Interpretation | A People for His Name

Archives For Interpretation

Learning Interpretation from an Examination of Jonah 3

July 9, 2012

The evangelistic accounts in Scripture have often been handled in ways that obscure a proper understanding of apostolic doctrine and practice. A close look at Jonah 3 brings out a key point that many believers need to pay more attention to when they handle such accounts.

Jonah “began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’” (3:4). He briefly records their response to his preaching: “So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jon. 3:5).

Jonah also informs us that the king had heeded his warning properly: “For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes” (3:6). Not only did the king respond rightly himself, but he also directed his people to do so as well:

⁷ And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: ⁸ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. ⁹ Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

Jonah ends the account by recording that God graciously spared Nineveh: “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (3:10).

Several points about this account that are easily overlooked instruct us about how we should handle other evangelistic accounts as well.

First, Jonah makes clear that the people’s right response was the result of their heeding a decree from the king (and his nobles) that instructed them about what they were to do in response to Jonah’s preaching: “So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth . . . For word came unto the king . . . and he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let . . .” (3:5-7a).

The people’s response, therefore, was not just due to their own response to what Jonah had preached to them; it was due both to their believing his preaching to them and to their heeding the directive they were given by the king about how they were to respond.

Second, Jonah informs us that the king directed the people to respond in at least four specific ways:

(1) Fasting – “Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water”;

(2) Covering with sackcloth – “But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth”;

(3) Praying to God – “and cry mightily unto God”;

(4) Turning from evil – “yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands” (3:7b-8).

This four-fold response may be summarized as their needing to repent and pray to God.

Third, Jonah explicitly records that the people heeded three of the four aspects of the king’s decree: fasting (“proclaimed a fast” [3:5]); covering with sackcloth (“and put on sackcloth” [3:5]); and, turning from evil (“God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way” [3:10]). He, however, provides no explicit indication that they obeyed the aspect of the decree that commanded them to pray to God.

How this lack of an explicit record of their praying should be interpreted points to a vital aspect of interpreting this evangelistic account properly: Does the lack of explicit mention of their praying to God mean that they disobeyed the king’s directive to pray? Or, did they heed his directive to pray, and the writer expects us to understand that they did so even though he does not bother to mention it explicitly?

The flow of thought from verse 5 to verses 6-10 shows that we are to hold the latter understanding as the correct one. Verse 5 is the writer’s summary statement of their response; it is not exhaustive, as verse 10 plainly shows. Verse 6 explains that what they did was because of the directive they had received from the king, which Jonah explains in verse 8 as having including direction to pray to God.

We, therefore, should hold that the Ninevehites did pray to God as part of their response to Jonah’s preaching. Furthermore, verse 10 says that God responded graciously to them, which would not have been the case had the people refused to “cry mightily unto God.”

On this reading, Jonah 3 teaches us that evangelistic accounts that say that the people believed and/or repented should be understood as summary statements that indicate that they also prayed to God, whether or not the passage records explicitly that they did so. This interpretation has important ramifications for many NT passages that some see as evidence that the people who were saved did not pray as a part of their salvation experience.

Support for this approach to interpreting evangelistic accounts is provided by a comparison of Acts 9 and 26. Acts 9:20 inform us that Paul preached in the synagogues of Damascus that Christ is the Son of God. Luke provides no information about Paul’s preaching repentance to them; should we then hold that Paul did not tell the people in Damascus to repent?

Acts 26:20 states that Paul did preach repentance in Damascus, which indicates to us that Luke did not intend for us to conclude from the lack of mention of that content in his report of Paul’s preaching in Acts 9:20 that Paul in fact did not preach repentance in Damascus. The comparison of these two passages instructs us not to interpret the lack of mention of specific content in an evangelistic account as evidence that no testimony to that content was in fact given on that occasion.

Based on the evidence from Jonah 3, we should hold that evangelistic accounts that record people’s getting saved but do not say that they prayed to do so are not evidence that they did not pray as an aspect of their salvation experience. Rather, we should hold that they did pray, and that the Scripture writers expect us to understand that they did do so in spite of the lack of explicit statements in the accounts that inform us that they did pray.

In Evangelism, Interpretation

Hope for the USA Based on the Amazing Parallel between 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Jonah 3!

July 6, 2012

Hearing Jonah’s proclamation of the upcoming destruction of Nineveh (Jon. 3:4), the Ninevehites responded with faith (3:5a) and repentance (3:5b-c; cf. “And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way” [3:10a]). Because they did so, God relented of the punishment that He had purposed to bring upon them (3:10b).

The people’s right response to the warning of impending judgment was brought about by the proper response of their king (and his nobles) to that warning (the causal connection is clear from the word for that causally links 3:5 with 3:6-9):

Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

⁶ For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

⁸ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

⁹ Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

The king humbled himself (3:6) and directed that the entire city be given specific direction about what they were to do (3:7-8). In addition to fasting (3:7b), all were to cover themselves with sackcloth (3:8a), which would be an outward act of humbling themselves in keeping with their humbling themselves in their hearts.

The king also decreed all to “cry mightily unto God” (3:7c) and turn each one “from his evil way” and from their violence (3:7d). He explained that the intent of the decree was that they might not perish if God perhaps would relent from punishing them for their wickedness (3:9).

God did spare them from His judgment, and this analysis shows that He did so because they believed, repented, and prayed to Him (3:10).

Moreover, the decree by the king of Nineveh strikingly parallels the instruction that God had given to Solomon many years earlier:

Instruction to Solomon	Instruction in the Decree by the King of Nineveh
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves,	“So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. . . .He [the king] arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. . . . , Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth”
and pray, and seek my face,	and cry mightily unto God:
and turn from their wicked ways;	yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).	And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jon. 3:5-10).

This parallel shows that the truth of 2 Chronicles 7:14 was fulfilled for a pagan nation that very likely had never heard anything about that great promise of God to His own people! How much more would the truth of 2 Chronicles 7:14 be fulfilled for the USA, a country which has had far more knowledge of God than the Ninehevites ever had, were we to believe God, repent, and pray to Him, as they did!

In the hope that the amazing parallel between 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Jonah 3 provides for us who are alive today in the USA, let us all humble ourselves, pray, seek His face, and turn from our wicked ways while there is yet time. Let us also make known to as many other people as we can the great hope that God holds out for our country if we all will believe Him, repent, and pray to Him!

In Evangelism, Exhortation, Interpretation

Are We Overlooking an Important Element in Our Understanding of the Health Problems That Some People Face?

June 22, 2012

Scripture speaks in a number of places of people who suffered severe physical affliction that did not have “natural” causes (e.g. unhealthy lifestyle, accidents, or advanced age):

—Job had no idea that his physical affliction was caused by Satan (Job 2:7).

—Luke provides no indication to us that the woman who had been crippled for 18 years knew that her infirmity was caused by Satan, but he does record that Jesus made known (after He had healed her) that it was (Luke 13:16).

—Herod “was eaten of worms” and died because the angel of the Lord had smitten him (Acts 12:23), but we have no indication that he knew of the supernatural cause of his fatal illness.

Given this data (and other related biblical teaching), it seems to me that we need to consider more often than we probably have been doing that the serious physical afflictions that some people suffer from may be the direct result of supernatural activity that they have been the objects of without their having any knowledge of such activity.

In Health, Interpretation

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David

June 1, 2012

In His dealings with certain Sadducees who denied the resurrection of the dead (Matt. 22:23-33; Mk. 12:18-27; Luke 20:37-38), Jesus cited God’s statement to Moses as proof that the dead do rise:

Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

²⁷ He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

When God spoke these words to Moses, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for many years, yet God spoke of His being their God:

“God implied that the patriarchs were still alive and that He had a continuing relationship with them as their covenant-keeping God, even though they had died long before. This demonstrates, Jesus concluded, that He is not the God of the dead, in the Sadducean understanding of death as extinction, but of the living. He is still the patriarch’s God which would not be true had they ceased to exist at death, that is, if death ends it all. And His covenant faithfulness implicitly guaranteed their bodily resurrection” (BKC: NT, 163).

Based on Jesus’ use of the OT in His dealings with the Sadducees, it seems that we should also regard three earlier statements as testimony to the resurrection of the dead.

First, in Beersheba, the Lord appeared to Isaac “the same night, and said, ‘I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake’” (Gen. 26:24). Abraham had died some time before this appearance (cf. 25:8), but God spoke of Himself as being Abraham’s God.

Second, in Haran, Jacob had a dream in which he saw a ladder “and, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, ‘I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed’” (28:13). Like the earlier reference, this divine utterance testified to the Lord’s being the God of Abraham, who had been dead by this time for some time.

Third, after his father Isaac had died, Jacob came to Beersheba. God appeared to him “in the visions of the night” and said to Jacob, “I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation” (46:3).

After God’s repeated testimony to Moses about His being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 3:6, 15, 16; cf. 3:13), some other divine statements occur that likely should be taken as also at least implicitly communicating the same truth, including the following:

Exo 4:5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.

2Ki 20:5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD (cf. Isa. 38:5).

2Ch 21:12 And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah.

In the NT, aside from Jesus’ dealing with the Sadducees, Stephen’s citation of God’s statement to Moses at the burning bush served to proclaim at least implicitly the truth of the resurrection of the dead to his hostile audience (Acts 7:32).

From the biblical data about our God’s being the God of those have been physically dead for many, many years, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, we should realize the importance of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead in Scripture.

In Interpretation

Did Jesus Love a Man Who Was Not One of the Elect?

May 28, 2012

Mark informs us that Jesus evangelized a rich young ruler who asked him what he should do that he might “inherit eternal life” (Mk.10:17). After Jesus’ initially challenged him (Mk.10:18-19), the man showed by his response that he was yet lacking full understanding of his sinfulness (Mk.10:20).

In response, Jesus “beholding him loved him” (Mk. 10:21) and proceeded to evangelize him further but to no avail. Given that this encounter was not some chance event that just happened to take place, we must hold that God sent Jesus into the world to love this sinful man as He did and confront him with the exact information that he needed to be brought to repentance.

Although Jesus confronted this sinful man in love with his need to repent (Mk.10:21), the man left the encounter unrepentant and unconverted (Mk.10:22). Scripture does not give us any more information about him, which leaves us with no indication that he was ever saved. Based on the available data, it seems that we should hold that he was not one of the elect.

On that reading, this passage provides explicit biblical teaching that Jesus loved a man who was not one of the elect. Those who hold that John 3:16 and other similar biblical teaching about the love of God for sinners only applies to the elect should thus at least adjust their theological systems to account for Jesus’ loving this man who from all that we are able to know was not one of the elect.

In Interpretation, Theology

Would the Psalmists Approve of CCM?

May 22, 2012

Many professing Christians today approve of the use of CCM. This article evaluates the propriety of that approval by directing attention to a question that every believer would do well to consider carefully—whether the authors of the Psalms would approve of CCM?

To answer this question, we should keep in mind some facts about the book of Psalms: God inspired a number of men to write the Psalms: David (75); Asaph (12); Solomon (2?); Ethan (1); Heman (1), and Moses (1); [no information or unclear information about the authors of the other 58 Psalms]. Together, these men have given to us the only inspired sacred songbook in existence.

Of these men, at least four were also instrumentalists (David, Asaph, Ethan, and Heman; cf. 1 Chron. 15:19). These four men produced at least 89 of the Psalms, so more than 59% of these inspired songs were written by men who also played musical instruments themselves. The Psalms, therefore, were not merely the product of poets or songwriters inspired by God to write lyrics for inspired songs.

If these inspired songwriters (and sacred instrumentalists) were somehow to hear the CCM of our day, would they approve? To answer this question, we should consider what God has taught us through them.

The first Psalmist teaches us that a man will be blessed (i.e., uniquely favored by God), if he will be characterized in the following dual manner:

1. Negatively, he does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of the scornful.
2. Positively, he delights in the law (Heb. instruction) of God and meditates therein day and night.

Because the Psalmist begins by characterizing the blessed man negatively with three expressions of what is not true of him, we must understand that these statements are the right place for us to start in answering our question.

To be blessed, we must not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. Our lives must not be lived influenced in any essential way by any ungodly advice, viewpoints, priorities, objectives, and practices.

How does this truth apply to the music that we use for our worship? It teaches us that we must not get our music perspectives or practices from those who are not like God.

CCM, however, was created by professing Christians who chose to incorporate into Christian music a style and type of music invented by ungodly people who created that style specifically for the purpose of promoting ungodliness. Because CCM was therefore created by those who acted contrary to the teaching of Psalm 1:1, which directs us not to live under the influence of the ungodly, we should hold that the Psalmists would not approve of CCM.

Confirmation of this assessment is seen by applying to our question David’s teaching in Psalm 2 about the counsel of the ungodly:

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us (2:1-3).

To understand the importance of these statements, we note that the first Psalmist provides no specific information about the counsel of the ungodly. David here thus gives to us the first specific information about that counsel when he teaches us that ungodly men (especially the kings of the earth and the rulers) have taken counsel together to promote rebellion against the authority of Yahweh and His Messiah.

From taking the teaching of Psalms 1-2 together, we learn that the inspired songwriters preeminently warn people about following ungodly counsel that incites and promotes rebellion against God. Applying this principle to music means that these two (if David did not write Psalm 1 as well) Psalmists would not approve in any way of music created by ungodly people for the purpose of promoting rebellion.

The people who created and advanced rock music have openly and repeatedly testified that the music itself—apart from the lyrics—was created for the purpose of promoting rebellion. Rock music, therefore, regardless of what words are sung along with it, is ungodly music because it was created by the ungodly to promote rebellion.

Those who created CCM—as well as those who have since promoted it—have thus advanced the use of music of which the Psalmists clearly would not approve. Because David wrote at least half of the Psalms, he is by far the most important musician spoken of in Scripture. Hence, we do well to give special regard to applying his teaching in Psalm 2 to this issue.

The believer, therefore, should heed the godly counsel of the first Psalmist and of David and categorically reject CCM as well as all other music that weds Christian words with ungodly music styles.

In CCM, Interpretation, Music

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

Archives For Interpretation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: