

April 19, 2012

In Caesarea, at his final defense before he was taken to be tried before Caesar in Rome, Paul testified before King Agrippa, Bernice, the chief captains, the principal men of the city, and the governor, Festus (Acts 25:23-26:32).He concluded his testimony before them by saying, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds” (26:29). Does all mean all in this statement?

Several commentators believe that Paul desired that his entire audience would become Christians. Bock remarks:

In verse 29 Paul’s reply is that whether it takes a short or a long time . . . , he would pray that all who are listening to him might become a Christian as he is, with one exception, namely, that they not share his chains of imprisonment. The reference to prayer indicates that Paul desires to intercede on behalf of all the audience to become Christians. . . . The reply clearly expresses his heart.

—Darrell L. Bock, Acts in ECNT, 723

Polhill comments:

His real prayer was that not just Agrippa but everyone in the audience room would become a Christian believer. At this point Paul may have made several gestures, turning and directly addressing all in the room.

—John B. Polhill, Acts in NAC, 509

Peterson says:

Paul expresses his desire to Agrippa in very personal terms . . . In so doing, he consciously widens his appeal to everyone present. Previously, he acknowledged that many in his audience might be skeptical about talk of resurrection of the dead (v. 8). However, just as in Athens he preached about ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ to Jews and Gentiles alike (17:18), so now he addresses all together.

—David G. Peterson, Acts in PNTC, 676.

In agreement with the views of these scholars, taking Paul’s use of all to mean the totality of his hearers on this occasion seems clearly to be the only natural reading of the text.

Given the composition of his audience on this occasion, Paul’s statement is thus striking because we do not read of any previous evangelistic encounters that he had had with authority figures and other prominent people that would have given him hope that all his present audience might become Christians (see Acts 17:32-34 for an example of an encounter with authorities that did not result in the salvation of his entire audience). Even so, Paul still desired that they would.

We should learn from Paul’s example here that in spite of our previous negative experiences and regardless of the seemingly unlikely-to-become-Christians composition of an audience whom we are evangelizing, we should desire that they all would become Christians.

In Evangelism, Interpretation, Quotes

Kings, Princes, Priests, and Prophets

April 5, 2012

Reading in Jeremiah 32 today, I noticed again that it lists various leaders among the people of God in a particular order. A BibleWorks search revealed that in every verse in which the words king, prince, priest, and prophet all occur, they are always found in this same order:

Neh 9:32 ¶ Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.

Jer 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets,

Jer 4:9 ¶ And it shall come to pass at that day, saith the LORD, that the heart of the king shall perish, and the heart of the princes; and the priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder.

Jer 8:1 ¶ At that time, saith the LORD, they shall bring out the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of his princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, out of their graves:

Jer 32:32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

This fact seems to suggest that this order reflects the importance with which God viewed the roles of these various leaders among His people. If this interpretation is valid, it would support the understanding that the most important role of Jesus from divine viewpoint is that of His being God’s chosen King.

In Interpretation

David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral

March 15, 2012

Scripture provides us with the truths that we need to be fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Music is not an exception to this truth, and we must apply Scripture to all problem issues in our churches concerning music.

Many people today hold that music without words is amoral. The account of David’s music ministry to Saul (1 Sam. 16), however, makes clear that instrumental music is not amoral.

God judged Saul by sending an evil spirit to afflict him (1 Sam. 16:14). To relieve him of his affliction, Saul’s servants sought a skillful harpist to minister to him (1 Sam. 16:15-16). They found David and brought him to Saul (1 Sam. 16:17-22).

Whenever the evil spirit troubled Saul, David’s playing made Saul better and caused the demon to depart (1 Sam. 16:23). The passage does not say anything about David’s singing any words to Saul as he played his harp.

It was David’s instrumental harp music, therefore, that caused the evil spirit that tormented Saul to depart from him. Had his music been amoral, it could not have had this effect for good.

Because the music did drive out the evil spirit, it was a force for good. We thus learn that David’s instrumental music was not amoral.

Please see these important articles related to this passage:

Did an Unholy Spirit from God Torment Saul?

Correcting a Wrong Handling of the Accounts of David’s Music Ministry to Saul

The Importance of 1 Samuel 16:14-23 for a Sound Theology of Music

In CCM, Interpretation, Music

Titus 1 and the CCM Debate

March 8, 2012

The debate about the propriety of using Christian Contemporary Music has been going on for many years now. I recently was made aware of a dimension of the debate that I had not encountered before– some proponents of CCM who object to other believers’ using secular sources to address the issue.

According to this view, we should only use the Bible to decide whether or not music is moral or not. Almost immediately after I first heard of this objection raised against the use of secular sources, God brought to mind how Paul handled a serious problem in Crete.

Paul instructed Titus that he had left him in Crete so that he would “set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as [he] had appointed [him]” (Titus 1:5). He then related the necessary qualifications for such men (Titus 1:6-9).

He concluded his teaching about these qualifications by informing Titus that the elder must hold “fast the faithful word as he hath been taught [so] that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). He thus stressed the centrality of the elder’s adhering to and using sound doctrine from Scripture to both exhort believers in that sound doctrine and refute those who were contradicting it.

Paul then explained the necessity of such ministry by the elders by declaring the presence in Crete of “many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision” (Titus1:10). The destructive works of these evil men in subverting entire households had to be stopped by the elders’ skillful use of sound doctrine (Titus1:11).

In support of his own evaluation of the Cretians and of the necessity for the mouths of their false teachers to be stopped, Paul informed Titus that one of the Cretians’ own prophets had said, “The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (Titus 1:12). The prophet thus confirmed Paul’s assessment of the Cretians.

Paul then affirmed the truthfulness of the witness of this secular prophet (Titus 1:13a). Finally, based on his preceding instruction and the corroboration of his assessment by that of their own prophet, he commanded Titus to rebuke them sharply so that they would be sound in the faith (Titus 1:13b-16).

Paul thus handled this serious problem in Crete by exhorting Titus about the necessary verbal ministry of elders to oppose the perverse work of the false teachers among them. He based his exhortation and instruction to Titus upon his own evaluation of the Cretians and the corroborating witness of one of their own secular prophets.

We thus learn that a Pauline approach to handling a problem issue at times includes the use of one’s own scripturally informed assessments of the problem and the use of legitimate supportive data from non-biblical sources. When, therefore, many Christian leaders today use both their own assessments and corroboration from secular sources to urge God’s people to reject the viewpoint that music is neutral, they are using a valid scriptural approach.

This analysis of Titus 1 in relation to the CCM debate has shown that contemporary critiques of using non-biblical perspectives to address the issue of whether music is neutral or not are invalid. In handling the difficult problem of the use of CCM in the Church today, we should employ a Pauline approach of using present-day sources to support our own Bible-based evaluations of the issue.

In CCM, Interpretation, Music

Does Acts 9 Record Instances of Great Evangelistic Success without Any Gospel Testimony?

March 3, 2012

The account of Saul’s conversion comprises the majority of Acts 9 (31 of the 43 verses in the chapter), and many have exposited this account carefully. Following that conversion account, however, Luke records two striking instances of many people being saved about which fewer people probably have heard a careful exposition.

These two instances of great evangelistic success are noteworthy because of what we know about what took place on these occasions. Even more remarkable is what we are not told about them.

Lydda and Sharon

In the first, Peter dramatically healed a man in Lydda who had been paralyzed for eight years by proclaiming to him that Jesus Christ was making him whole (9:32-34). As a result, everyone who was living in Lydda and Sharon saw him and “turned to the Lord” (9:35).

Luke does not say anything about any testimony of the gospel in this account, and yet, we read of two entire cities being converted. Are we therefore supposed to understand that these masses of people were saved without hearing any gospel testimony? If so, how were they saved?

Joppa

Luke then relates an even more remarkable account of Petrine ministry. Joppa was a city near Lydda (9:38a). Because a beloved widow among the believers in Joppa had passed away, and the disciples had heard that Peter was nearby in Lydda (9:36-37a-b), they decided to send for him (9:38c).

Coming with the two men who had been sent to appeal to him to come (9:38c-39), Peter unhesitatingly acted prayerfully to raise her from the dead (9:40) and present her alive to the believers who were there (9:40-41). This marvelous manifestation of God’s power became known throughout the entire city (9:42a), and “many believed in the Lord” (9:42b).

As with the preceding account, Luke provides no information about any gospel testimony being given in Joppa at this time. How then were these many people saved?

Interpretation

These two accounts record numerous people who turned to the Lord and believed in Him after receiving testimony either visually or verbally about His miraculous working through Peter. Because elsewhere Scripture makes clear that people cannot believe in Him of whom they have not heard (Rom. 10:14), we must conclude that Luke intends for us to understand that there was gospel testimony of some sort to these who were saved, even though he does not record it.

Two other passages support this interpretation. First, Luke records that all the multitude of believers who were present at the proceedings of the Jerusalem council kept silent and listened intently to Barnabas and Paul as they declared “what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” (Acts 15:12).

In the flow of thought in the passage, this testimony from Paul and Barnabas follows the account of how the Gentiles in Caesarea had heard the word of the gospel from Peter and believed it to be saved (15:7-11). Because what was at stake at the Council was how were the Gentiles to be saved (15:1), it cannot be that Luke intends us to understand that these two successive testimonies bore evidence to the Council of two differing ways in which Gentiles had been saved: some were saved by hearing the gospel and believing it (15:7-11), but others were saved only by hearing and seeing the miracles and wonders that God was doing among them (15:12).

This interpretation is confirmed by a second passage that also confirms the interpretation provided above of the two accounts in Acts 9:

“How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Heb. 2:3-4).

God’s miraculous working among the apostolic company (including therefore what happened in Lydda and Joppa) thus was His acting to witness along with as well as to those who had provided verbal testimony (of the very great salvation that had been first spoken of by the Lord) both to the writer of Hebrews and to others.

Conclusion

Based on this handling of the accounts in Acts 9 and related passages, whenever we read in the NT of people being saved, we are to understand that they received testimony to the gospel prior to their being saved, even if the account does not say anything directly about such testimony being given to them.

In Evangelism, Gospel, Interpretation

Archives For Interpretation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: