Archives For Interpretation

Striking Parallels between Jesus and Stephen

May 20, 2011

The following table presents strikingly parallel statements concerning the experiences of Jesus and Stephen at the end of their lives:

Jesus Stephen
And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled (Matt. 26:57). Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death (26:59). Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God (Acts 6:11).
And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council (6:12).
But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses (26:60), And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law (6:13).
And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days (26:61) For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us (6:14).
And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God (26:62-63). Then said the high priest, Are these things so? (7:1).
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (26:64). But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God (7:55-56).
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death (26:65-66). Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him. . . . (7:57-58)
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34). And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit (7:59). And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep (7:60).
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost (23:46).

 

How do we account for these striking parallels between Jesus’ and Stephen’s responses and actions in very similar circumstances? Surely, the explanation is found in the references to Stephen’s relationship to the Holy Spirit, who produced Christ-likeness in Stephen: “They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:5) . . . And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake (6:10). . . . But he, being full of the Holy Ghost (7:55) . . .”

God has given us these accounts to teach us that we are to honor Him through Christ-likeness that is produced by His Holy Spirit’s working in us in all the circumstances of our lives.

This sermon provides much more about Stephen as a man who honored God.

See also On Christlikeness in Corporate Worship

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

In Interpretation
 permalink

Illegitimate Intra-Trinitarian Transfer

May 15, 2011

James Barr coined the term illegitimate totality transfer to signify the unwarranted reading into a particular occurrence of a word every possible meaning of the word. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), 218. In my dissertation, I coined the term illegitimate intra-Trinitarian transfer, which I patterned after Barr’s term, but I did not use it with reference to semantics.

The phrase illegitimate intra-Trinitarian transfer refers to the error of attributing a role or activity to one member of the Godhead in a given text when a careful examination shows that the passage is attributing that role or activity to a different member of the Godhead.

Illegitimate intra-Trinitarian transfer (IITT) obscures a right perception of the apostolic focus on testimony to both God and Christ by taking statements about the Father and attributing them to Christ or speaking of them as if they are only about Christ. Such use of these statements, especially on a repeated basis, hinders and obscures the full appreciation of their primary teaching.

Two examples from printed works illustrate IITT clearly. First, Warren Wiersbe’s explanation of Colossians 1:13-14 displays this error when it attributes multiple actions to Christ that the passage does not attribute to Christ but to the Father:

Sinners need a Saviour. These two verses present a vivid picture of the four saving actions of Christ on our behalf. . . . We could not deliver ourselves from the guilt and penalty of sin, but Jesus could and did deliver us. . . . Jesus Christ did not release us from bondage, only to have us wander aimlessly. He moved us into His own kingdom of light and made us victors over Satan’s kingdom of darkness. Earthly rulers transported the defeated people, but Jesus Christ transported the winners. Be Complete: How to Become the Whole Person God Intends You to Be (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1981), 45-46.

This explanation of Colossians 1:13-14 attributes actions to Christ that the passage does not attribute to Him but to the Father: the Father, not Christ, “rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”

Second, Paul Enns’ writing similarly displays IITT:

The Son has redeemed the believer (Eph. 1:7), removed the wrath of God from the believer (Rom. 3:25), justified the believer (Rom. 5:1), provided forgiveness (Col. 2:13), and sanctified the believer (1 Cor. 1:2). The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 341.

Colossians 2:13 actually teaches that the Father has “quickened [us] together with Him [Christ], having forgiven [us] all trespasses.”

I have heard a number of people over the years commit IITT in their prayers by praying something like this, “Father, thank You for dying for us on the Cross.” The Father did not die on the Cross, and we should not pray this way.

These examples of IITT should alert us to be more careful in what we write and say. We must be diligent to handle the Word of God as accurately as possible (2 Tim. 2:15).

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

In Interpretation, Quotes
 permalink

Judicial Agents in Israel

May 14, 2011

Scripture reveals that God rendered His judgment among His people, Israel, through a remarkable variety of people. By your considering the information in this table, I hope you will come to a greater appreciation of the importance of the biblical concept of judicial agency.


Priests Thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment. . . . . And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die (Deut. 17:9, 12).
Prophets Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal (1 Sam. 15:33).
Kings And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart (2 Sam. 19:19).
Princes Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice (Ezek. 45:9).
Judges And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face (Deut. 25:2).
Rulers Moreover thou shalt provide . . . able men, such as fear God . . . and place such over them, to be rulers . . . And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge (Exod. 18:21-22).
Magistrates Set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people (Ezra 7:25).
Officers Judges and officers shalt thou make thee . . . and they shall judge the people with just judgment (Deut. 16:18).
Governors I was appointed to be their governor (Neh. 5:14). And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God (13:22).
Nobles By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
Heads of tribes It was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot . . . And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt (Gen. 38:24).
Elders of the city And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him and they shall amerce [fine] him (Deut. 22:18-19).
Chief of the fathers of Israel Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set . . . of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies (2 Chron. 19:8).
Men of the city And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die (Deut. 21:21).
Witnesses and all the people The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people (Deut. 17:7).
Avengers of blood The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die (Deut. 19:12).
Parents Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place (Deut. 21:19).


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

In Interpretation
 permalink

Handling the Evangelistic Accounts in Acts More Accurately: Part III

May 13, 2011

In order to assess properly the relevance of an account in Acts for our own evangelism, we must carefully consider various aspects of the account that many people often overlook. Stephen’s speech (Acts 7) is a good example of a passage that illustrates some overlooked aspects that need to be handled more accurately.

Through the activities of certain people of a synagogue who were unable to resist his ministry (6:9-10), Stephen was accosted and brought before the Jewish council (6:11-12). False witnesses set up by his enemies then testified against him (6:13-14).

The high priest challenged him concerning the testimony borne by them (7:1). Luke records at length Stephen’s answer to the high priest (7:2-53) followed by the people’s very hostile response (7:54), further testimony by Stephen (7:55-56), and his martyrdom (7:57-60).

In the 56 verses of the testimony by Stephen that Luke records, we do not read of his explicitly testifying to the resurrection of Jesus. How should we understand the significance of his seeming lack of testimony to this key truth?

First, we should note that Stephen’s speech, strictly speaking, is not an evangelistic message as much as it is a defense speech.

Second, in keeping with what I argued in Parts I and II of this series, we must keep in mind that we cannot be certain that Luke has given us an exhaustive account of what Stephen did testify. This uncertainty should cause us to be cautious in what we dogmatically say about what he did not testify.

Third, it is very important for us to note specifically to whom Stephen spoke on this occasion. Some of those whose actions resulted in Stephen’s arrest and being brought to the council were people who had been unable to resist his ministry to them (6:9-10). Luke, however, does not tell us anything about what those people had already heard from Stephen.

Based on what we read about the apostolic testimony in all the preceding evangelistic accounts in Acts 2-5, we have every reason to believe that his testimony similarly included extensive witness to the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1:22). It is, therefore, almost certain that they had already received prior testimony to the Resurrection from Stephen himself before his speech to the council.

Furthermore, concerning not just these people from the synagogue, but also the others present at this occasion (the men whom the synagogue people suborned [6:11]; the people, the elders, and the scribes [6:12]; the false witnesses [6:13]), an earlier statement by Luke must also be taken into account.

In Acts 5, Luke recorded that the high priest had asked the apostles when they had been brought before the Council, “Saying, ‘Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us'” (5:27-28). Here, Luke’s record of the high priest’s charge against the apostles reveals that the high priest knew that the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their doctrine, which preeminently included testimony to the Resurrection (cf. 1:22).

Based on the high priest’s statement, therefore, we are justified in holding that the people present when Stephen gave his speech had already received prior testimony to the Resurrection. In fact, we know that the Jewish “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (4:5-7) did receive such testimony (4:10). We also know that “the captain with the officers” (5:26) and the Council and the high priest did receive such testimony (5:30).

Thus, even if Stephen had not borne any testimony to the Resurrection in his speech, which we cannot be certain of, his omission would have been before people who already had received testimony to the Resurrection. His omission, then, would not at all be exemplary for us in what we should do with first-time hearers in our evangelism.

The preceding analysis of Stephen’s supposed omission of testimony to the Resurrection in Acts 7 shows that we cannot be certain that he in fact did not bear such testimony. Furthermore, even if he had omitted such testimony in that speech, he would have done so with people who already had heard about the Resurrection.

For these reasons, we should not view Acts 7 as an account that teaches us that testimony to the Resurrection is sometimes optional in our evangelism with first-time hearers. At most, it shows that, if we do choose to omit such testimony, it should only be with hostile people whom we know have already received that testimony beforehand.

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

Handling the Evangelistic Accounts in Acts More Accurately: Part II

May 11, 2011

In Part I of this series, I pointed out the two explicit indicators in the Pentecost account that tell us that we do not have an exhaustive record of the testimony that Peter gave at that occasion. Based on that evidence, I argued that we should not hold that any record in Acts of an evangelistic encounter provides us with sufficient evidence to argue that testimony to a particular truth was not given in that encounter.

An analysis of three other passages in Acts reinforces this point.

Acts 9

Very soon after his salvation, Paul “preached Christ in the synagogues that He is the Son of God” (9:20). He “confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ” (9:22).

After Paul had come to Jerusalem, Barnabas informed the apostles that Paul “had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus” (9:27). In Jerusalem, Paul then “spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus” (9:29).

Some have argued from these statements that Paul preached only about Christ in these messages. Luke’s later record of Paul’s own testimony before king Agrippa about his ministry in Damascus shows that it is illegitimate to argue in this manner:

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance (26:19-20).

Paul emphatically testified that he had declared first in Damascus that the Gentiles “should repent and turn to God.” This testimony shows that Luke’s earlier record of Paul’s same ministry in Damascus is not exhaustive and is not intended to be taken as evidence that Paul had not preached repentance toward God in those messages.

Acts 13

Luke informs us that Barnabas and Saul entered a synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia on a Sabbath day (13:14). He tells us that there was a reading of the law and the prophets (13:15) followed by Paul’s message (13:16-41).

Many have overlooked the contribution of the reading from the OT to the total testimony received by Paul’s hearers on this occasion. We have no way of knowing what content his hearers received through that reading prior to his message. We, therefore, cannot legitimately assert with certainty that they did not receive testimony in this evangelistic encounter to any particular truth that is taught in the OT.

Acts 16

Following the miraculous events that took place, the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (16:30). They responded, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (16:31).

Based on these statements, a person argued with me years ago that the jailor was saved without testimony to the resurrection. The next verse, however, makes clear that he was not saved just hearing that one sentence: “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house” (16:32).

Paul and Silas testified more from the word of the Lord than just what verse 31 records. Luke does not tell us what that additional testimony was. Because we know that the record of the testimony that the jailor received is not exhaustive, it is illegitimate to say with certainty that he did not receive testimony to any particular truth, especially to God’s raising Jesus from the dead.

The following verses implicitly confirm this assessment. Luke tells us that the jailor was baptized (16:33), but he does not tell us how it came about that he knew that he was to be baptized and that he assented to that act. Plainly, we are to understand that Paul and Silas bore testimony to him to do so.

Luke concludes his record by saying, “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (16:34). Although it is possible that Luke intends for us from this statement to believe that these people believed in Jesus as God, it is at least equally likely that this statement reflects their salvation through belief in testimony about God the Father’s raising Jesus from the dead and through their subsequent confession of Jesus as Lord (cf. Rom. 10:9-10).

Along with the statements in Acts 2, these statements from Acts 9, 13, and 16 further teach us that we should not take the lack of mention of any particular truth in an evangelistic account in Acts as proof that no testimony to that truth was given in that encounter.

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

Answering the Objection about the Eradication of the Canaanites

May 10, 2011

God’s ordering the Israelites to eradicate the Canannites (Josh. 6:2; 17-18; 21; 24) has led many to attack the Bible and call into question its divine inspiration. People object especially to the Israelites’ killing of children.

In the past, I have taken various approaches in answering such attacks. Based on my recent reading in Scripture, I think that God may have given me insight into another helpful aspect of how to deal with this objection that I have not thought of before.

Because His own people had become very wicked in the time of Ezekiel, God commanded that they be slain (Ezek. 9:4-11), including the little children:

     And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city. And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
     Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not. And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
     And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.

This passage shows that God dealt in the same way with His own people when they became very wicked as He had dealt with the Canannites in the past. He thus has impartially ordered at times the eradication of certain people, both Canaanites and Israelites.

Although pointing out this fact may not fully take away the objections to His dealings with the Canannites, presenting that He has treated even His own people in the same manner may help to some extent.

The teaching of these passages concerning God’s dealings with the children of wicked people is a difficult truth for us to handle on the human level. To help us put this issue into its proper biblical perspective, both for ourselves and for others, we should carefully note His impartiality in dealing in such a manner with wickedness among both the Canaanites and His people.

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

In Interpretation
 permalink

Demonic Testimony to Christ as God's Judicial Agent

May 4, 2011

Scripture records a number of Jesus’ encounters with demon-possessed people. Two passages in Mark bring out an important truth from those encounters that is easy to overlook.

Mark 1:21-28 and 5:2-20 record the casting out of demons, which was a major aspect of Christ’s gracious judicial work (Acts 10:38; 1 John 3:8).[1] Both passages feature demonic testimony to Christ as God’s judicial agent (1:24; 5:7).

In Mark 1, Jesus cast out an unclean spirit from a man in a synagogue. Before Christ rebuked the spirit and ordered him to come out (1:25), the demon cried out, “Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? [A]rt thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (1:24). This spirit recognized Christ as God’s Holy One who will be His destroyer of demons. By recording this incident, Mark confronts his readers with Christ’s intermediary judicial role in the first chapter of his Gospel.

Mark 5:7 records that a demon addressed Christ as “Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God” and implored Him by God not to torment him. Both the demon’s address and his adjuring Jesus by God communicate the agency of Christ. The demon knew that Christ was the One who was uniquely related to the Most High God as His Son and distinct from Him. The demon’s plea to Christ shows that he understood that Christ is the Judge who will be the tormentor of demons. Mark also records that the demon “besought Him much that He would not to send them away out of the country” (5:10).

Luke’s parallel account states that the demons asked Christ not to command them to depart into the deep (8:31). Matthew’s version of this encounter says that there were two demon-possessed men (8:28) and multiple demons that addressed Him as the Son of God (8:29a). The demons also asked Him if He had come there ahead of the appointed time to torment them (8:29b). Their conversation with Christ testifies to their knowledge of an upcoming appointed time when Christ would indeed torment them.

All three Synoptic Gospels present Christ as God’s judicial executor through these accounts of the testimonies of demons. It is unclear to what extent the original participants and observers may have heard or understood what the demons said, but Christ’s silencing of the demons who spoke of His identity (Mark 1:25, 34) shows that He did not want their testimony about Him to be widely known. That being the case, it is noteworthy that all subsequent readers of the records of those accounts are given that information by the New Testament writers. Because of their inclusion in the Gospels, this facet of these accounts points to the importance of the testimony that they bear to Christ’s judging for God.

These testimonies also indicate the significance of that doctrine by referring to an appointed future time when Christ will destroy demons and punish them. These aspects of the judicial work of Christ show that His work as God’s judicial agent has a broader scope in terms of its subjects than does His work as Savior. Whereas He has judged and will judge both people and demons, He has not saved and will not save demons.[2]

 

[1] Mark 1 was chosen as one of the base passages because it occurs earlier in the book than the parallel passage in Luke 4 does in that book. Mark 5 was chosen because it most directly presents Christ as God’s judicial agent. In addition, “exorcism is a prominent feature of Mark’s account of Jesus. He speaks of it as distinct from a more general healing ministry, and includes four individual accounts of exorcisms (1:23-27; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29), all of which are vividly related, and two of which include a dialogue between Jesus and the demon(s) which reveals their privileged knowledge of who he is.” R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark in NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 100. Peter’s declaration, “God anointed Him [Jesus of Nazareth] with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38), confirms this assessment of Christ’s gracious judicial agency in casting out demons.

[2] In related teaching, the Gospel writers record that the Pharisees said that Christ cast out demons through the power of Satan (Matt. 12:22-29). Christ, knowing their thoughts, asserted that He was expelling demons by the Spirit of God and that His doing so showed that the kingdom of God had come on them (12:28). Both of those statements convey that Christ rendered God’s judgment in casting out demons.

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

In Interpretation
 permalink

"Blessed Is the Man . . ."

May 2, 2011

Yesterday, I had the privilege of teaching Sunday school and preaching a morning service. Both messages were titled, “God Wants You to Be Blessed.” In Sunday school, I taught from Psalm 1 and various other passages. In the morning service, I preached on Psalm 1-2 as a unit, with an emphasis on Psalm 2.

Based in part on some feedback that I received yesterday, I believe that many believers may need further instruction about what a person’s being blessed means at its essence. From an examination of a number of passages, it is clear that being blessed does not fundamentally mean to be happy in the sense of feeling happy.

1. Psalm 94 compared with Hebrews 12

“Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law; That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked” (Ps. 94:12-13).

“Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby” (Heb. 12:11).

Psalm 94 teaches that a man who is chastened by the Lord is blessed. Hebrews 12 says that no chastening seems joyous when it is taking place. Putting the teaching of these two statements together shows that the core idea of being blessed is not a person’s feeling happy.

2. Beatitudes

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. . . . Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake” (Matt. 5:4; 10-11).

A person who is mourning is not a happy person. People may be joyful in the midst of being persecuted or being reviled, but such joyfulness signifies something deeper than just feeling happy.

3. Revelation 22

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (22:14).

This verse shows that the people who will be ultimately blessed will be people who are given special privileges by God. Although such people will undoubtedly be happy, their feeling happy is not the main point of the statement.

What then is the core idea of the concept of being blessed? The Topical Index at the front of The New Open Bible: Study Edition provides an excellent, brief explanation: “Blessed—the objects of God’s favors” (80). At its essence, being blessed signifies a person or object that God has favored in some special manner.

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

In Interpretation
 permalink

Establishing the Necessity of an Intermediate Earthly Kingdom

April 28, 2011

This post presents an approach that seeks to establish the necessity of an intermediate earthly kingdom without necessarily having to espouse beforehand any particular theological system. This approach consists of the integration of key biblical texts that contain within their own contexts clear indicators of how to interpret them. A careful examination of the nature of periods preceding and following the intermediate earthly kingdom combined with an integration of the texts showing a sharp contrast with those preceding and following periods establishes the necessity of an intermediate earthly kingdom.

Periods preceding and following the intermediate earthly kingdom

Present state: Sinners sinning, death taking place, children being born, most die before 100, carnivorous animals, Satan not bound, no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, Israel not preeminent among the nations of the world, Christ not ruling physically on the earth, no nation worshiping Christ as King on the earth

Eternal state: No sin, no death, no procreation, people live forever, Satan forever punished in the lake of fire, a new heaven and a new earth, new Jerusalem, no Temple, Christ and God rule forever

Sharp contrast of the intermediate earthly kingdom with the preceding and following periods

Isaiah 65:20-25: Period with infants and old men, death – not eternal state; period with 100-year old people called youths, people’s life span compared to trees, complete harmony in the animal kingdom – not present state; combination of all these demands an intermediate earthly kingdom

Ezekiel 36: God judged His people who sinned exceedingly in their own land and scattered them among the nations of the world; such scattering led to His name being profaned on account of those people; God has purposed to vindicate the holiness of His great name by bringing those people out from the nations where He had scattered them and back into their own land; clearly not speaking of the Church anywhere in these verses; glorious changes in the land testify about God to the nations, and all know Him; shows that an intermediate earthly kingdom is a necessity for the vindication of God’s holy name

Zechariah 14: Marvelous chapter clearly showing an intermediate earthly kingdom; the Lord returns to the earth to defend His people; establishes His kingdom in the world; immense topographical changes in Palestine; He is worshiped worldwide with no idolatry anywhere; annual worship of Yahweh by surviving nations; sin still occurring—nations refuse to come to worship—shows that this cannot be the eternal state; all-pervasive holiness of the LORD’s house concludes the chapter; chapter describes an extended period of time that cannot be the eternal state nor the present because it features both the worldwide worship of Yahweh and sinners still refusing to worship Him– demands an intermediate earthly kingdom

Conclusion

Scripture repeatedly teaches an intermediate earthly kingdom

Not necessary to hold to or even know a particular theological system to understand the Scripture’s teaching about the intermediate earthly kingdom – the passages themselves provide contextual indications of how they are to be interpreted

Vindication of God’s holy name necessitates an intermediate earthly kingdom

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

In Interpretation
 permalink

Give the Resurrection Its Full Significance!

April 23, 2011

Tomorrow, millions of people will celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Multitudes of people will likely do so, however, without much awareness of its full significance. They will do so because many preachers, theologians, and other Bible teachers have given noticeably limited attention to a key aspect of the significance of the Resurrection.

Although various aspects of the significance of the Resurrection have received considerable attention, especially its being a key element of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-5), one NT emphasis has not. Four passages, one in each major section of the current topical arrangement in most Bibles today, point to an important truth that should receive much more current attention than it has (John 2; Acts 17; Rom.14; Rev. 1).

John 2

John records Jesus’ forceful actions to cleanse the temple when the Jewish Passover was near (John 2:13-22). Seeing people who were defiling the temple through their mercenary activities (2:14), Jesus judged them by expelling them and violently disrupting their activities (2:15). He also judged them by ordering them to remove the offensive elements from the temple and to stop making His Father’s house a “house of merchandise” (2:16).

Seeing His actions, His disciples recalled the Scripture that said, “The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up” (2:17). By recording both Jesus’ commands to the people and what the disciples remembered, John points his readers to Jesus’ judicial agency on behalf of the Father.

The Jews responded to Jesus by asking Him, “What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?” (2:18). They thus demanded of Him a sign for His authority to act as a judge on behalf of God to do what He did and say what He said.

Jesus responded, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (2:19). He thus informed them that His raising up His body after His death at their hands would be the sign of His judicial agency to cleanse the temple as He had.

In his Gospel, therefore, John records teaching from Jesus Himself that His resurrection would attest to His having been the Father’s Agent of judgment for dealing in this manner with these who had defiled His Father’s house. John adds that following the Resurrection, His disciples remembered what Jesus had said on this occasion and believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had said (2:22). Writing this, John teaches that the disciples believed that the Resurrection signified that Jesus was God’s judicial agent.

Acts 17

Luke’s record of Paul’s evangelistic ministry in Athens reveals teaching from Paul that closely corresponds to Jesus’ own teaching. At the climax of his evangelistic message at the Areopagus, Paul informed his audience of a key evangelistic significance of the Resurrection: By raising Jesus from the dead, God has proven to all men that He has fixed a day in which He will righteously judge the world through the Man whom He has appointed, Jesus (Acts 17:31). Because God has proven this to all men, He commands all men everywhere to repent (17:30).

Recording these statements, Luke attests to the universal significance of the Resurrection as God’s proof to all men that Jesus is His judicial agent. Both John and Luke, therefore, provide teaching about this key significance of the Resurrection.

Romans 14

Paul highlights the significance of the Resurrection for believers’ not judging one another in certain matters over which they differ (Rom. 14). As part of his explanation for why believers are not to judge one another in these areas, he says, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ . . . Let us not therefore judge one another (Rom. 14:9-13).

To instruct us not to judge one another in these matters, Paul makes a key statement about the purpose of both the death and the resurrection of the Messiah—He experienced both so that He might be the Lord both of the dead and the living. The immediately following statements make plain that one of the purposes of the Messiah’s death and resurrection was that He might be the Judge of the living and the dead!

Paul, therefore, joins John and Luke in teaching this key significance of the Resurrection. We thus have explicit teaching about this truth’s significance in the first century for Jews (proof of Jesus’ authority to cleanse the temple – John 2), all men (basis for God’s universal demand that all repent – Acts 17), and believers (stop wrongly judging one another – Rom. 14).

Revelation 1

John’s opening teaching in Revelation includes how the glorified Jesus ministered truth to him about His death and resurrection: “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, ‘Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death’” (1:17-18). Jesus comforted John by informing Him about His being alive forevermore though He had been dead. He added that He had the keys of hell and death, which communicated that He had authority over these aspects of God’s judgment of sinners. Juxtaposing these statements, Jesus linked His resurrection with His judicial authority.

Recording this teaching, John informs believers once again about the significance of the Resurrection for Jesus’ judicial agency. With all four sections of the NT setting forth this teaching, we should heed what the Spirit highlights for us.

On this Easter and forevermore, we should make known to everyone that God has proved to them through His raising Jesus that Jesus is the God-appointed Judge of the living and the dead! We should also praise God for proving that truth to all men and heed what else this truth means for us as believers (stop judging one another wrongly – Rom. 14; not fearing – Rev. 1).

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

In Discipleship, Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink