Archives For Interpretation

Has Salvation Come to Your House?

March 11, 2011

In Luke 19:9-10, Scripture informs us of a blessed pronouncement by Jesus to a sinful man: “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” An examination of this account (19:1-10) shows a key truth concerning the genuine salvation of people.

Luke reports that Jesus, while passing through Jericho, spoke these words to a man named Zacchaeus. He was a top-level tax collector and a wealthy man. He desired to see Jesus, but was unable to because he was short. Therefore, he climbed a tree to see Him.

Seeing him, Jesus directed him, saying, “Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house.” Zacchaeus eagerly responded to Jesus’ directives and “received him joyfully.”

An unspecified group of onlookers denounced Jesus’ actions. We then read the only words recorded from Zacchaeus (19:8), which instruct us about the essence of salvation coming to a person’s house. Having come to Jesus, he said “unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.”

Based on these statements by Zacchaeus, Jesus made the blessed pronouncement about his salvation. How do Zacchaeus’s words relate to his salvation?

By comparing them to Luke’s accounts of John the Baptist’s ministry, we discover a key truth about Zacchaeus. Luke recorded John’s demanding that certain people who came to be baptized first produce “fruits worthy of repentance” (3:8). Other people hearing John’s challenge asked, “What shall we do then?” (3:10). John responded, “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise” (3:11). These statements match the essential idea of Zacchaeus’s first words to the Lord about his resolve to give of his goods to the poor (19:8b).

When publicans came to John wanting to be baptized, they also asked him what they were to do (3:12). John demanded that they “exact no more man that which is appointed [them]” (3:13). To soldiers who then asked him what they were to do, he said, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages” (3:14). His demands from the publicans and soldiers parallels Zacchaeus’s second statement, which expressed his intent to restore to anyone what he had taken from him by false accusation (19:8c).

This comparison of statements by Zacchaeus and John shows that what Zacchaeus said to Jesus displayed his repentance and intent to produce “fruits worthy of repentance” (3:8). Jesus’ pronouncement that salvation had come to him did not mean that his past or present giving to the poor and restoring what he had wrongfully taken from people had saved him (Although we do not have enough data to know for sure, it is likely that Zacchaeus had not done either of these things to any appreciable extent prior to his encounter with Jesus).

Nor did it mean that his future doing so would be what would save him. Rather, his acknowledging of his past actions as sinful and his resolve to make right his past wrongdoing showed that he had been saved through his contact with Jesus:

He publicly wanted the people to know that his time with Jesus had changed his life. . . . Jesus’ words, ‘Today salvation has come to this house,’ did not imply that the act of giving to the poor had saved Zacchaeus, but that his change in his lifestyle evidenced his right relationship before God (BKC: NT, 252).

The comparison above of the accounts of John the Baptist’s ministry (3:1-14) and Zacchaeus (19:1-10) underscore the centrality of repentance (along with faith, though it is not specifically mentioned in this passage) toward God as what brought salvation to the house of Zacchaeus.

Paul’s comprehensive statement concerning his unchanging ministry throughout his life further stresses the same truth: “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but showed 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” (Acts 26:19-20).

Has salvation come to your house through your repenting and turning to God and doing works that display the genuineness of your repentance and faith? If there has not been a transformation of your life (2 Cor. 5:17) that has included both a resolve to do whatever you can do to make right your past wrongdoing and an acting on that resolve as circumstances allow, would Jesus say to you that salvation has come to your house?

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

Does Scripture Teach Us to Preach "A Simple Gospel Message"?

March 10, 2011

Over my years as a Christian, I have heard the phrase, “a simple gospel message,” used quite a number of times. People have expressed their appreciation for preachers who have preached such a message. Those training others for ministry have exhorted their students to preach such messages. Interestingly, I do not recall ever having anyone explain how the Scripture teaches us to preach such a message or what exactly constitutes such a message.

Because of the seemingly widespread use of this phrase and the desire for ministers to preach such messages, we would do well to consider how we would answer the question, “Does Scripture teach us to preach a simple gospel message?” To try to answer this question, we will consider several points.

“Simple” and “Simplicity” Do Not Teach Us to Preach “A Simple Gospel Message”

The phrase, “a simple gospel message,” does not occur anywhere in Scripture. The adjective, “simple,” is not found anywhere in explicit teaching concerning the gospel.

The noun, “simplicity,” is found three times in the NT (Rom. 12:8; 2 Cor. 1:12 and 11:3). The first occurrence is not relevant because it concerns the manner of our giving. The second is in a general statement about conducting our lives in the world and does not directly pertain to what we are to preach.

The third occurrence is in Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 11 and does concern proper preaching. To the Corinthians, Paul wrote that he feared, “lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (11:3). He then explained his concern by saying,

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service (11:4-7).

Three occurrences of two keys verb for preaching and two references concerning the gospel show that this is an important passage concerning our preaching the gospel. Paul’s references to the serpent’s beguiling Eve and to the preaching of another Jesus show that he is concerned about the preaching of a false Jesus and a false gospel by false apostles (cf. 11:12-15). In that connection, he mentions his being “rude in speech” in contrast from the false apostles who touted their speaking abilities in their attempt to draw away the Corinthians from Paul.

He did not mention his lack of eloquence in preaching, however, to teach that gospel preaching should be characteristically simple concerning the content of what is to be preached. As we will see below, Luke’s records of key instances of the preaching of the gospel display considerable complexity and depth in the content of the evangelistic messages by the apostles.

In Paul’s latter reference to the preaching of the gospel (11:7ff.), Paul contrasts himself with the false apostles when he speaks of his foregoing remuneration for preaching the gospel. Neither concern in this context has anything to do directly with the content of his preaching the true gospel being simple.

The Gospel Messages at Pentecost and Gentecost Were Not “Simple”

An examination of the two premier apostolic evangelistic occasions, Pentecost and Gentecost, verifies this interpretation. Peter’s Pentecost message contains statements that interpreters struggle to explain fully even today (Acts 2:16-21). Peter’s abundant testimony to both the Father and the Son along with several references to the Holy Spirit (2:17, 18, 33, 38) show that he evangelized his hearers with a message that was highly Trinitarian and not simply preaching about Jesus Himself and the events that He experienced.

Moreover, Peter’s explicit statements about God’s approving Jesus (2:22), doing miracles through Him (2:22), raising Him (2:24, 32), exalting Him (2:33), giving Him the Holy Spirit (2:33), and making Him both Lord and Christ (2:36) intensely challenged the hearers with content concerning Jesus as God’s agent; Peter’s focus was not solely or even primarily on the deity of Jesus. He thus forced his hearers to have to reckon with Jesus’ humanity in relation to His deity as well as His agency in relation to His deity.

Peter’s message of the gospel at Pentecost was not a message that was concerned with testifying to Jesus alone with a primary focus on His deity. The Church thus began with his message that was not “a simple gospel message” with respect to its content.

Peter’s message at Gentecost similarly was not a “simple gospel message” about Jesus alone as deity. As he did at Pentecost, Peter preached a Trinitarian message that abundantly referred to both God and Jesus, including an explicit statement of how the Father anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power (10:38a). He also forced his hearers to have to reckon with the existence of evil in the supernatural realm by proclaiming Jesus’ healing all who were oppressed by the devil (10:38b). Moreover, instead of focusing on Jesus’ miraculous works as proof of His deity, Peter emphasized God’s empowering Him (10:38a) and accompanying Him (10:38c).

As he did at Pentecost, Peter strongly emphasized Jesus’ agency (10:36, 38), including a unique explicit statement about Jesus as the God-appointed Judge (10:42) that does not easily fit in with many contemporary perspectives about evangelism and missions. This statement presents other challenges to interpreters as well, including the precise nature of its relation to the next verse concerning the forgiveness of sins through believing in His name (10:43).

These two preeminent evangelistic messages in church history do not line up with the notion of preaching of “a simple gospel message” either with reference to its content overall or with reference to a focus solely on Jesus and His deity. Should we then hold that the Scripture teaches us to preach “a simple gospel message”?

Possible Response: Acts 8:35 and 16:31 Support Preaching “A Simple Gospel Message”

In response to this line of reasoning, some may point to the evangelistic accounts about the salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) and of the Philippian jailor (16:25-34) as evidence that supports the preaching of “a simple gospel message.” Although Luke does provide fairly lengthy overall records of these evangelistic encounters, he does not provide much information about what was actually testified to the lost people.

In future articles, I plan to look carefully at these accounts to see if they support an approach that does not make the Pentecost and Gentecost accounts (along with 1 Cor. 15:3-5) the primary models for our learning to preach the gospel. For now, I say that it is highly improbable that these very brief summary statements (Acts 8:35; 16:31) of what were undoubtedly much longer messages are intended to be normative for our evangelism in preference above the records of the premier evangelistic messages for both Jews and Gentiles that are recorded in Scripture.

Conclusion

There does not seem to be any clear scriptural teaching that teaches us to preach “a simple gospel message” in the sense discussed above. Hence, we would do well to adjust what we say to one another in this respect, especially in our discipleship activities that are geared toward training ministers and personal workers in evangelism.

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

In Evangelism, Gospel, Interpretation, Ministry, Preaching , ,
 permalink

Repaving the Romans Road – Romans 10:9-10, 13; Part I

March 8, 2011

After using Romans 3:23 and 6:23, many people who use the Romans Road approach to evangelism go to three statements in Romans 10. All three provide instruction about the necessary responses that a sinner makes to be saved: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness: and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. . . . For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (10:9-10, 13). 

Paul teaches in this passage that a person will have to believe objective truth in his heart concerning the Resurrection. Approaches to evangelism that do not plainly testify to the Resurrection risk failing to provide the foundational information that is necessary for the person to confess Jesus as Lord and to call upon Him. People can be saved without having someone else witness to them about the Resurrection, if they have already received that information from some source prior to the encounter in which they are saved. Nevertheless, because of the importance of this information, we should never take this prior knowledge for granted. 

According to Paul’s exact wording, the sinner is to believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead. Earlier, he taught that righteousness is imputed to those who “believe on Him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (4:24). The wording of 4:24 supports holding that he is speaking about the Father’s raising Jesus in 10:9. 

Romans 6:4 strongly supports this interpretation through Paul’s statement that “Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father.” Paul’s climactic statement in his message at the Areopagus (Acts 17:31) similarly highlights the Father’s raising Jesus, as do many other statements by Paul (1 Cor. 6:14; 15:15; 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:19-20; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10) and by other Scripture writers (at least 10 more times in Acts; 1 Pet. 1:21; Heb. 13:20). In fact, the NT has more than two dozen statements of God’s raising Christ. 

In a number of these statements, we see that key OT passages (Pss 2, 16; Isa. 55) were used to support the truth that the Father raised His Christ. Without exception, every OT passage used by the apostles in their evangelism spoke of God’s raising Him; none of the passages speaks about His raising Himself or simply about His rising. The apostles used these passages to emphasize God’s faithfulness to fulfill what He had said long ago that He would do (Acts 13:33). They thus provided sinners with biblical truth by which they were given sound basis to entrust their souls to the Father in confident expectation that He would be faithful to raise them up as well one day from the dead (1 Cor. 6:4; 2 Cor. 1:9). We should do the same in our witnessing. We should glorify the Father by specifying that He raised Jesus and explain His faithfulness in doing so. 

Telling sinners that the Father raised Jesus from the dead also glorifies Him in this respect because it provides us with the opportunity to explain a glorious truth about Jesus Himself that deserves much more proclamation in evangelism. Psalm 16, a key Resurrection passage from the OT that the apostles used in evangelism (Acts 2:25-28; 13:35-37), does not just speak about what the Father would do. It also records the Messiah’s glorying in His confidence that the Father would do so. The Messiah trusted that the Father would raise Him and rejoiced in the hope of the future glories that He would enjoy in the presence of the Father (Ps. 16:8-11)! 

By explaining in evangelism that the Messiah confidently trusted in the Father to raise Him from the dead, we glorify both the Messiah and the Father in our evangelism. We set the Messiah forth as the great Example of faith in God that the sinner should emulate. He entrusted Himself to the Father and was not disappointed. We should stress that the same will be true for all who like Him entrust themselves to the Father.

Bringing these truths out when we witness to sinners, the Father and the Son will receive the full glory that they deserve in our evangelism, especially on the occasions on which sinners are saved! Let us stress the Father’s raising Jesus when we minister Romans 10:9-10 to sinners.

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

The Salvation of a "Good" Man

March 6, 2011

The Gentecost accounts (Acts 10, 11) present how a “good” man named Cornelius and others who were with him were saved. From these accounts, we should note many key truths about how a person, even a good man, is to be saved.

Cornelius was a high-level military official in the Roman army. He was a “devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people and prayed to God always” (10:2). His servants said that he was “a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews” (10:22). These statements reveal that Cornelius was truly an exemplary man. 

One day, he saw an angel of God in a vision (10:3). The angel came to him and informed him that his prayers and alms were “come up for a memorial before God” (10:4). The angel then instructed Cornelius about what he was to do. Because we are given four separate records of this angelic encounter (10:3-7; 22; 30-32; 11:13-14), we know that God has greatly stressed to us this event in Cornelius’ life. Interestingly, we are given key information in the last record that is not provided in any of the others: the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, who would tell him words, whereby he and his entire house would be saved (11:13-14).

Based on the information provided, we learn many important truths about how this good man was not saved. First, he was not saved by being a good man. Though he was an exemplary man in many ways, he still needed to be saved. His good deeds of giving alms to people did not save him. His being religious did not save him. His fear of God did not save him. Though he prayed to God continually, his doing so did not save him. His being just in his dealings with others did not save him. Though he was a model citizen who had a good reputation among all the Jews, he was not saved.

Furthermore, though he had an authentic encounter with a true angel of God, that supernatural experience did not save him. What’s more, though God had heard his prayers and remembered his alms, he still was not saved!

After the angelic encounter, Cornelius immediately sent for Peter (10:7-8; 33). Peter came to him. Upon seeing Peter coming in, “Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I myself also am a man'” (10:25-26). Peter was the Christ-chosen leader of the apostolic company. He thus was the top religious leader among the disciples of Jesus. Cornelius met this supreme religious figure and did homage to him, but his doing so did not save him. We thus learn that meeting and doing homage to any mere man, even the supreme religious leader of one’s time, will not save a person. 

After Cornelius explained to Peter why he had sent for him (10:30-33), we read how Cornelius was finally saved. As the angel had told him, to be saved, Cornelius had to hear words from Peter whereby he would be saved. . . .

(Read the full article)

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

Interpreting the Word "Lord" in the NT

March 5, 2011

In the Greek version of the 39 books of the OT, 37* of them use the Greek word for Lord (kurios) to express the judicial actions or authority of God:

  • Gen. 6:5ff.; Exod. 9:3; Lev. 10:2; Num. 33:4; Deut. 32:36 
  • Jos. 24:20; Judg. 11:27; Ruth 1:17 
  • 1 Sam. 2:10; 2 Sam. 3:39; 1 Ki. 2:32; 2 Ki. 15:5; 1 Chr. 2:3; 2 Chr. 7:21 
  • Ezr. 9:15; Neh. 1:8; Est.  4:17* [the Hebrew does not have a word for Lord here or anywhere else in Esther] 
  • Ps. 7:7; Prov. 3:32-33; Job 42:7 
  • Isa. 1:24; Jer. 1:14; Lam. 1:5; Ezek. 5:8; Dan. 1:2 
  • Hos. 1:4; Joel 1:15; Amos 1:2; Obad. 1:1-2; Jon. 1:14 
  • Mic. 1:3; Nah. 1:2-3; Hab. 1:12; Zeph. 1:2-3; Hag. 1:9; Zech. 1:12; Mal. 1:4

Only Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon do not have the word in them. 

This Greek word for Lord is used profusely in the Greek Old Testament to communicate truth about God as the Judge. For example, the word is used more than 40 times just in Genesis alone in that way. Genesis also explicitly identifies the Lord (18:22-33) as the Judge of all the earth (18:25). Although I have not yet compiled the exact number of times kurios is used concerning the Lord in this sense, it is very likely well over 2500 times in the OT (In my dissertation research, I compiled more than 3700 verses in the OT concerning God as the Judge, and a high percentage of them use the word Lord for God.) 

Based on this data, we should understand that any one who was familiar with the Old Testament in Greek would have had the profound sense that this word with great frequency communicates truth about God as the Judge. Almost every book they would read in their Bibles would testify to them about the Lord as the Judge. When such a person would hear apostolic evangelistic proclamation about Jesus that declared Him to be the One that God has made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), what truth about Jesus would he very likely have understood the term to communicate (cf. the subsequent flow of thought in Acts 2:37ff.)? 

Along that line, of the 27 books in the Greek NT, 21 of them use the word to express the judicial actions or authority of God or Jesus in some manner: 

  • Matt. 7:22-23; Mk. 12:9 (human master; clear implicit significance for Christ); Lk. 13:25-28; John 8:11 
  • Acts 2:20; Rom. 9:28; 1 Co. 4:4-5; 2 Co. 5:10-11 
  • Eph. 6:9; Phil. 2:11 (those under the earth will not bow to Him willingly, but they will be forced to do so; cf. Rom 14:11); Col. 3:24 
  • 1 Thess. 4:6; 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:16 
  • Heb. 10:30; Jas. 5:7-8; 1 Pet. 3:12; 2 Pet. 2:9; Jude 1:5; Rev. 15:4 

Galatians and Philemon do have the word, but they do not have any clear uses of it to convey someone who renders judgment. Four books (Titus and the Johannine Epistles) do not have any occurrences of the word. 

The Greek word for Lord communicates truth about God as the Judge in 58 of the 66 books of the Bible in Greek. When key statements in the New Testament speak of Jesus as Lord, we must interpret them in light of this data.

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

In Biblical Greek, Interpretation
 permalink

Repaving the Romans Road – Romans 6:23

March 4, 2011

In using the Romans Road approach to evangelism, after 3:23, many share Romans 6:23 next: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” In explaining the first part of the verse, they often use the concept of earning a wage after having worked at a job. Explaining how it would be unjust for an employer not to pay an employee who has worked all week, they testify to the similar necessity of receiving a penalty for one’s sin. 

In explaining the second half of the verse, they stress the contrast between a gift and wages. Often, the illustration of holding out a Bible to a person is used accompanied by a question of how a person would get the Bible as a gift. Many times, an explanation of eternal life as both a new quality of life and life that lasts forever is included at this point. 

Next, they explain that God gives the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Various scenarios are often used to illustrate this truth (for example, discussing a person’s necessity of going to the only welfare office in a town if they are to receive their welfare check). They then draw the parallel to receiving salvation only through Jesus. 

A closer look at the preceding revelation in Romans supports repaving the Romans Road at this point by tying the presentation of the verse more directly to what Paul says earlier in the book. Prior to 6:23, Paul speaks about eternal life for the first time in the middle of a lengthy section that focuses heavily on God’s actions as Judge (2:1-16). In this section, Paul indicts the person whom he addresses (“O man”; 2:1, 3) for judging others while committing the same misdeeds himself. After explaining to him God’s benevolent intent for His not judging him for his hypocritical judging (2:4), Paul informs him of the solemn future that awaits him: 

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; WHO WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life; But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God (2:5-11). 

In these verses, explicit statements (“the day of wrath . . . and of the righteous judgment of God”; “who will render . . . according to his deeds”; “no respect of persons with God”) show that the entire section emphasizes what God as the Judge will do with respect to every man. Paul, therefore, communicates in this section the truth that God, as the impartial Judge, will righteously render eternal life to certain people according to their deeds. 

Paul’s concluding this section by speaking of “the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to [his] gospel” (2:16) strongly confirms this analysis of the preceding verses that immediately surround his reference to eternal life. This concluding statement about “the day when God shall judge” does so by forming an inclusio with the earlier reference to the day of His judgment (2:5). 

Based on this analysis, Paul’s first reference to eternal life is in a context that highlights God as the Judge who gives eternal life. Furthermore, in the flow of thought, his concluding statement of God’s judging through Jesus Christ signifies that God is going to render eternal life to people through the judgment that He will carry out through Jesus Christ. The flow of thought from 2:5-16 thus sets forth Jesus Christ as God’s judicial agent who will render eternal life to those people who by patient endurance in well doing seek for it. (See both John 5:22-24 and 5:25-30 for essentially the same teaching from Jesus Himself about both His judicial agency and His giving eternal life by virtue of that authority; cf. 5:34, which makes explicit that He gave this teaching because He wanted the people to whom He gave it to be saved). 

Because Paul has already taught us as the readers of Romans this glorious truth before we get to 6:23, our understanding of the subsequent reference to God’s gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ should account for this earlier teaching. Based on this aspect of the flow of thought in Romans, we should use this truth from Romans 2:5-16 as at least a part of our explanation of how we get eternal life from Jesus. By presenting to sinners Jesus Christ as the Lord, God’s judicial agent (cf. 14:9-12), who gives eternal life, we will provide to them biblical truth that God intends for them to receive through our witness. 

In my preceding article, “Extending and Repaving the Romans Road,” I argued for adding Romans 2:16 and using it in explaining 3:23. This article further supports adding Romans 2:16 to the Romans Road. We thus would do well to extend and repave the Romans Road by adding this key statement and using the vital truth that it teaches to explain both 3:23 and 6:23.

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

Extending and Repaving the Romans Road

March 3, 2011

Millions of believers have been taught “the Romans Road” as an approach to evangelism. Often, those who present this approach teach the use of five verses: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 10:9-10; and 10:13. Undoubtedly, God has used this approach to save many people. Nonetheless, key considerations call for extending and repaving the Romans Road.

First, the “success” of this approach has resulted from realities that need careful scrutiny . . .

Read the full article.

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation
 permalink

Obedience to His Heavenly Vision

March 2, 2011

When he stood trial before King Agrippa, the apostle Paul declared, “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). What Paul said next is striking because it reveals that his own thinking about what was central for him to do in obedience to his heavenly vision was more than what many believers today might initially think that it was. His first statement about his obedience was not a statement explicitly about his proclaiming Christ. In fact, Paul’s first words in explaining his obedience do not say anything at all explicitly about his ministering to people content about Jesus. (Of course, proclaiming Christ was a key aspect of Paul’s obedience, as his later statements make clear [26:22-23]). Instead, Paul said that he . . . (read the full article)

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation ,
 permalink

Why Did Jesus Repeatedly Say, "My God"?

March 1, 2011

Before Jesus died on the Cross, He said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Matt. 27:46; caps in original). Although He Himself was fully God, Jesus addressed the Father as His God twice in this statement. Anyone who reads this statement and understands what He said has to reckon with the fact that the One dying on the Cross made an incredible statement that was not focused on His own deity. Rather, the reader is to accept the truth of the profound reality communicated by Jesus’ words concerning Him and His Father. 

In one of His resurrection appearances, Jesus said to Mary, “Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God” (John 20:17). Although He had risen from the dead, He had not yet been glorified at the Father’s right hand when He made this statement that speaks of the Father as His God. Again, the reader is confronted with a statement that directs his attention away from Jesus’ own deity and to that same profound truth seen earlier. Apparently, Jesus intended His saying to communicate to His original audience and to all who have encountered it thereafter that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection did not change this profound reality concerning Him and His Father. 

About six decades after Jesus had made these statements, Jesus appeared to the apostle John. At that time, He had already been glorified at the Father’s right hand for more than half a century. In one of His statements to John, the glorified Jesus again spoke of the Father as His God. This time, however, He strikingly emphasized that truth by repeating the words, “My God,” four times: 

“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name” (Rev. 3:12). 

Why did Jesus repeatedly say these words to John? Apparently, Jesus intended to communicate unmistakably to John that His ascension and glorification did not change the profound reality concerning Him and His Father that He had spoken of decades earlier. The Father was still His God, and Jesus wanted to be sure that John understood that fact and was mindful of it. 

Moreover, by His including these words in one of the letters to the seven churches, we understand that Jesus wanted to confront all the churches of that time with the same striking emphasis. Jesus thus desired that all believers of that time would be mindful of the profound reality of the Father as His God. 

Because the Holy Spirit has recorded these statements in Scripture, it is clear that there is a divine intent for all believers in all subsequent ages to be mindful of the fact that the Father is still Jesus’ God. The last statement by Jesus about that truth emphasized that truth far beyond the other two. Revelation was written several decades after Jesus’ glorification, and the greater emphasis on this truth in Revelation 3:12 suggests that believers at that time needed an even stronger presentation of that truth than those who lived during the days that Jesus was on the earth. 

If this understanding is correct, why was it so? Perhaps part of the explanation for what Jesus did is found in considering our human desire ever increasingly to resolve paradoxical truths and explain everything as fully as possible. How the Father can be the God of Jesus—who Himself is God—is a very difficult truth for us as humans to handle. Jesus’ final statement served not to lessen the difficulty but to intensify it greatly. We thus must conclude that God views it as very important that we maintain, regardless of the difficulties that doing so presents to our minds, full belief in and mindfulness of both Jesus’ own deity and the truth of the Father’s continuing even today to be the God of Jesus.

Jesus repeatedly spoke of the Father as His God so that we would not become overly focused on Jesus’ own deity and lose sight of the profound nature of His relationship to the Father. Revelation 3:13 shows that we must continue to make known that emphasis in our churches today.

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

In Interpretation
 permalink

Is It Essential to Use the Word "Savior" in Gentile Evangelism?

February 28, 2011

An examination of the occurrences of the word Savior in Scripture reveals some striking facts. The following study seeks ultimately to allow Scripture to direct us concerning the question, “Is it essential to use the word Savior in Gentile evangelism?” 

The word Savior does not occur in the OT until Second Samuel 22:3. This means that the first nine books of the OT do not have the word even once. It occurs twelve times in five books among the remaining 29 books. Of the 39 books of the OT, the word thus does not occur in 33 of them. (The word does occur in two other books as a plural in references to people [Neh. 9:27; Oba. 21]). 

Four books have one occurrence each (2 Kings 13:5; Psalm 106:21; Jer. 14:8; Hos. 13:4). Isaiah has 8 occurrences (19:20; 43:3, 11; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16; 63:8). Of these references, the first one refers ultimately to the Messiah’s future work in the end times, but the rest do not (at least directly and unambiguously) seem to set forth the Messiah as the Savior. The OT, therefore, uses the word Savior only once to emphasize who the Messiah would be. 

In the NT, the word does not occur in Matthew or Mark. God thus inspired two Gospels that present the life of Christ without using the word at all. The word Savior occurs twice in Luke (God [Luke 1:47] and Jesus [2:11]) and once in John (Jesus, 4:42). In Luke, it occurs in the angelic announcement at the birth of Christ, which certainly was an announcement of good news for all people. In John, the word occurs in a statement by some Samaritans who heard Christ and believed in Him. The Gospels, therefore, lack any explicit record of its use in evangelism by any human. They also do not record a single instance of Jesus’ referring to Himself as the Savior. 

The word Savior occurs twice in Acts (5:31; 13:23), but not in either of the two epochal accounts of apostolic evangelism, Pentecost and Gentecost. Instead, in two lesser accounts, the word occurs in explicit statements concerning what God has done for Israel. Acts 5 records the testimony of Peter and the apostles to the Jewish Council, and thus appears not to have much direct bearing on our understanding of Gentile evangelism. Though there were Gentiles present when Paul preached his message in Antioch (13:42), his subsequent statement (13:46) shows that he did not regard this occasion at least in some sense as Gentile evangelism. Acts, therefore, does not record a single instance of the use of the word Savior in a context of exclusively Gentile evangelism. 

The word Savior also does not occur in the four major theological epistles concerning salvation (Romans; 1 Corinthians; Galatians; Hebrews; this identification of these books as the four major theological epistles concerning salvation is from a recent statement in a sermon by Dr. Mark Minnick). Its absence in the greatest theological treatise in the world about salvation, the book of Romans, is incredible. Furthermore, Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 declare central truths about the gospel, but they do not use the word Savior to do so. (If use of the word were truly central to apostolic evangelism, 1 Corinthians 15:3 would seemingly have been a prime place for Paul to do so.)

In the other Epistles, it occurs 19 times. The word refers to the Father 7 times (three times each in First Timothy [1:1; 2:3; 4:10] and Titus [1:3; 2:10; 3:4] and once in Jude 25). 

The word Savior refers to Jesus 12 times in these Epistles (once each in four books [Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 4:14]; three times in Titus [1:4; 2:13; 3:6]; and five times in Second Peter [1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18]). Two of the twelve references to Jesus in the Epistles have significant relevance concerning apostolic evangelism (2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 4:14), but lack of further information leaves unclear their exact relevance for evangelism today. 

The word Savior does not occur in Revelation. The inspired capstone of divine revelation thus does not use the word at all to refer to Jesus. 

Based on this analysis of the divinely inspired content of Scripture, how much emphasis and what kind of emphasis should we give to this word in our doctrine and practice? In particular, is it essential to use the word Savior in Gentile evangelism?

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

In Evangelism, Interpretation ,
 permalink