Archives For Interpretation

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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:

  1. He is Lord of all.
  2. He did all that He did through the Spirit and the power that God gave Him.
  3. All that He did was good.
  4. God raised Him bodily from the dead.
  5. God has appointed Him to be the Judge of the living and the dead.
  6. He is the Messiah about whom all the prophets are still testifying.
  7. 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!

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

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:

  1. An earnest desire and longing for God is necessary for revival to come to a person.
  2. Because revival is the work of God in His people, we must pray fervently for Him to revive us.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Delighting supremely in God’s Word is central to being revived and is a hallmark of a person who is experiencing revival.
  6. Loving righteousness and hating iniquity are essential for revival.
  7. Revival is the fruit of the fullness of the Spirit whom God gives to those who love righteousness and hate iniquity.
  8. A vital relationship to God’s house, day, and leaders is necessary for revival.
  9. Revival will be a glorious worldwide reality in the millennial kingdom.
  10. 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!

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

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?

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

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).

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