RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH: 2 TIMOTHY 2:15
The common sense approach
I want to conclude this study by saying that every doctrine or portion of scripture that is not fully understood, or is in question, should be able to stand up to the “doctrine and scripture test.” This test is in five parts and it is based on plain old common sense.
1. The context requirement: Is the doctrine or scripture in question contextually correct? This would be the “who, what, when, where, how and why” of the doctrine, or text on which it is based.
Who is speaking and to whom?
What is he speaking about or concerning?
When is the person speaking, the historical time?
What is the location of the one speaking, geographically speaking?
How is the one speaking, or in what manner of speech is he or she speaking?
Why is the subject matter being said? It is only common sense to take the context of a verse into account when attempting to understand it.
2. The text requirement: Words mean something. God surely knows what to say and how to say it. Therefore, God says exactly what He means and means exactly what He says. If He uses a certain word to say something, there is a definite reason for it. He wouldn’t and does not use a word for something and mean something else.
I like what Dr.E.W.Bullinger has to say on this same subject in his Commentary on Revelation. He says and I quote “Let us say at once that we believe, and must believe (1), that God means what He says; and (2), that He has a meaning for every word that He says. All His works and all His words are perfect, in their choice, order and place: so perfect, that, if one word or expression is used, there is a reason why no other would have done.
Try to forget all that you have "received by tradition," and ask from whom you learned this or that. Be prepared and ready to unlearn anything that you may have received from men, and learn afresh from the Word of God itself.—Commentary on Revelation.
The bible is the inspired word of God. Even though He used human agency, it was the Holy Spirit that inspired it, even the very wording of it. This is in keeping with the thought that God means what he says and says what He means, and that words mean something. In many instances using an interlinear Bible and then a good lexicon is the only way to get the correct meaning. Here again it is only common sense to know that God truly knows and mean exactly what He says.
3. The interpretation requirement:
(a)] Is the scripture or doctrine an interpretation or an application? Many times a word, for instance “sanctification” is misapplied. The correct interpretation in the New Testament is from the Greek word ‘agios. The Greek word ‘agios pronounced hagios, means “holy, righteous, pure, separate from common condition and use, dedicated to, set apart.” And might I add that it does indeed mean the same thing in all its usages. However, when we look at some scriptures we find that it has two different applications:
The first is our standing. In 1st. Corinthians 6:9-11 ”Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, not effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, not thieves, not coveteous, not drunkards, not revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (emphasis added).
Here we find a worldly church with some that were carnal Christians having been brought out of a pagan society, had been converted from some pretty ugly lifestyles. All through this chapter and preceding ones as well as those to follow, the Apostle Paul finds it needful to rebuke them for sinful behavior. Still yet he says of them that they are “washed, sanctified, and justified.”
The key here is that it was “in the name of Jesus, and by the Spirit of God.” This was their standing before God. This is how God sees them. In Christ, by the Spirit of God He sees them completely different than how they actually were. God sees them, and any of us that are saved, through the blood of Jesus. When He looks at those that belong to Jesus, He sees the sacrifice that His Son made on the cross. He sees only the finished work, the final product, not that which is in progress.
So the word sanctified in this portion of scripture is our standing.
The second application is our state. Our state is where we actually are. We are a work in progress, unfinished, still somewhat held tied to our old nature, the sinful flesh, which is tempted, tested, and tried every day. This is the real world that we live in. This is the reality that we face day to day. As the old saying goes, “some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you.” Sometimes we get the victory over temptations, and sometimes temptation gets the victory over us. This is not an excuse, it is reality! This is not to minimize the seriousness of sin, nor to make light of it, only to show the reality of it. While our self-righteous natures tend to bristle at the thought, deep down inside we know it to be the truth. We are to rejoice in Jesus that has delivered us from the penalty of our sin nature.
Our state will not end until we are at home in heaven, delivered from this body of death. When this old body of mine is laid to rest, there will be more than just the body that died. My old sin nature went with it. Every time that we resist temptation we die a little more to this world. That is why Paul says, “I die daily.” “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
Here is a thought or question. If Paul had repented of all his sins and completely died to sin and self on the road to Damascus for his salvation, or even as a result of it, why did he say he died daily? Why did he identify himself as “chiefest of sinners” and “least of all saints?” Why did he feel it needful to write the words found in Rom. 7:14-25, if it wasn’t to show the presence of the sin nature in the saints?
How much of the old sin nature is buried with our bodies depend on how much we die to the flesh here in this life. For some it won’t be much, for others it will be more. It goes back to the old saying about the bear. How often did the bear, [flesh] win and how often did we, (the Spirit) win?
So, to claim that a person can be “sanctified wholly” as pertaining to this life and daily conduct would be a misapplication of the word “sanctified.” We indeed are sanctified wholly in our standing, but not in our state.
(b) Does the scripture or doctrine hold up with other scriptures? Does it agree or disagree with other scriptures? To know the answer to this we should have a good concordance handy along with a good dictionary of biblical words. I call this the find and define method. The concordance is to find them and a dictionary to define them. No serious student of the bible should be without these two resources.
I personally believe that when a portion of scripture is taught or preached and an application is used without explaining that it is only an application, many will accept it as an interpretation and then a doctrine. Does common sense require properly identifying the difference between interpretation and application?
(4) The opinion requirement: Is this from what others have said or wrote? Many times something is said and repeated until it becomes an accepted truth whether it is scriptural or not. One example of this is the subject matter at hand, repentance. Many well meaning preachers and teachers have repeated that one must “repent of their sins” in order to be saved because some well known evangelist or preacher has said so. It has been repeated so many times that it has been accepted as “gospel truth.” But does it hold up to the test given here?
Too often many preachers are guilty of just repeating what they are taught and supposed to learn in seminary. Many of so called doctrines are just mere opinion or understandings of men (see Matt.15:9).
I like the attitude of those noble men and women of the church at Berea where we find that it says of them in Acts 17:10-12 “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea : who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the world with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed; also honourable women which were Greeks, and of the men not a few.”
They weren’t going to be taken in by anyone, and neither should we. They wanted to know if what they, the apostles, were teaching and preaching was in accordance with the word of God, and so should we. Does common sense ask if what we understand is really the word of God or man’s opinion?
5 The reality requirement.
This requirement is often a result of applying the other requirements. Can we really see our understanding of a scripture actually happening? For example, can we really see “entire sanctification” happening? Can we really see “total lordship” happening? Can we see “entire separation” happening? I think that our answer to these questions reveal our level of pride. We are not seeing ourselves as God sees us. These things are noble goals and we should work toward them to mature as Christians but understanding that the completion is not going to happen in this body of flesh.
Is the interpretation plausible? Is it likely or unlikely? Is it possible or impossible? Is it probable or improbable? This is not to be based on human reason only. It is to be based on scripture. What do the scriptures say? Do you realize that of all the giants of faith given us in scripture, Daniel and Jesus are the only ones that had no sins recorded to them.
Is plausible to forsake or turn away from all sins for the rest of our lives? Can you actually see this happening? If we ask ourselves and we’re honest, is it true in our lives? Why did Paul spend so much time and effort in talking about sins to N.T. believers if they had indeed forsaken and turned from all sins before salvation? Common sense is required to determine if something is plausible or not.
PUTTING THE TESTS TO THE TEST
In light of this test, let’s examine what Gary Gilley defines and explains as repentance in his book “This Little Church Went to Market.” I use it simply because I have the book in front of me at this moment of preparation. From his quotes of many past theologians, it is clear that the belief is an accepted truth in many churches. I quoted others of today’s times earlier in this study. Perhaps brother Gilley is also just repeating what he had learned from other more prominent preachers and writers. Perhaps he just believes what he was taught in a Bible College.
Brother Gilley uses several verses of scripture in presenting his view. Most of them are found in the book of Acts. There are others but these will get the gist of the test across. It will give us a good idea if what is commonly taught is biblically correct.
On page 125 he states and I quote, “In New Testament use, as we will see, metanoeo always has a reference to changing one’s mind about sin in such a manner that the individual actually turns from sin” (emphasis his).
Further in his book on page 129 after using and quoting scripture, he again says and I quote, “In each of these cases it is irrefutable that repent/repentance means changing one’s mind or turning from sin. Not once is repentance defined as changing of one’s mind about Jesus” (unquote and emphasis mine).
And again one last quote, page 133 he says, “We believe we have shown conclusive proof that in every case where its meaning can be determined, metanoeo/metanoia (emphasis his) in the New Testament means to turn from sin. On the other hand there is not one clear use of any word for repentance that specifically and exclusively means to change one’s mind about Christ. Not one! (emphasis mine).
Really? Let’s put it to the test.
We will go through them chronologically
1. Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
This is being taught that when Peter said “repent” he was referring to turning and forsaking of sins. Is this true? The test:
The context requirement: To get the full context we must read the verses 1-37. Who was speaking and to whom? It was Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He had been called to be a disciple early in Jesus’ ministry. He had witnessed the many miracles which Jesus had performed. He had witnessed His crucifixion, and seen Him alive three days later. He was one of them that had been with Jesus for forty days after His resurrection (Acts 1:2-3; 1Cor.15:1-8). Peter was talking to Jews. This is clear from verses 5-11. Verse 5 says “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.”
The “what” of our context requirement is the gathering of the people and the preaching of Peter.
The “when” requirement: This was on the day of Pentecost, a very important religious event. It occurred after the upper room experience. Everyone that could came to Jerusalem for this event. It was and is a very important Holy Day. It occurred in the very beginning of the Church.
The “how” requirement is that Peter and the other disciples were speaking in the languages of all the many people gathered there. They were speaking powerfully and convincingly.
The “why” is the message they were speaking: “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (2:11). “But Peter….”. Then Peter stands up and gives a great sermon on Jesus, His life, death, burial and resurrection. This is what Jesus had told them in chapter 1:8 “But you shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” It also agrees with Paul’s definition of the gospel of salvation in 1st. Cor.15:1-3. These were devout Jews. These were people that believed in God with all their hearts. They lived as best they could by the Old Testament law, handed down by Moses. They weren’t a bunch of killers, thieves, adulterers, fornicators, or homosexuals. They were devout men! They went to a Synagogue, they paid their tithes, and offered their sacrifices. If they were in our churches today they would be considered saintly.
If the modern thinking on repentance is accepted, then Peter was telling these devout men they needed to repent of their sins. Really? What sins was he talking about? Which sins did he point out? When in truth, these devout men had rejected Jesus, they had crucified Him (2:22-24). Did they need to repent, turn from, forsake their sins; or change their minds about who Jesus is and what he did? I believe from this portion of scripture it is clear that the context shows without a doubt that it is the latter. We need to understand that when they repented/believed on Jesus their sins was forgiven. As noted earlier, real, biblical repentance and believing are the two sides of the same coin, you don’t get one without the other. They do not mean the same thing but they go hand in hand.
Let’s see what Gary Gilley says about this verse along with other verses used here: “We have seen some of these before (the five references of repentance for salvation), but note carefully each context. In Acts 2:38 the Jews are told to repent for the forgiveness of sin. In Acts 3:19 they are to repent that their sins would be wiped away. Acts 17:30 says that God is calling men everywhere to repent. In Acts 20:21 Paul said that he preached to both Jews and Greeks the need for repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 26:21 is Paul’s mission statement which is to call men to repent and turn to God. In none of these instances is repentance redefined (according to Gary Gilley’s definition of repentance as forsaking or turning from sin), as a changing of one’s mind about who Jesus is. In at least three cases metanoeo/metanoia is definitely in the context of sin and forgiveness of sin. Our conclusion throughout the book of Acts is that nothing has changed- repentance still means what it has always meant- turning from sin.” End of quote.
Gary Gilley ought to heed his own advice, concerning noting carefully each context. He has completely ignored the entire context. As I have so far shown and will continue to show, the context proves that metanoeo/metanoia is used in the context of changing the mind about who Jesus is and who God is and who we are and our condition without Christ. It never in these verses relate to sins. Yes, it is our sins that God hates and separates us but, but it is our rejection of His Son that ultimately condemns us.
His conclusion as underlined above changes completely the correct usage of the Greek word metanoeo/metanoia from meaning a “change of mind” to “turning away from” (that would be the Greek word “ apo-strepho” that is where we get our word apostasy). This changing of the word meaning comes under the “text requirement.”
Acts 3:19, the context of who and where. Again Peter addresses some Jewish people for he was in Jerusalem at Solomon’s porch near the temple after performing a great miracle by the power of God through Jesus (vv.1-11).
The context of what, and why: Here again Peter addresses their rejection of Jesus not their individual sins (vv.13-15).
The when of the context is in the first century of the Church Age. And it says that it was the ninth hour, but that is probably not relevant at this point or for this study.
The why of the context: The people were marveling at the miracle done to the impotent man (vv.9-12).
Then we come to vs.19-21where we read “Repent you therefore, and be converted (epi-strepho, turned to, in this instance to Jesus, God), that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”
Please note carefully that the repentance and conversion comes before the sins being blotted out. The forgiveness of sins is conditional on the repentance and conversion, not the other way around as Gary Gilley proclaims. It clearly states that they were to repent and be converted so “that your sins may be blotted out.” It clearly does not say turn from your sins, forsake your sins, so that you will be converted.
Here again, the context, text, interpretation, and the reality tests, demands a strict interpretation. Opinions do not matter.
Acts 17:30 “And the times of this ignorance, God winked at; but now commands all men everywhere to repent.” What is the context? We need to go back to verse 17. Paul was in Athens Greece. He had been disputing with the Jews and with the devout persons (vv.16-17). Athens was given wholly to idolatry (vs.16) and it bothered Paul. Then from vv. 18-29 Paul is not dealing with pious Jews but with pagan unbelievers that did not even know who this Jesus was (vs18). So, Paul proceeded to declare the gospel of salvation to these pagans (vv.22-31).
It is clear that these pagans needed to change their minds about God and His son Jesus Christ. They had never heard of Jesus. They did not know the God who created the heaven and earth (vs.24), and everything in it. They did not know who Jesus was because Paul introduced Him to them in verse 31.
This is the reason for the words “and the times of ignorance” found in vs. 30, and just quoted.
Also note that it was the resurrection of the dead that made them curious not their bondage to sin and idolatry. I love vs. 34 “Howbeit, certain men cleaved unto him, and believed.” They believed what Paul had told them about the resurrection and judgment and the ultimate Judge, Jesus Christ, His “appointed time of judgement ”(vs.31). In other words they were miraculously saved by the grace of God. In none of these verses do we see the mention of sins or the repentance from them. It is true that idolatry is a grave sin, but it cannot be turned from and forgiven until they hear, believe, and place their faith in the work of Jesus Christ.
Is sins referred to in an indirect way in these verses? Not to my understanding. I believe that if God had meant sins, He would have said so. God means what He says and says what He means; else all of the scriptures are of private interpretation and open to mean whatever one wants to believe. And believe me, there is too much of that going on.
Acts 20:21 “testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Context: Paul is meeting with the leaders or elders of the church at Ephesus. He was giving them his farewell. It begins in verse 17. In these verses he gives his testimony of mission and service to God. It continues to verse 38. This is the context of verse 21, the who, what, when, where and why. The how is probably in a sorrowful atmosphere (vs.37-38). He is now going to remind them of his service to the Lord. He says in verse 21 that he had been “testifying to both Jews, (remember the Jews by large rejected Jesus as Messiah, much like today, and they needed to accept Jesus as Savior and Messiah), and also to the Greeks, (those that believed in pagan gods, and had never heard of Jehovah or Jesus), repentance toward God (who they didn’t believe in) and faith (the same Greek word as believe) toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Question: Were sins mentioned? What was their greatest need? Were they sinners? Yes! What did Jesus say that condemns us in John 3:3; 14-18; 36. How does one get saved? What does Romans 10:8-13 tell us?
So this is the question, what does this verse in Acts 20:21 tell us? Does it mean that he preached repentance (turning away from, forsaking) of sins, or changing their minds about who God is, who we are and our condition, who Jesus is and what He did on our behalf?
Acts 26:20 “but showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet (axios; deserving, suitable, worthy) for repentance.”
The context begins in vs.1 of this chapter. It is Paul’s testimony and defense of the charges brought against him by the Jews (vv1-2).
He tells him of his background in verses 4-5. He then proceeds to answer the charges vv. 6-11 even informing Agrippa of how he had persecuted the Christians before he became one of them.
Then in vv. 12-20 he gives his testimony of his salvation and commission.
However, the real context comes in vs.23. Here is Paul’s testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. “That Christ should suffer (die on the cross), and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead (the bodily resurrection, and to never die again) and should show light unto the people (unbelieving Jews), and to the Gentiles (unbelieving pagans).”
Notice, that sins is mentioned only in vs.18 “To open their eyes (people, unbelieving Jews, and Gentiles pagan unbelievers vs.17), and to turn (again epi-strepho).” them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith in Me (Jesus).
In this verse who is talking to Paul? It is Jesus, vs.15!
I can understand why the pagans needed to turn from the power of Satan unto God, but do not the Jews strongly believe in God? Yes! But they had rejected God’s word that was prophesied in the O.T. about the Messiah, and His ultimate mission. If you reject God’s word, you in effect reject God do you not? Compare Ps.138:2b “for thou has magnified thy word above all thy name.” If you reject Jesus and God’s word, you reject God (comp.1John5:12).
So, yes, the Jews as well as the pagan Greeks were blind and in darkness, and under the power of Satan and needed to turn to God by faith in the one they had rejected, Jesus the Christ, and for forgiveness of sins, and the inheritance of heaven that was given to the sanctified (Christians, the saved, the believers).
But please note that the turning to God by faith in Jesus came before the forgiveness of sins. That was and is the condition for forgiveness and salvation. It is not the other way around. When you turn to Jesus and ask for forgiveness and acceptance from Him you have done all the repenting that is necessary, and you are eternally forgiven and saved. Then comes the turning from sins. Then the Holy Spirit comes in and makes His home. The house cleaning does not come first! It cannot come first, there is no conviction, no desire, no power, there is no success until the Holy Spirit comes in at the moment of salvation.
I have went through the book of Acts, at least in five occasions, and shown where many have erred from the truth. I sincerely believe that according to the context, (the who, what, when, where, how and why): the text (what does God actually say, does He mean what He says and say what He means, and that words mean something): that repentance is exactly what the word “metanoeo” says it means, a change of mind. In the case of salvation it is about who God is, who we are, who and what Jesus is, and that that change of mind is the other side of the coin of believing or faith. And when that is once and for all dealt with then salvation is granted, sins are forgiven, and the Holy Spirit begins to dwell with the new believer and turning from and/or forsaking of sins begins.
I want to present one more portion of scripture for consideration.
In Acts 15 a church council is called over some men, probably Jewish Judaizers seeking those that they could turn from the faith of Christ back to Judaism. However, Peter stands and makes an appeal that disputed these Judaizers.
He says that in verse it was by him that the Lord used to open the gospel to the Gentiles and believe. So, he is saying that salvation comes by believing. Believing what? Believing the gospel of Christ (v.8).
Then in verse 9 he says that God has purified their hearts by faith. In other words their salvation came by faith.
Lastly we see in verse 11 that Peter says that “we believe that through grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they.” This showing that being saved, salvation comes through grace. Adding these together we see it is believing in faith in the grace of the Lord. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Where is repentance from sins mentioned? It isn’t. As I have said before, the real meaning of repentance is changing the mind about who God is and His holiness and judgment of sin; who we are, sinners without hope, and who Jesus is and what He did on our part, He took our condemnation and sin and gave us His perfect righteousness.
It is the other side of the coin of believing. We cannot change our minds without believing and we cannot believe without changing our minds.
That is the reality of it, that is what the Bible, God’s word, says and it is consistent throughout His word.
One last thought. Repentance from sins for salvation results in time after time experiences. Turning to faith in Jesus for salvation is a one- time experience. I do not want to return to a system like in the Old Testament where a person had to return year after year with a sacrifice for sins. I prefer the one-time sacrifice provided by Jesus and His atoning work on the cross when He cried “it is finished.”