Interpretation | A People for His Name

Archives For 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

Will Jesus Raise You Up at the Last Day?

December 27, 2011

In His lengthy teaching about His being the Bread of Life, Jesus repeatedly asserted His key role in a future resurrection of the dead:

“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39).

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:40).

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:44).

“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:54).

In these four statements, He taught truths that all people must heed.

First, Jesus highlighted that He was the Agent of the Father. He did so in several ways. He declared three times that He had been sent by the Father. Furthermore, He said that the people whom He would raise up would be those whom His Father had given to Him and had drawn to Him. Finally, he spoke twice that He would effect their resurrection because it was His Father’s will that He do so.

Second, the people whom Jesus would raise up at the last day would be those who were enabled to come to Him because of the Father’s work in them. Saying this, Jesus taught that coming to Him is something that people cannot simply choose to do of their own ability. For them to come to Him, the Father must work in them that they would do so.

Third, these people would be those who had seen the Son and believed on Him. Their doing so would thus manifest the Father’s work in them to put their faith in Jesus as His Son whom He sent. Their faith in Him as the Son thus would not just be faith in Him as Deity Himself; they would believe in His unique relationship to the Father and His role as the Father’s agent.

Fourth, Jesus would raise these up who had received eternal life because of their faith in Him. With this teaching, Jesus declared that eternal life was not something inherent to all people—all people must believe in Him in order to receive eternal life.

Fifth, they would be those who had received eternal life because they have eaten His flesh and have drunk His blood. This statement points to their belief in His atoning work that involved His giving His body and His blood for His people.* It also revealed that eternal life would be the present possession of those who had eaten His flesh and drunk His blood.

This analysis of Jesus’ statements points to the necessity for us all to consider the following points to determine whether we will be among those whom Jesus will one day raise up:

–Have I come to Jesus and believed in Him not just as being God Himself but also in Him as being the Son sent by the Father to do the Father’s will?

–Have I partaken of Jesus’ flesh and blood by putting my faith in His atoning work (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-5; 1 Thess. 4:14)?

–Have I believed in the future resurrection of the dead and am I confident that Jesus will raise me up at the last day?

(For more about the resurrection see this important article)

—————————

*”What is meant by eating this flesh and drinking this blood, which is so necessary and beneficial; it is certain that is means neither more nor less than believing in Christ. As we partake of meat and drink by eating and drinking, so we partake of Christ and his benefits by faith: and believing in Christ includes these four things, which eating and drinking do:-First, It implies an appetite to Christ. This spiritual eating and drinking begins with hungering and thirsting (Mt. 5:6), earnest and importunate desires after Christ, not willing to take up with any thing short of an interest in him: ‘Give me Christ or else I die.’ Secondly, An application of Christ to ourselves. Meat looked upon will not nourish us, but meat fed upon, and so made our own, and as it were one with us. We must so accept of Christ as to appropriate him to ourselves: my Lord, and my God, ch. 20:28. Thirdly, A delight in Christ and his salvation. The doctrine of Christ crucified must be meat and drink to us, most pleasant and delightful. We must feast upon the dainties of the New Testament in the blood of Christ, taking as great a complacency in the methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken to redeem and save us as ever we did in the most needful supplies or grateful delights of nature. Fourthly, A derivation of nourishment from him and a dependence upon him for the support and comfort of our spiritual life, and the strength, growth, and vigour of the new man. To feed upon Christ is to do all in his name, in union with him, and by virtue drawn from him; it is to live upon him as we do upon our meat. How our bodies are nourished by our food we cannot describe, but that they are so we know and find; so it is with this spiritual nourishment. Our Saviour was so well pleased with this metaphor (as very significant and expressive) that, when afterwards he would institute some outward sensible signs, by which to represent our communicating of the benefits of his death, he chose those of eating and drinking, and made them sacramental actions” (From comments by Matthew Henry on John 6:28-59).

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. These words are at the heart of the discourse on the Bread of Life, and have created great misunderstanding among interpreters. Anyone who is inclined toward a sacramental viewpoint will almost certainly want to take these words as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, because of the reference to eating and drinking. But this does not automatically follow: By anyone’s definition there must be a symbolic element to the eating which Jesus speaks of in the discourse, and once this is admitted, it is better to understand it here, as in the previous references in the passage, to a personal receiving of (or appropriation of) Christ and his work” (NET Bible comments on John 6:53).

“Notice that here the result (has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day) is produced by eating (Jesus’) flesh and drinking his blood. Compare John 6:40 where the same result is produced by ‘looking on the Son and believing in him.’ This suggests that the phrase here (eats my flesh and drinks my blood) is to be understood by the phrase in 6:40 (looks on the Son and believes in him)” (NET Bible comments on John 6:54).

In Evangelism, Interpretation

The Trinitarian Birth Announcement to Mary

December 19, 2011

Luke is the only Gospel writer to record Gabriel’s first announcement of Jesus’ upcoming birth (1:26-38):

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. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Gabriel declared to Mary that she would give the name Jesus to her miraculously conceived Son (1:31). She was also told that the Lord God would give Him the throne that He would one day have in His eternal kingdom (1:32).

Hearing these statements, a perplexed Mary inquired how she as a virgin would conceive and bear a Son (1:34). Gabriel answered that these miraculous events would be the result of the Holy Spirit’s coming upon her and of the power of the Highest that would overshadow her (1:35).

Because of the work of both the Lord God and the Holy Spirit, Jesus would therefore be called “the Son of God” (1:35). This statement along with several other aspects of all the statements that Gabriel made to Mary does show that her Son would Himself be God.

These angelic declarations, however, do more than announce the fact that Jesus would be God Himself. Among other things, the references to Jesus, the Lord God, and the Holy Ghost in Gabriel’s statements to Mary show that she was given a Trinitarian announcement of the birth of her divine Son.

Mary’s ready acceptance of this marvelous announcement (1:38) displays that she believed the Trinitarian message that she received from Gabriel. Like Mary, anyone after her who would receive Jesus aright must accept not just that He is God Himself but also the Trinitarian truths (cf. Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:45; 2:26; 30-31) that a right proclamation of the meaning of His name communicates.

In Interpretation

Will You Enter Paradise One Day?

November 22, 2011

Many human beings have spoken of and thought about going to places that they would consider a paradise. Some believe that everyone will enter into such a place one day.

Scripture reveals, however, that only certain humans one day will enter into the real place that is called Paradise: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). This statement teaches us key truths that anyone who would enter Paradise must heed.

First, a man must hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches. Entering Paradise, therefore, requires that a man must hear and attend to what the Spirit has to say; heeding human speculations about Paradise and how to get there will never get anyone there.

Second, the way to Paradise is a message that the Spirit has directed and entrusted to the churches of Jesus Christ. Those who would enter there one day should do all that they possibly can to affiliate themselves vitally with at least one of His faithful churches.

Third, the Spirit’s message about entering Paradise declares that a man must overcome. Because the Spirit has entrusted multiple messages to the churches of Jesus Christ (2:1-3:22) that explain various aspects of what it means to overcome, a man who would enter Paradise must heed the full content of those messages.

Fourth, those who overcome will receive as a gift (“To him that overcometh will I give . . .”) authorization (cf. “right to the tree of life” [22:12-14]) “to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Paradise belongs to God, and only those whom He graciously authorizes to be there will be there. To enter there, therefore, you must receive that gracious authorization to do so.

Fifth, the glorified Jesus is the One who authorizes overcomers to be in Paradise (cf. 22:12-14). He is the Speaker of each of these messages to His churches. Only those who are willing to come to Him believing that He has that authority will enter there one day (cf. Luke 23:43).

Sixth, in this message, Jesus and the Spirit highlight the eating of the tree of life that is in the middle of God’s Paradise. To receive the blessedness of that privilege, a man must believe what the Scripture teaches about the tree of life, Adam and Eve, and how they forfeited eating from the tree of life through their sin.

Overcomers who believe and heed all these things will enjoy the very thing that Adam and Eve forfeited in the Garden of Eden–eating from the tree of life! They will do so in the only place that is truly a paradise.

Will you be one of those who enter Paradise one day?

To learn more about how you can enter Paradise one day, please see my post, The Salvation of a Crucified Thief.

In Evangelism, Interpretation

God's Dealings with Civil Authorities Concerning Their Unrighteousness

November 19, 2011

Scripture reveals that God has on many occasions dealt openly with civil authorities concerning their unrighteousness:

Genesis 20

God warned Abimelech, the king of Gerar, that he would die if he would commit adultery with Sarah (20:3-7). God had graciously kept him from sinning in that way (20:6) and now demanded that he restore her to Abraham (20:7). Abimelech heeded God’s warning and was spared (20:8-18).

2 Samuel 12

King David committed adultery with Bathsheba. Although God forgave him and spared his life, he suffered great consequences for his sinfulness (12:10-12; 14; 13:1-19:33). He continued reigning over God’s people until he died except for the time when Absalom took over the kingdom (15:13-17:29).

Daniel 4

King Nebuchadnezzar became proud and was warned by God’s prophet, Daniel. Daniel appealed to him to accept his counsel, break off his sins “by righteousness” and his iniquities “by showing mercy to the poor” (4:27). Nebuchadnezzar failed to heed Daniel’s warning (4:28-30). He was humbled by God until he acknowledged God aright (4:31-33). Following his abasement and repentance, God restored him and blessed him (4:34-37).

Daniel 5

King Belshazzar defiled the vessels of God’s house and praised man-made objects of worship (5:1-4). God confronted his wickedness through Daniel and removed him from his kingdom (5:5-31).

Matthew 15

John the Baptist, God’s prophet, rebuked Herod Antipas, the king, for taking his (Herod’s) brother’s wife (15:3-4). He declared that it was unlawful for him to have her. Herod had John murdered because he confronted him with his sinfulness. Scripture does not record Herod’s ultimate fate, but historical sources say that he “ended his days in exile” (New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 481).

Acts 12

Herod Agrippa I, the king, failed to give God the glory on a public occasion and was immediately struck down by the angel of the Lord (12:20-23). He was eaten by worms and died shortly thereafter.

These accounts of God’s similar dealings with unrighteous kings who were over His people as well as with those who were over other peoples strongly imply that God demands righteousness from all civil authorities. Modern day believers should carefully take this evidence into consideration when deciding whether they will support a political candidate with a proven history of unrighteousness.

In Interpretation

Archives For Interpretation

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: