Interpretation | A People for His Name

Archives For Interpretation

Repentance unto Eternal Life!

February 25, 2012

Through Peter’s preaching of the gospel in Caesarea, God saved a Gentile centurion and his entire household (Acts11:14). When Peter’s ministering to them was later called into question by some in Jerusalem (11:2), he defended himself by relating how God had given the Gentiles the Spirit on that occasion, as He had also done previously for Peter and others “at the beginning” (11:15).

Peter then recalled how on that occasion he had remembered the Lord’s teaching about how the apostles would be baptized with the Holy Spirit (11:16). Based on that statement and how the experience of the Gentiles matched that of the apostles (11:17a), he asserted through a question that he was in no position to oppose what God was doing (11:17b).

Hearing these things, those who had objected earlier were satisfied, “and glorified God, saying, ‘Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (11:18). Saying this, they acknowledged that those Gentiles had been saved by God’s granting them that repentance.

When, however, the preceding account of what happened in Caesarea (10:1-48), including Peter’s message, is examined, we find no specific statements about what these Gentiles had to repent of so that they would be saved. Despite this lack of information, we can reasonably infer many likely aspects of their repentance by analyzing carefully the information given about them and about what Peter preached to them.

Information provided about Cornelius and those who were with him

Cornelius was a Roman centurion who was devout, feared God with his entire household, gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always (10:2). He was also a just man who had a good reputation among the entire nation of the Jews (10:22).

Furthermore, Cornelius and those who were with him when Peter preached to them had heard about the word that was “published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached” (10:37). He thus had familiarity with the ministry of John and what had taken place throughout that entire Judean region after his ministry. This statement also informs us that they had some prior information about Jesus because John preached about Him when he preached his baptism of repentance (cf. Luke 3:1-18).

Cornelius’ having a good reputation among all the Jews suggests that he was not one who had openly differed with them in his perspectives about what he had heard about Jesus. Otherwise, we would hardly expect the Jews to have spoken well of him.

Hostile Jewish views about Jesus versus Peter’s preaching about Jesus

Many of Peter’s statements in his message directly controverted key aspects of hostile Jewish’ perspectives about Jesus:

The Jews did not believe that Jesus was Lord of all, but Peter preached that He was (10:36).

The Jews blasphemed the Spirit by saying that Jesus cast out demons by Satan’s power. In stark contrast to their assessment of Jesus, Peter preached that God had anointed Jesus with the Spirit and with power, and that He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed of the devil, because God was with Him (10:38). He thus trumpeted that Jesus did all that He did and triumphed over the devil through the Spirit and the power that God had given Him.

The Jews believed that Jesus was a lawbreaker and a deceiver, but Peter preached that Jesus went about doing “good” (10:38).

The Jews did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. They said that the disciples came and stole the body. Peter, however, preached that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead and attested to that by testifying that he and others had seen Him, and eaten and drunk with Him after His resurrection (10:40-41).

The Jews condemned Jesus for His asserting that they would see Him coming one day in the clouds of heaven, which signified to them that He was claiming to be the Danielic Son of Man who would come and judge the world. In contrast, Peter declared the same essential truth that Jesus did when he testified that the God-raised Jesus had commanded them to proclaim that God has appointed Him to be the Judge of the living and the dead (10:42).

The Jews did not believe Jesus’ claims that He was the Messiah whom the prophets had spoken of that would come, but Peter asserted that He was that Christ (10:36, 38) of whom all the prophets are still testifying (10:43).

The Jews condemned Jesus for saying to people that their sins were forgiven and that He had authority on earth to forgive sins. Peter, however, triumphantly declared (10:43) that the Jesus whom he had been preaching (10:36-42) was the promised One spoken of by the prophets through Whose name all who would believe in Him would receive forgiveness of sins.

These seven points show that Peter’s message forced Cornelius and all who were with him to repent of their holding any of these false Jewish perspectives about Jesus.

Eternal life through repentance of false views about Jesus

Repenting of any of these false views of Jesus that they had previously held, Cornelius and the ones who were with him would now have to believe what Peter preached to them about each point in order to be saved. They were saved in that manner because God granted such repentance unto them (11:18)!

Their repentance was a God-given “repentance unto life” (11:18). Because this statement pertained obviously to people who were already physically alive, we understand that they were granted repentance unto eternal life!

Appreciating fully the universal value of what Peter preached for bringing about repentance unto eternal life

This analysis has argued that Peter’s message pointedly called his hearers to repent of any false Jewish views that they held about Jesus concerning at least seven key truths about Him:

He is Lord of all.
He did all that He did through the Spirit and the power that God gave Him.
All that He did was good.
God raised Him bodily from the dead.
God has appointed Him to be the Judge of the living and the dead.
He is the Messiah about whom all the prophets are still testifying.
He is the promised One through Whose name anyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.

These are all key truths that Peter preached about Jesus to the Gentiles; through their reception of these truths as well as the other key truths that he preached (e.g., the crucifixion; 10:39), God granted them repentance unto eternal life. His people later glorified Him for doing so!

We would do well to proclaim all of these truths to every Gentile whom we desire to be saved through their receiving the same “repentance unto life” (11:18). Through such proclamation from us, may God be glorified through His bringing many Gentiles to Himself!

In Evangelism, Interpretation, Theology

Ten Points about Personal Revival; New Song

February 22, 2012

In January, I read through Psalms in 16 days without having any idea that I would be having an opportunity to minister in February on the topic of personal revival. After I found out that this was to be the topic of my message for an upcoming men’s meeting, it became clear to me why God had directed me to be immersed in Psalms: at least as much as any other book of Scripture, Psalms is the book of personal revival.

To prepare for my upcoming time of ministry, I have been reading through the book of Psalms for the second time this year as well as studying other key passages. (I plan to finish reading Psalms at least by the morning before I speak.)

Here are ten points that I plan to treat about personal revival:

An earnest desire and longing for God is necessary for revival to come to a person.
Because revival is the work of God in His people, we must pray fervently for Him to revive us.
When God revives His people, they are satisfied with His goodness and His mercy, and therefore they rejoice in Him and are glad all their days. They bless and praise Him while they have life.
A humble and contrite repentance of sin is essential for revival to come to God’s people; there must be a turning away from all idolatry, conformity to the world, and fellowship with the works of darkness.
Delighting supremely in God’s Word is central to being revived and is a hallmark of a person who is experiencing revival.
Loving righteousness and hating iniquity are essential for revival.
Revival is the fruit of the fullness of the Spirit whom God gives to those who love righteousness and hate iniquity.
A vital relationship to God’s house, day, and leaders is necessary for revival.
Revival will be a glorious worldwide reality in the millennial kingdom.
An unwavering resolve to be a revived people while we await His coming is needed greatly in our day.

Last weekend, God also gave me new music for singing a key passage about revival (Psalm 63:1-2). I look forward to how God will use both my message, Ten Points about Personal Revival, and my song, O God, Thou Art My God!

In Interpretation, Ministry, Preaching, Theology

Questions to Ponder about the Baptism of Believers That Took Place at Pentecost

February 11, 2012

Pentecost took place before Paul had written any of his teaching about baptism in Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, or any of his other books. In fact, it took place some time before he was even saved.

When, therefore, after his message at Pentecost, Peter responded to his hearers’ question about what they should do (Acts 2:37) by saying, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (2:38), what baptism did he have in mind and what was his understanding of its significance?

Moreover, what understanding of baptism and its significance did those people have who heard his word, gladly received it, and were baptized (2:41)?

If these who were baptized were given the truths by Peter (as perhaps part of the information that 2:40 summarizes) that Paul teaches in Romans 6, Galatians 3, etc., then what Paul wrote many years after Pentecost in those passages was not new essential revelation to the Church at large about the fundamental significance of baptism. On the other hand, if what he wrote there was new essential revelation about the fundamental significance of baptism, then how were these who believed and were baptized at Pentecost baptized without that information?

Scripture provides no hint that these who were baptized at Pentecost had an incomplete understanding of anything essential about the importance and significance of baptism. Nor does it say anything about a vast number of believers being re-baptized once Paul came on the scene and wrote what he did in his Epistles about baptism (e.g., Romans 6). What, therefore, should we conclude about the importance of giving the Pauline epistolary teaching on baptism that we now have to new believers in our day prior to their being baptized?

Peter preached that those who would repent and be baptized would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38). Incredibly, Luke, however, does not say that those who gladly received his word received the Spirit. Instead, he only comments that they were baptized and added to those who were already believers prior to Pentecost (2:41). Why does Luke not say anything about their receiving the Spirit in relation to their being baptized after having received the message?

In Interpretation, Theology

A New Insight about "Jesus of Nazareth"

February 6, 2012

Recently, I began reading the Gospel of Luke again, a book which I have read at least 25 times through in the past. In spite of having read the book so many previous times, I understood something interesting this time that I have never seen before and do not remember anyone else ever talking about either.

Luke records the angel Gabriel’s being sent to Mary: “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (1:26). Following this statement, he relates Gabriel’s interaction with her about his message to her about her conceiving and bearing Jesus (1:28-38).

Next, he writes of Mary’s trip to visit Elizabeth and stay with her for about three months before returning home (1:39-56). Noteworthy in this account is Luke’s relating that upon hearing Mary’s salutation, the baby in Elizabeth’s womb leaped, and she was filled with the Spirit (1:41).

Elizabeth then exclaimed loudly, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (1:42-43). These verses show that Elizabeth knew that Mary had already conceived Jesus before she had come to her.

Based on Luke’s informing us that Gabriel came to Mary in Nazareth before she had conceived (1:26) and the flow of thought from that scene (1:26-38) to the immediately following account of her coming as an expectant mother to the unnamed city where Elizabeth was (1:39ff.), we are to understand that Mary was in Nazareth when Jesus was conceived. When, therefore, we read of Jesus referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, we should understand that it signifies not just that He grew up there (cf. 2:39-51), as a number of sources explain,* but also that Nazareth was where He was conceived!

———————————————————–

*For example, the New Bible Dictionary entry for Nazareth states, “A town of Galilee where Joseph and Mary lived, and the home of Jesus for about 30 years until he was rejected (Lk. 2:39; 4:16; 28-31). He was therefore called Jesus of Nazareth” (819; bold added). The article on Nazareth in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible notes, “Though Jesus was often identified by his boyhood city as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (see Mk 10:47; Jn 18:57; Acts 2:22), the NT records only one subsequent visit by Jesus to Nazareth” (2:1531; bold added). Other sources similarly do not mention in their entries for Nazareth that Jesus was conceived in Nazareth (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 951; The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4:240-41).

In Interpretation

Questions for Conservative American Christians to Ponder about Presidential Politics

February 1, 2012

As a fairly recent newcomer to American presidential politics, I have been pondering the very difficult challenges that our current political situation poses. Here are some thoughts that have come to me recently as I have been prayerfully trying to discern how God would have us to approach answering some important questions.

1. Had there been news polls at the time of Saul, David, and Goliath, what would they have said about David’s chances of beating Goliath?

2. Suppose that at that time there had been an 8-foot tall former Philistine warrior who nominally became pro-Israel and engaged in occasional worship of Jehovah but not in the same way as the Israelites did. This Philistine is an arms producer and decides to volunteer himself to go up for Israel against Goliath. Would the polls not have ranked him much higher than David? If so, would the establishment leaders in Israel not have clamored for him to be the Israelite’s choice to go up against Goliath instead of the comparatively speaking puny David?

3. Ephesians 2 teaches that the children of disobedience are being energized by the prince of the power of the air. Should the righteous support such presidential candidates as the ones who would best advance the kingdom of God and His righteousness in the US and the world because the polls say that they would fare best against the opposing parties’ candidates?

4. Just how exactly does the Bible itself teach us to vote for the lesser of two evils?

5. Does the Bible teach us that the character of a presidential candidate does not matter that much in view of other supposedly more important considerations because we are voting for a president and not for a preacher?

6. Is there not a God in heaven who can turn the hearts of the “precious” moderates to support a righteous candidate for president so that we do not have to settle again for a candidate that we have to tolerate because the polls say that he is the only one who can win?

In Discipleship, Interpretation, Theology

What 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Was Not in Its Original Historical Context

January 28, 2012

In order to deal with some among the Corinthians who were saying “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (15:12), Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to reiterate the gospel that he had preached to them. As important as this passage is for our understanding of the gospel, it is vital that we keep the following points in mind about what this passage was not in its original historical context.

1. It was not a first-time revelation of what the gospel was to the Corinthians—Paul had already made the gospel known to them when he had evangelized them while he was with them. The Corinthian church thus did not need this passage to know what the gospel was!

2. It was not an initial revelation of what the gospel was to the apostles; the apostles had received the gospel message directly from Christ some twenty years prior to Paul’s writing this passage and had been preaching it ever since. Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost without any prior instruction from Paul, and he did not need any such instruction at any later point in his life. The same was true for all the other apostles as well (Acts4:33; 5:20-21; 42) and also for Philip (Acts 8:4-40).

3. It was not an instance of either progressive revelation or a progress of doctrine such that it supplemented, corrected, or fine-tuned in any necessary way any supposedly rudimentary or unclear notions that the original apostles may have had of what they were to preach as the gospel.

4. It was not an initial revelation of what the gospel was to the early Church at large. Those who were in the Church prior to Paul’s writing this passage had been saved by hearing the gospel ministered to them by someone who knew what to preach to them. The early Church at large, therefore, already knew definitively what the gospel was before Paul penned this passage because they knew what they had believed to be saved.

5. It was not some vital theological revelation that the early Church was lacking until Paul wrote these words. Proof positive of this statement is seen from the fact that the leaders of the early Church, including Paul, were able to definitively resolve a key doctrinal matter concerning how Gentiles were to be saved (Acts 15; see this post for a full explanation of this crucial point) before Paul had even gone to Corinth to preach the gospel to the Corinthians (Acts 18).

In light of these points, we need to adjust certain theological and practical viewpoints that have resulted from attaching undue importance to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 at the expense of other equally inspired and relevant revelation from God concerning the gospel that the apostles preached. The changes that we need to make include the following:

1. The lack of explicit mention of the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 has led some to reason that the gospel “changed” from a preaching of the gospel of the kingdom (e.g., Acts 8:12) to a preaching of the gospel of Christ. A careful examination of a number of passages in Acts (as well as in the Epistles, including even 1 Corinthians 15 itself) shows that this reasoning is fallacious (see my post, Did the Gospel Change from Samaria to Corinth?). We must, therefore, reject such reasoning.

2. Not keeping in mind that these verses are merely a brief summary of what Paul actually preached to the Corinthians, some have resorted to an approach to evangelism that too often more or less only amounts to a quoting of these statements to people. A close comparison of Peter’s preaching of the gospel in Caesarea with this passage brings out key truths that are missed when such an approach is taken.

First, Acts 10 teaches us how an apostle preached Jesus as the Christ to unsaved Gentiles (10:38) before testifying to His crucifixion and resurrection (10:39-41). By communicating to the lost the specific information that Peter did in this statement, we will properly explain to them the meaning of the term Christ and also preach the kingdom of God to them (cf. Matt.12:28)!

Second, it reveals to us a key truth (Acts 10:42) that an apostle proclaimed after testifying to His crucifixion and resurrection (10:39-41) and how he based his subsequent appeal to sinners for salvation (10:43) on the basis of his prior proclamation of that key truth. By evangelizing the lost in the same way, we will inform them of the proper significance of these key events for both God and man, and we will also further preach the kingdom of God to them.

When presenting 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to the lost, therefore, we should be careful to explain the term Christ properly to them and not take for granted that they will invest it with its right biblical significance upon merely hearing it from us (see this post for an example of the problem of not doing this). We should also properly explain the significance of the key historical events that the Messiah experienced (crucifixion and resurrection) in the manner explained above.

Doing so, we will preach to them the gospel of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12)!

In Evangelism, Gospel, Interpretation, Theology

The Value of Repeatedly Reading through the NT in Chronological Order

January 21, 2012

For several years now, I have not read through the NT in the order that most Bibles today have for the books of the NT: Gospels; Acts; Epistles; Revelation. Instead, I have been reading through the NT in the following order, which is likely the chronological order in which the books were first given to the Church by God:

James

Galatians

Matthew

1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Romans

Luke

Ephesians; Colossians; Philemon; Philippians

Acts

1Timothy

1 Peter

Titus

2 Peter

2 Timothy

Mark

Hebrews

Jude

John

1 & 2 & 3 John

Revelation

Reading the NT in chronological order repeatedly, I hope to have a better sense of how the early Church would have understood the relationship between various books of the NT. In particular, reading in this way has helped me, I believe, to have a greater understanding of the contemporary value of Acts and John.

For example, a strong contemporary emphasis on the current topical order of the NT books can easily lend itself to a flawed perspective that the Pauline Epistles somehow are more important than Acts for our understanding of what the actual gospel message was that the apostles preached. On the contrary, Acts was written after perhaps as many as ten of Paul’s Epistles had already been written and careful attention to this fact and the full content of Acts corrects some wrong notions about apostolic ministry of the gospel message that some have espoused through their placing undue emphasis on selected teachings of the Synoptics and the Pauline Epistles.

In a related manner, a lumping of John with the Synoptics lends itself to a lack of appreciation that John is a Gospel that was written many years after all the Pauline Epistles were written. We should then take care that our handling of the Gospel of John informs our understanding of apostolic ministry of the gospel at least as much as the Synoptics and the Pauline Epistles do.

In Bible reading, Interpretation, Theology

Seven Times a Day!

January 18, 2012

In Psalm 119:64, the Psalmist communicates his remarkable practice of praising the Lord in a statement that deserves closer attention to what it specifically says:

^KJVSeven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.

^LXESeven times in a day have I praised thee because of the judgments of thy righteousness.

^NAUSeven times a day I praise You, Because of Your righteous ordinances.

^NETSeven times a day I praise you because of your just regulations.

^NKJSeven times a day I praise You, Because of Your righteous judgments.

^ESVSeven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.

He thus praised God seven times a day for His Word because of His righteous judgments that it reveals.

An article in the New Open Bible: Study Edition helpfully explains the word used by the Psalmist here:

Judgment (mishpāt, v. 7) is derived from the verb shāphat, “judge” or “govern,” and occurs about four hundred times in the Old Testament, sixteen times in Psalm 119 alone. The general idea is one of justice, or specific ordinances to promote justice. There are many distinct usages of the noun in both secular and religious law. Each specific ordinance of the Pentateuch is called a mishpāt (Lev. 9:16; Deut. 33:21, e.g.).

“The LORD is a God judgment” (Is. 30:18) and “loveth judgment” (Ps. 37:28). His “judgments are a great deep” (Ps. 36:6). Because God is just in His judgments, so should we His people be.”

—The Word of the Lord, 690; bold words are in italics in the original

The Psalmist’s statement thus expresses that he would praise the Lord seven times a day for His righteous judgments, which point to His glory as the righteous Lawgiver and Judge. How often, by contrast, do we praise God in a day for His glorious revelation of His righteous judgments?

Let us praise God, the righteous Lawgiver and Judge, daily for His righteous judgments!

In Exhortation, Interpretation, Quotes

"Blessed Be the LORD"!

January 11, 2012

As I have done several times in the past, I have begun this year by reading intensively in the Psalms. This morning, I read Psalms 79-89.

Because my Bible has a marking showing that Book IV of the Psalms begins with Psalm 90, I noticed that I had finished Book III. Noting also that the last verse of Psalm 89 begins with the word blessed, the thought came to me to check whether the other books of Psalms also end similarly.

Here is the exciting discovery that I made about the endings of Books I-IV:

Book I (Pss. 1-41)

“Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen (41:13).

Book II (Pss. 42-72)

“Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen. The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended (72:18-20).

Book III (Pss. 73-89)

“Blessed be the LORD for evermore. Amen, and Amen” (89:52).

Book IV (Pss. 90-106)

“Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD” (106:48).

Each of the first four books of the Psalms, therefore, ends similarly by stating, “Blessed be the LORD”!

I then checked the end of Book V (Pss. 107-150) to see if it also ends the same way. Psalm 150, however, does not have the word blessed in it.

Instead, every verse of Psalm 150 repeatedly commands that the LORD is to be praised (13 times in these final 6 verses of Psalms). Interestingly, the last verse of Psalms does end, however, exactly the way the last verse of Book IV does: “Praise ye the LORD” (150:6; cf. 106:48).

In spite of the difference between the ending of Book V and each of the ending statements of the previous four books (absence of the word blessed), the same concluding statement in Books IV and V suggests a close connection between the two ideas (“Blessed be the LORD” and “Praise ye the LORD”). If this interpretation is correct, it seems that the entire structure of the book of Psalms is teaching us that praising the Lord is the central activity that must occur for the LORD to be blessed as He deserves!

Blessed be the LORD! Praise ye the LORD!

In Interpretation

Is This Line of Theological Reasoning Sound or Unsound?

January 9, 2012

—By definition, a savior is one who saves.

—God performs numerous actions in saving people (e.g., justification, regeneration, propitiation, and forgiveness).

—Because the Savior is the One who saves His people, and salvation involves all these saving actions, God/Jesus performs each of these actions specifically as the Savior of His people.

In Interpretation, Theology Theology

Archives For Interpretation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: