Exegetical analysis on Paul's conversion in Acts 9

In preparation for preaching on Acts 9. Saul's conversion I was struck by Paul's response to being blinded and hearing the voice of Jesus.
The first point is that Saul calls him Lord. Have you ever wondered why? Some might think is it the nature of the encounter that convinced him, yet our text hints that it is more. It starts with the voice calling Saul Saul. Why the repetition? Saul was blinded, he wasn't made deaf!
Being a Pharisee Saul knew his Scriptures. He knew how God had called to Abraham who was about to sacrifice his son. Genesis 22:11  Then in Genesis 46:2 God called to Jacob, it's "Jacob, Jacob. - don't be afraid to go down to Egypt" Again in Exodus 3:3 when God calls to Moses from the burning bush .. it's "Moses, Moses." He knew how also when God called to Samuel in 1 Sam 3 it's the repetition of the name again. "Samuel Samuel". [ This pointed calling is also significant in Jesus' words to Martha Martha in Luke 10:38-42 ] Scripture tells us that this repetition was common in the way God called to people for whom He had a significant part for them to play in His Plan. I am not detracting at all from God's self authenticating  authority by pointing this out, merely to say When God himself revealed himself to people in the Old Testament this characterised the encounter.



A second thing that strikes me as unusual is that Saul on having his blindness removed, in the next verse, vs 18, then he arose and even before he'd eaten he gets baptised. Context shows us that this is not Baptism in the Spirit, and anyway such Spirit Baptism would not require one to get up and be baptised before eating! That being the case it is water baptism being spoken of here. What is unusual about this is that baptism was only required of gentiles who wanted to come into the covenant fold of Israel and Worship the God of Israel. They needed cleansing but the Jews did not consider that they themselves needed it. That's why when John the Baptist came preaching and baptising it was confronting to Israel.
We read nothing in our text in chapter 9 that stands out as the reason for Saul to be baptised.
Yet there is a reason when one again considers context. When one remembers that Saul was at Stephen's stoning as recorded in Acts 7 things take on a different perspective.  The witnesses laid their garments at the feet of  young Saul as we are told in Acts 7:58. As John MacArthur says, the fact that the witnesses laid their garments at the feet of Saul, [ following Levitical law ] highly suggests Saul was at the forefront of the proceedings.
Now what had enraged the religious leaders was Stephen's declaration that he saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God 7:56. But almost passed over here in Stephen's speech is verse 51. where he calls them a stiff necked people, uncircumcised in hearts and ears. that is - just like gentiles and what follows is that if they are just like gentiles [ the uncircumcised ] they the Sanhedrin, are in need of cleansing! And this is just what Saul himself had been like!
Paul's Proclamation:


The last "anomaly" in our text, something that confronts us, is found in verse 20 The first recorded proclamation of Jesus to the Jews is to declare Him the Son of God. We know from reading and studying the Pauline letters a bit about Paul, and what figures as central in his teaching is the Messiah, the Christ. But that's not the first word on his lips, something we would have thought would be given his Jewish hearers. Here is something in need of deeper research. Indeed the Son is intimately tied up with the Messiah in Paul's writings, not merely as the same person but in conceptual terms. Now besides being intelligible to the Jews who saw Moses as a son, Israel as a son, angels as sons, more importantly given Nathans oracle in 2 Sam 7:14 God himself would adopt David's Royal descendants as heirs, "his house" of 2 Sam 7:11. Then it has been found that certain circles of the Qumran fellowship link the Davidic Messiah as Son of God. Scripturally, Paul's emphasis in Romans 1:3-4, Heb 1:5, 5:5 are focusing more on enthronement than birth ... see again the specifics of Acts 13:33 concerning this aspect.
In this regard also one cannot again bypass Acts 7 with Stephen's speech where he accuses the religious leaders of slaying the righteous one, who Stephen's declares he now sees standing at the right hand of God, a declaration that enrages the Sanhedrin who take him out of the city and stone him.


This isn't to say the Son does not signify the one of unique standing and intimate favour in God's Work. It is to suggest that enthronement, Jesus as God, is the focus here.


Some of the gems of Acts 9


In Christ
Gary

The Kingdom of God Pt1

The Kingdom of God has been a subject of great interest over the past 15-20 years or so, and a good thing too as it was a subject heard relatively infrequently in the pulpit of many and also lacking in thoughtful discussion amongst many Christians.
That it is so lacking in discussion by Christians is a very sad state of affairs given that the Gospels begin by stating that John the baptist came preaching the nearness of the Kingdom of Heaven Matt 3, and Jesus likewise Matt 4:17.
If this Kingdom figures so strongly why is it that we fail so miserably to understand what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of Heaven / God ? Context must be considered in getting the correct perspective on this Kingdom for He was preaching to Jews whom he expected to understand what it was he was preaching about. One thing for sure, to start with we need to repent of our present day glib comments and preaching from the pulpit about preaching the gospel, or using phraseology such as "let's be on about the Gospel" or "let's be Gospel people" when we refuse to expound the passage of Scripture in front of us that clearly mentions the Kingdom of God.
I notice that one of my favorite preachers Alistair Begg has just done a series on the Kingdom of God, at Truth for Life, however although he says many wonderful things I am afraid his perspective on the Kingdom is definitionally warping the Bibles teaching at that point and neutering the breadth of the Kingdom the Bible puts forth and that Jesus preached. Strong words and I will be held to account for saying them and I will indeed need to justify them. I do so not to malign a great man but to hope that in seeking to understand God's Word iron might sharpen iron. So let me attempt that here.
Alistair is quite correct in saying that

God rules over all areas of life, both spatially and geographically

but when he adds that

He even rules over even the disobedience of rebellious men and women

he moves from speaking of the spatial and geographical to the spiritual and moral realms. In this sense I believe he has then evacuated his definition of the Kingdom of God as

representative of the sphere in which God's rule is gladly accepted.

Is that not the spiritual realm or the moral realm? Let's leave aside whether biblically man ever gladly accepts God's rule since although positionally he is in Christ and so he has true legal standing before God, but practically he is in need of sanctification, becoming more like Christ being transformed in his mind Romans 12 etc. What Alistair has done is speak correctly of God's Sovereign rule and yet somehow wanted to distinguish from this the realm of the Kingdom of God which is where his rule is gladly accepted. This is in my mind confusing the issue.
Again he repeats that

the Kingdom of God is expressive of the sphere in which men and women submit to His rule.

Alistair then goes on to ask whether

your heart is a sphere in which God's Kingly rule is gladly accepted.

This then suggests that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual realm, and it automatically rules out any suggestion as to whether the bible teaches it could have broader application as well. It's to build our theology along the lines of the old children's song "I serve a risen Saviour He's in the world today ... He rules within my heart". The only question is whether the bible means a lot more than that when speaking of the Kingdom of God.
As I see it the bible first of all declares that God is Sovereign there is no area in which He does not rule. secondly that there is a clear teaching of Scripture concerning the Kingdom of God. How one holds these together is indeed the issue. I just don't see the bible advancing the concept that the Kingdom of God is the expression of the sphere of where His rule is gladly accepted.
The answer to understand the Kingdom must begin in Genesis. It is at Creation that man is made by God vice regent over the earth. He is to rule the earth as God's Vice Regent. This pronouncement is made despite God being Divine Personal Sovereign Creator. Man is Created in God's image and given rule over the earth and animals and fishes etc as God's ViceRegent. At the fall we see Adam handing over this realm to Satan, something that Satan still rules over post resurrection and Ascension of Jesus as Paul teaches in Ephesians 6. What is being taught is that Adam has rejected this Vice Regency and it awaits the Messiah to take it back fully.
Theologically this is why the old Protestant Theology used to teach the three offices of Christ, that of Prophet Priest and King. As Prophet he is the True Word of God. As Priest he is the full final Sacrifice for Sin that the Old Testament sacrifices were but a shadow of, and as King He will retake the ViceRegency over Creation that that the first Adam surrendered and the second Adam, Christ himself will restore.
Is this not what the Scriptures are teaching?

Yours in Christ
Gary

The Queensland false Messiah - AJ as Jesus

Our news has recently been awash with reports on the new reincarnation of Jesus in the person of Alan John Miller 47 in Kingaroy Queensland.
Not only does Alan Miller claim to be a reincarnation of Jesus the Christ, but also his "wife" Mary Suzanne Luck is a reincarnation of Mary Magdalen. So just as Luck would have it, they meet in a town in Queensland, Australia out of the 6 billion people on this planet. Coincidence? Well highly improbable but it's not on those grounds we dismiss him as a cult leader and deceived.

My daughter, just 13 years old observed, well that's easy to show as false - all you need to do is look for the holes in his hands and feet and in his side. But as I explained to her, although she is going down the right track, it would be dismissed by Alan and Mary because they are claiming to be reincarnations of Jesus and Mary.
Yet we as Christians can on at least two grounds dismiss this claim.
First it contradicts the Bible directly, and the Bible is the Word of God which Jesus himself gave full authority to. After all, his answer to the temptations from satan were "It is Written". In Hebrews 9:27 it says man is destined to live once, and after that face the judgment. This life is all one has. Reincarnation is a false teaching.
But secondly, Jesus with holes in his hands and side and feet as seen by the disciples after his death and resurrection, ascended to the right hand of God where he awaits the time the Father has determined to return in the second coming. He did not die to be reincarnated as someone else. He is at the right hand of the father - living! He with his resurrected body which reveal the scars of the cross will return in that same resurrected body at His glorious appearing.
So on two grounds this fellow Alan is mightily deceived and leading others astray in demonic deception.

We do well to know why this is deception and a cult, and be able to answer enquiries from unbelievers. And then to pray for these people to be convicted by God's Holy Spirit and find Christ, and in him eternal life, and life to the full.

In Christ,
Gary

God's Word is not open to changing by leaving out Son of God

If you read Christianity Today back on Feb 2011 you would have noticed an article called The Son and the Crescent. It dealt with a new translation that would make it easier to reach Muslims with the gospel since they have an aversion to understanding Jesus as the Son of God. The major reason Muslims find it offensive the article claimed is that it suggested that God had sexual relations with Mary. To say that in Arabic the word ibn "son of", carries biological connotations is really just to point out the inadequacies and frustrations from limitations in translating to other languages, which in the end need to be corrected in teaching what that particular phrase means. We do the same with the English translations using the word love from the Greek which can mean agape, phileo, eros and storge.

Furthermore, this is a poor reason I believe to change Son of God to "the beloved Son who comes ( originates ) from God." It creates more problems in regard to truth than it solves in regard to correcting an error of perception by some Muslims.

We could ask what is meant biblically by originates, as in one sense all Creation originates from God as He made it. As to the lesser word "comes", well Angels also come from God, in that they are sent.

Worse in my mind is that the originators of this bible are in fact adding to by subtracting from God's Word. It is not merely a translation issue as replacing the English word charity with the English word love as being more accurate, as some would want to claim. This is to translate a phrase "Son of God" as something else. It it to replace a Title with a description of an event! and that changes meaning.

It effects our whole doctrinal, that is biblical teaching about the Christ. Apart from it's subtle impact on the doctrine of Trinity, it implodes real sonship. Jesus alone, as the early church recognised is truly Son of God, we can only call God Father in that we are adopted through Christ! And that is why giving the sense of Scripture is a required job of the preacher.

And this understanding of the sonship of Jesus the Christ, is no where made more explicit than in Gal 4:4, but then you must read the whole of it's context there to feel its force. Whereas no one elses sonship could achieve anything, it was the Son of God who alone wrought redemption. In the end, that fact is offensive to Muslims just as it is offensive to unbelievers in general who are in rebellion against the Lord God. That reality is offensive to any religious person because they are in need of redemption and it cannot be a work of themselves for they are dead in their sin!

Many years ago I had a friend who was a convert from Islam to Christianity and who "evangelised" in a Muslim country where his life was on the line continually. But the religious and political leaders often would invite him to explain this Christianity to them. He never once watered down what Scripture taught and his hearers were able to discern the sense in which Scripture laid out Truth, and they didn't refuse to countenance what was said because of their preconceptions. Some of them were even converted by the Spirit of God.

Lastly, we must ask a serious question, quite apart from adding to or subtracting from the Word of God which is serious enough by itself, and that question is will we then water down for all to whom the word of God is offensive? Will we suddenly say leave out the bit about gluttons and adulterers and homosexuals not entering the Kingdom of God?

Friends, Wake up. It is God who transforms people and brings them into His Kingdom. It is the Word of God which is a powerful sword. It is not our wise words or worldly wisdom but God alone who must be set apart as Lord in all our endeavours.

In Christ,
Gary