Daniel 9:24-26a, Part 3

"24 Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and a moat, but in a troubled time. 26a And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing."

Part 1 and Part 2 can be found here.

So far we have seen that this prophecy concerns Jesus' crucifixion and we have seen that the start date for the prophecy was Nisan 1, 444 BC. In this post we are going to look at the three sources mentioned in the previous post to see how some people have attempted to calculate the prophecy dates. Before we cover those models, some groundwork has to be laid.

1. Most of the people who attempt to calculate the prophecy assume, based on Genesis 7:11, 24 and 8:4 where 150 days passes and exactly 5 months pass, that there is a 360-day year (12, 30-day months) that is God's "prophetic calendar". The timing of prophecies must then be calculated using the 360-day year rather than our modern 365.25 days per year model with leap years. This is highly debatable. Probably the foremost expert on the Ancient Near East and an Old Testmanet commentator, Gleason L. Archer, said that there is no evidence that anyone ever used a 360-day year. But, I am not saying this "prophetic calendar" is correct, I am merely attempting to show the timing of Daniel's 70 weeks is accurate by way of showing how close we can get to calculating it. In the end, you will see that if we just had a bit more data, we could calculate it accurately.
2. This prophecy culminates in Christ's crucifixion, so we are looking for that Friday Passover sometime between 28-33 AD. However, the prophecy says first that the anointed one will come. A lot of commentators agree that this is Jesus' triumphal entry. This is intimately associated with the Passover lamb instructions that God gave the Israelites in Exodus 12:3, 6. Namely, that the lamb has to stay in the house with them for 4 days before they kill and eat it (10th Nisan with the Passover being 14th Nisan). This means Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem had to come on Sunday so he could "stay in house" for 4 days as our Passover lamb: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. The passover supper would have been on Thursday evening, the crucifixion on Friday, and the resurrection on Sunday. Ultimately, we are looking for a Sunday triumphal entry in a year that had Passover on a Friday.
3. For the sake of brevity, I am leaving out a lot of the astonomical data concerning the moon phases. The first book's author used data from the Royal Observatory in England to calculate his dates. It would be time consuming and confusing to include it. I am giving the information you need, not necessarily all the information used.
4. As I have said before, calendar matching from ancient to modern is not something that can be done with high accuracy.
With that in mind, let's get started.

The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson
Anderson's model is wrong, but it is the most robust modern try at it and it forms the basis for a lot of subsequent thought about this prophecy. He starts off by naming the wrong starting date. He thinks Nisan 1 is March 14th, 445 BC. In his defense, he wrote in the late 1800's/early 1900's, scholars didn't know about the dating procedures of ancients. Remember we said that accession year dating was used, so Artaxerxes' first year, 465 BC, was only partial and wasn't counted. His "first year" by their count was 464 BC. That puts the 20th year (Neh 2:1) in 444 BC, not 445 BC. Next, he calculated the days from that date.
69 weeks of years x 7 years per week = 483 years
483 years x 360 days/year = 173,880 days
173,880 days + March 14th, 445 BC = April 6th, 32 AD (a Sunday)
This seems to work. But, Passover in 32 AD was either Sunday or Monday. This does give us a start though.

Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Part VI: Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology by Harold Hoehner
Hoehner took Anderson's model and made some refinements that get us a little further. First, he fixed the start date. Nisan 1, 444 BC is March 5th, 444 BC.
173,880 days + March 5th, 444 BC = March 26th, 33 AD
Hoehner does some finagling with the prophetic calendar and the solar year calendar that I am not showing. I will discuss that below. This also doesn't work because the 26th was a Thursday. This would put the Passover on Monday. We need a triumphal entry on a Sunday.

"An Examination of the Chronological Difficulties of Hoehner and Ice's Calculations of Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks" by Bob Pickle
Pickle points out some problems with Hoehner's model that will be helpful to us. But, Pickle himself comes to the conclusion that Christ's baptism was the end of the prophecy. I am going to ignore that part of it. First, the Jews inserted leap months, 7 every nineteen years, into their calendars. That means they had an extra month 7 times every nineteen years. 444 BC was one of those leap years. That makes the start date April 2nd, 444 BC when the extra month is taken into consideration.
173,880 days / 365.24219 days per year (solar year) = 476 solar years
476 solar years x 365.24219 days per year = 173,855 days
173,855 days + April 2nd, 444 BC = March 29th, 33 AD
March 29th, 33 AD is a Sunday -- Triumphal Entry
March 30th, 33 AD is a Monday -- Nisan 10th
       30th, 31st, 1st, 2nd -- lamb kept in house
April 3rd, 33 AD is a Friday -- Nisan 14th (this day would start the evening before according to Jewish reckoning and means the Passover dinner was eaten what we would call Thursday night)
This seems to fix everything, except that there is some serious rounding in the math done. The numbers are actually 476.0676744 solar years and that translates back into 173,880 days. Keeping the numbers accurate would put the triumphal entry on a Friday. Also, the Passover was on Saturday or Sunday in 33 AD. Finally, I am not even going to get into the arguments over what year Jesus' ministry started.
At this point, you can see that every model and set of calculations has some problems, but this still gets us very close to calculating the date of both Christ's triumphal entry and crucifixion. I said previously that this series would be a little bit anticlimactic and I still think it is. However, the fact that we cannot accurately calculate the prophecy in no way means that is isn't true. Jesus held the Jews responsible for not knowing it. In Luke 19:41-44, he says with my highlights:

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

It is still readily believable that Jesus orchestrated his death down to the very day. That should give us great comfort. Jesus willingly sacrificed himself for us even though he knew the whole time what was coming and the very hour of his death. It also demonstrates the incredible knowledge and power of God that in 483 years of human history, He effortlessly organized it so that the table was set for the God-man, Jesus Christ, to appear on the day he told Daniel 600 years before hand.

Daniel 9:24-26a, Part 2

"24 Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and a moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing."

In part 1 we discussed verse 24 wherein we saw that the prophecy related to Daniel in this passage is Messianic. That means it has to do with Jesus Christ as the Messiah. In particular, it has to do with his crucifixion. The reason we can pinpoint that particular aspect of his ministry, his atonement that is, is due to the fact that the removal of transgressions, sins, and iniquity is in view. That only happened on Calvary when Christ was crucified. As mentioned last week, there is a specific timing element to this prophecy and it ends at Christ's crucifixion. In today's post we will look at some theories about where the timing fits in history based on an evaluation of verse 25 and 26a.

Verse 25: The opening phrase of verse 25 is important. It says; "Know therefore and understand...". A lot of people think that prophecy isn't that important, but what we see here is that Gabriel, with a message from God, is telling Daniel to know and understand what he is about to say. Since this is part of the Old Testament canon that God saw fit to give to us, we had also better know and understand it to the best of our ability. The next phrase, "that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem..." is very specific. It points to some kind of word that will allow or order the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem. Remember that in 587/6 BC, Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian armies destroyed Jerusalem and the first temple. Jerusalem has lain in ruins for close to seventy years which is exactly what God told Jeremiah (25:11; 29:10) he was going to do to Israel for their rebellion. At this time, about 538 BC, the Jews were living under Persian rule, so anything they did in their homeland had to be approved by the ruler of the Persian empire. That is exactly what happened. In 538/7 BC, Cyrus the King of Persia allowed, by decree, Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the temple. This is recorded at the end of 2 Chronicles, verses 22 and 23 and it was prophesied by God through Isaiah in chapter 44, verse 28. This is exactly where Ezra picks up, in chapter 1, verses 1-4; with Cyrus' decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was the first time that Jews were officially allowed to return to Israel since the Babylonian empire conquered Judah. But, this is not our decree. It says nothing of the city of Jerusalem. It only directs the construction efforts of the temple. The prophecy says specifically that the word is to "restore and build Jerusalem", not the temple.
We have yet another decree concerning the temple in Ezra 6:1-15. It was really just a reinforcement of Cyrus' original decree due to the opposition the Jews were facing in completing the temple. They did get the temple finished, but we still don't have a starting point for the prophecy we are investigating. For that we have to look in Nehemiah 2:1-8.
In Nehemiah chapter 1 it says that Nehemiah got a report that Jerusalem and its gates were still ruined. This causes Nehemiah great consternation. So much so that Artaxerxes, the King of Persia at this time, recognizes his sadness and grants his request to return to Israel. This is how it happens. Nehemiah 2:1-8:

"In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was before him, I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence.  And the king said to me, “Why is your face sad, seeing you are not sick? This is nothing but sadness of the heart.” Then I was very much afraid.  I said to the king, “Let the king live forever! Why should not my face be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' graves, lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?”  Then the king said to me, “What are you requesting?” So I prayed to the God of heaven.  And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' graves, that I may rebuild it.”  And the king said to me (the queen sitting beside him), “How long will you be gone, and when will you return?” So it pleased the king to send me when I had given him a time.  And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, let letters be given me to the governors of the province Beyond the River, that they may let me pass through until I come to Judah,  and a letter to Asaph, the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress of the temple, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall occupy.” And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me."

Now we have our decree to fix Jerusalem! In addition, we have the month this decree was made; Nisan, which is March/April on our calendar. And, we have what year it was; the 20th year of Artaxerxes. Most commentators agree that because no day is given along with the month, this means that Nehemiah refers to the first day of the month. Historians and biblical scholars have shown that the king referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus, also known as Artaxerxes I. He reigned from 465-424 BC. The 20th year of his reign would be 444 BC due to the fact that ancient peoples started counting a king's rule from the first full year, which in this case would be 464 BC. This means that Nisan 1, 444 BC is our start date.
Our end date is where the real argument lies, though people still argue about the start date as well. The scripture says: "to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and a moat, but in a troubled time." The prophecy is now split up into two parts; 69 weeks and 1 week to make seventy weeks. There are 69 weeks total when added in the first part (7+62). However, even this is a point of contention among translators and theologians about how to take the 7 and 62 weeks, but I think it makes the most sense to join them so that it is 69 weeks or 483 years between the decree and the coming of an anointed one. The HCSB, KJV, NASB, and NIV translate it to this effect. I usually read the ESV and that is what is quoted above. That leaves 1 week or 7 years at some point after the "prince" comes. Who is the anointed one that will be the end of the 69 weeks? This seems assuredly to be Christ. In light of verse 24 and the discussion of the end of sin and the ushering in of everlasting righteousness in which a "holy [one]" (see part 1 about the translation here) is anointed seems very clear; it is Jesus Christ. Specifically, it is his crucifixion. This is the only place where atonement for sin was made. Verse 26a gives us that information: "an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing." If Jesus is the anointed one, and I think he is the person in view, then his being "cut off" and coming to "have nothing" seems evident in the Gospels. Specifically in Matthew's Gospel chapter 27, verse 46.
With all that in place, we can now turn to the actual modern calendar dates and figuring out how this prophecy is laid out. We have a start date of Nisan 1, 444 BC and an end date of Christ's crucifixion to be determined by calculating the 69 weeks. In order to do this we are going to take a look at 3 dating models and, in a bit of an anticlimactic ending, we are going to realize that dating this thing with 100% accuracy is virtually impossible this side of heaven. However, even though we can't pinpoint the exact dates, we can get close, close enough to understand that it does happen just as God said it would. That should make us all realize the power in the foreknowledge of God and His providential control of all world events. The three models we are going to look at are:

1. The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson
2. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Part VI: Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology by Harold Hoehner
3. "An Examination of the Chronological Difficulties of Hoehner and Ice's Calculations of Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks" by Bob Pickle

This is where we will continue next time.

Daniel 9:24-26a, Part 1

"24 Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and a moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing."

There probably are not many scripture passages more argued about within Christianity than this one. The timing of end time events is always a much talked about topic. What I want to do here is offer some of my own thoughts that have come about as I have studied and read about this passage. There is an obvious timing element to this prophecy, and that is the real center of the debate about it. To what or whom does the timing refer? When does the clock start? When did it end? How do we compare calendars to figure out exact dates for what we may think it means? All these questions and more matter. Let's get started.
First things first. Daniel has recognized that Jeremiah's seventy years of desolation's (Jer 25:11; 29:10) of Jerusalem are nearly passed (9:1, 2) and that God's mercy will soon be realized among the Jews. Realizing this, Daniel prays (9:3-19). Mainly, he repents for Israel of all the evil that they have done against God and begs for His mercy. As a result, Gabriel comes to give Daniel (and us!) insight into what the future holds (9:20-23). That is where we will pick up the interpretation.

Verse 24: The seventy weeks can also be translated seventy sevens (also in verses 25, 26). Most commentators think this means that the overall time period being discussed is 70 weeks of years or 490 years (70 weeks x 7 years/week=490years). The weeks are for "your people" and "your holy city". I think we can agree that this is the Jews and Jerusalem. Gabriel is relating this prophecy to Daniel, so this seems to be straightforward. Daniel's people are the Jews and his holy city would be Jerusalem, where the temple mount is (the temple is no longer there and the 2nd temple is yet to be rebuilt). After that, there are 6 items listed that will happen in the seventy weeks: finish transgression, end sin, atone for iniquity, start righteousness forever, seal vision and prophet, and anoint a holy place. The early Church fathers who commented on this passage all thought that these things had to do with Christ (for example Theodotion 150 AD and Jerome 400 AD).

1. "to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin": The only thing that put an end to sin is Christ's sacrifice. It is through His blood that we can be free of the evil influence of sin that enslaves us (Rom 6:16). This was a common understanding of other passages of prophecy. Take a look at Isa 40:1-3. Notice that God tells Isaiah to tell "her", i.e. Israel, that her sins are paid for (v. 2). That is followed by a verse you probably know. It is a prophecy used in the Gospels for John the Baptist (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23). These things to be done in the seventy weeks clearly seem to be Messianic as well.

2. "to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness": Following on the end of sin, iniquity will be atoned for as well and the resulting righteousness will be everlasting. Christ atoned for our sins (1 John 2:2) and ushered in the Kingdom of God, which will be everlasting, though it is not yet fully here until Christ returns.

3. "to seal both vision and prophet": This line concerns a ratification of God's visions and prophecies that we can find throughout the rest of the Old Testament. The idea here is that when Christ's work is complete (the cross and resurrection) it will be a Divine confirmation of everything that God has said would happen.

4. "to anoint a most holy place": There are some good exegetical arguments that show that this could be rendered "to anoint a most holy (thing) or (one)" instead of "place". This would fit with the idea that we are talking about Christ's sacrifice and that he is being anointed as the one who would fulfill the obligation to the law and the head of the new covenant. This also fits well with verse 25 that speaks of a coming "anointed one", as it discusses the timing of the prophecy in detail.

This is the end of part 1. The emphasis here is that this prophecy is Messianic. It concerns Jesus Christ. Specifically, it concerns his sacrifice on the cross that covered our sin and has inaugurated the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Next time, we'll cover verse 25. In this verse we will get into all the timing issues concerning the prophecy.

Calling Men to Salvation

One of the major questions that has been argued about for centuries centers around God calling men to himself in order to save them. Does he call everyone? Does he only call the elect? One of the central texts in this debate is Romans 8:29-30:

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Some observations of the text itself are in order first. First, God foreknows people ("those"). Because he foreknows people, he predestined them. Those predestined are the ones called. The calling follows the predestining. Then the called are justified and glorified. Keeping the order of God's work in mind, this raises some issues for two of the major positions on this issue: Arminianism and Molinism. Calvinism already accepts a limited atonement, which means that God only calls the elect. I'll address each of the others in turn.

Arminianism (for a comprehensive look at Arminian theology, see: A Compendium of Christian Theology by William Burt Pope, vol. 2, pg. 335ff)
This system posits that "foreknew" means that God knew beforehand who would choose him and everything else flows from that knowledge. God knew I would pick him, so I was predestined to be like Christ, so he called me, justified me, and glorified me. The problem with this position is that God's foreknowledge in this passage is of "those", i.e. individuals, not decisions. The other issue is with the call. Arminians hold that God calls everyone to salvation. This means that God both wants everyone to be saved and gives everyone that opportunity, even if not everyone accepts the salvation of the Lord and is damned as a result. The issue lies in the text itself based on the order of God's work. If God calls everyone, then he justifies and glorifies everyone. That is universalism (everyone is eventually saved by God's loving will and Christ's atonement) and can't be correct based on other biblical texts (John 3:36 for example). It appears to me that even though Arminians want to affirm a universal call, they cannot. Based on Romans 8:29-30, if God called everyone, everyone would be saved.

Molinism (for a comprehensive look at Molinist theology, see: The Only Wise God by William Lane Craig)
Molinism may not be that well known, but it is gaining some headway among some theologians and Christian philosophers. Molinism posits that God has middle knowledge. This means that God knows what person P would do in circumstance C. If God knows what everyone would do in a given set of circumstances, that gives him the ability to create a world in which he has already taken into account all of his creatures free decisions before he instantiates the world we see now. This is seen as a way to protect the libertarian freedom of humans while also acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of God. So, in the Romans passage, a Molinist would simply say that God's foreknowledge includes middle knowledge and all of humanity's free decisions have been considered. There are two big problems with this philosophy. The first is that we still end up at the same place concerning the call as we did with Arminianism. If God calls everyone, everyone would be saved. Molinists (as far as I know) are not universalists, but, like Arminians, hold that God calls everyone. This means the calling of God can't be for everyone. The second problem is that the Bible does not indicate that God looked at his creatures' free decisions before he created the world. In fact, Ephesians 1:3-14, God chose us "according to the purpose of his will" (v. 5) and "the counsel of his will" (v. 11). That doesn't sound like we had any input when God created the world. It sounds like God, in his divine sovereignty over all things, chose us before he created the world.

The point of this post is to show that all of the major systems of thought concerning the operation of salvation; Arminianism, Molinism, and Calvinism; end up at the same place concerning the calling of men to salvation. That is that God doesn't call everyone. This in itself raise one more issue. Many scriptures indicate that God is calling everyone (such as Acts 2:38-39). It would be silly for Peter to exhort everyone to repent and be baptized if God isn't calling everyone. What gives? In this instance I think that Calvin has it right. There are two calls of God. One, the gospel call, is for everyone. This is simply the preaching of the Gospel to everyone. The second call is called "effective calling". This call is the drawing by the Father of the individual to Christ (John 6:44). Without God's working, no one would come to him, and it is evident in several places (Acts 13:48; 16:14, etc.) that it is God doing the work of salvation in our hearts.

I realize this raises other issues, but I think that's enough for this post. If you hold to any of these systems and want to say that God calls everyone to salvation the same way, you have to explain how that doesn't result in universalism and you have to show that it is in accordance with the clear teaching of scripture. If you can't do those two things, your theory won't work. But, if you can do those two things, I'm open to hearing and discussing your theory.

The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: Acts

This post is a continuation of the series about what the New Testament has to say about the Holy Spirit. In part one we saw what the Gospels had to say about the Holy Spirit. Today we are going to take a look inside the book of Acts which probably has the most extensive material about the Holy Spirit in the Bible.

Acts
1:2
At the beginning of the book, Jesus gives commands through the HS to the apostles. I think this could have one of two meanings. One is that this means Jesus was still operating with the power of the HS even though he was glorified. I think this could be the case because the promise of the HS has, at this point, yet to be delivered and therefore, the apostles were not operating by the guidance of the HS. The other meaning is just the opposite. That the apostles received the HS in the upper room per John 20:22 and thus, were operating with his guidance. Either way, God is directing their actions at this point, which is a major theme of the book of Acts and it certainly happens through the HS after Jesus ascends (10 days or so before Pentecost) and the HS descends on the day of Pentecost.

1:4-5
Here Jesus says that the apostles should wait in Jerusalem to be baptized with (or in) the HS. We saw this same phrase in Matthew 3:11 (and Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). Jesus is relating the very same thing that John the Baptist said and that is recorded in those passages. This makes it abundantly clear that this "baptism with the HS" is the same in both the Gospels and here in Acts. But what is it exactly? It can't have already happened to the apostles in the upper room (John 20:22) when they received the HS from Jesus' breath. It wouldn't make any sense for Jesus to baptize them in the HS in the upper room and then tell them to wait for what they already had been given. It also can't be a second act of grace available for all believers but not necessary for salvation because it is explicitly connected to John the Baptist's saying in the Gospels where those baptized in the HS are wheat who will be gathered into the barn while those not baptized in the HS are chaff who will be burned. As I said in the Gospels post, Luke and John are recording what happened to the apostles at that time. Both the upper room and the day of Pentecost are unique. In my view, the narratives are not to be taken as a strict theological model for what should happen to every believer. The Pentecostal/Charismatic who affirms the baptism in the HS is partly right in that all believers have more of the HS on offer, but they are wrong about the nomenclature (the name baptism in the HS has to do with salvation, not strictly empowerment) and number of possible "renewed infillings" (my own phrase) of the HS. The non-Pentecostal/Charismatic (or those that don't hold to the baptism in the HS but do hold to other fillings of the HS) is also partly right in that the birth of the Church on Pentecost is unique, but they are wrong (at least those who think the fullness of the HS comes at salvation and there is no other filling) in saying that no one can have an Acts-like Pentecostal experience anymore and the gifts of the HS are not in operation.

1:8
The HS gives power to be a witness to the ends of the earth. This is the non-controversial aspect of the baptism in the HS. Whatever that means, believers receive power to be witnesses for Christ.

1:16 (also 4:25)
Again (Matthew 22:43) we see that the HS spoke through David when writing his Psalms. This implants the idea for us that the scriptures are more than just a humanly authored book.

2:1-4
The day of Pentecost arrives. The apostles hear a mighty rushing wind, tongues of fire rest on them, they are filled with the HS, and they all speak in tongues.This is the aforementioned baptism in the HS. Pentecostals and some Charismatics take this to be normative for all Christians after or concurrent with salvation. But only the speaking in tongues part. They do not expect a mighty rushing wind or tongues of fire. As I said before, I don't think this is either normative or exclusive. It could or could not happen to any Christian. I don't think God has a particular pattern, at least not the he has revealed to us, concerning fillings of the HS.

2:17-18
Peter declares Joel's prophecy fulfilled as the HS is poured out on all the believers. As in the OT, the HS is directly connected with prophecy, but now, everyone who believes has access to these gifts of God. It should be noted that "the last days" is to be distinguished from the end times. The last days began when Christ ascended while the end times are the specific events leading up to Christ's second coming.

2:33
Peter continues later on that what the people are seeing and hearing is the promise of the HS from the Father. This is as he is wrapping up his speech on the day of Pentecost.

2:38-39
Peter says "repent and be baptized" to the crowd and tells them that they too will receive the HS (what they are seeing and hearing (2:33)). He tells them the HS is for everyone God calls.

4:8
Peter is filled with the HS as he speaks to the Jewish officials who want him to stop sharing Christ. The Pentecostal baptism in the HS doctrine encounters another obstacle here. The scripture does not say anything about the baptism in the HS. It says "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit...". Does this mean that Peter was already filled or was he being filled in that moment? When looking at the Greek words, the verb filling is in the aorist tense. Other places in Luke's writings that use the same verb in the same tense indicate a new, on the spot filling of various things: fear (Luke 5:26), rage (Luke 4:28, 6:11), wonder and amazement (Acts 3:10), jealousy (Acts 5:17, 13:45), and confusion (Acts 19:29). It would seem that Luke is using filled the same way here since that is the way he uses it everywhere else. This means that there is yet another filling of the HS that Peter received in order to speak boldly. The baptism in the HS did not complete his reception of all the HS had to offer.

4:31
After Peter and John return from the council of Jews, the believers rejoice and give praise to God asking to be granted the continuation of witnessing with boldness (v. 29). God answers their prayer and they are filled with the HS (v. 31) yet again. This offers the same problem as I just talked about to the Pentecostal baptism in the HS.

5:1-11
This passage relates the story of Ananias and Sapphira. They lied to the HS and both fell dead. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, Peter says Ananias lies to the HS (v. 3). When Sapphira comes in later and tells the same lie as Ananias, Peter asks her why she is testing the Spirit of the Lord (v. 9). This is another equating of the HS with God himself as we have seen earlier in the Gospels. The other interesting item is that Ananias and Sapphira are both judged on the spot for lying to the HS. After tragic events (think the Orlando homosexual night club shooting) some Christians are quick to say that this isn't God's judgment because his wrath was poured out on Jesus on the cross and the final judgment will come later. While this is true in part, it appears that some judgment will still happen in the age of grace before the final judgment. I am not proposing that the Orlando shooting is one of those judgments; I don't know if it is or not. Only God does. But, this is just something to ponder when everybody on all sides of issues like these start talking.

5:32
Preceding this verse, the high priest and the Sadducees arrested the apostles. God miraculously released them from jail. They were then brought before the high priest and, presumably because he is the only one mentioned by name, Peter speaks. He offers two ideas for our study of the HS. The first is that the HS is a witness of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. This will comport with some other verses we encounter later on in Romans. The second is that those who obey God will receive the HS. This seems to indicate that Peter is saying the Sanhedrin, whom he is addressing, is not obedient to God.

6:3, 5
In these verses the apostles pick men to do menial tasks while the apostles preach the word of God (v. 2). One of the requirements is that they be full of the Spirit (v. 3) and when they are chosen, Stephen is mentioned as being full of the HS. This is really our first indication, aside from Christ on earth, that we are to be so obviously led by the HS that people can readily recognize his work in our lives. As we go through the epistles we will come across this theme a lot.

6:10
Stephen is so full of the Spirit that it comes through in his witness. As a result the Jewish proselytes who are opposing him (v. 9) cannot withstand him. In also says in verse 8 that Stephen was doing great wonders and signs among the people. Cessationists will argue that the signs and wonders were only for the apostles, but Stephen is not an apostle.

7:51
When Stephen is arrested and appears before the Sanhedrin he recounts the salvation history of the Israelites. In particular he highlights the fact that the messengers sent to Israel from God were rejected by Israel. In verse 51ff he ties that directly in to the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. His rebuke is that they resist and their fathers resisted the HS.

8:14-17
Peter and John go down to Samaria after hearing that they "received the word of God" (v. 14). After realizing that they had only been baptized in water, they laid on hands and the Samaritans received the HS. This gives credence to the Pentecostal baptism in the HS doctrine. We have the receiving of the HS apart from salvation. A separate experience. But, there is no mention of tongues being spoken in this account when the Samaritans received the HS or the name "baptism in the HS"; although this can't count for either argument (Pentecostal or not) because it would be an argument from silence. It is also possible that this is simply an extension of the day of Pentecost specifically for the Samaritans, as Samaria was mentioned by Christ (1:8), to ensure the understanding that they should be included as they were traditionally rejected by "pious" Jews.

8:18-20
On the heels of the Samaritans reception of the HS, Simon the magician asks Peter for the power to give the HS by offering him money for which he is rebuked. Peter says that HS is a gift from God (v. 20). This harkens back to Luke 11:13; the Father will generously give the HS to those who ask, and apparently, obey (Acts 5:32).

8:29
The HS speaks to Philip about the Ethiopian eunuch. Another example of being sensitive to the HS so that we may be guided daily by him.

8:39
Philip is carried away by the HS. This could be supernatural in that he was transported (think Star Trek) to Azotus (v. 40) or it could be natural in that the HS called him to Azotus when he was finished speaking to the eunuch.

9:17
Ananias (a different one than ch. 5) goes to Saul to lay hands on him and fill him with the HS. Saul did not speak in tongues when he received the HS, though again, this is from silence so it won't work for either side of the baptism in the HS argument.

9:31
After Saul returns to Jerusalem and is accepted by the disciples, it says that they were walking in the comfort of the HS as the Church multiplied.

10:19-20 (also 11:12)
While Peter is contemplating his vision of the great sheet with animals the HS speaks to him. This seems to be a word of knowledge per 1 Cor. 12.

10:38-48 (also 11:15-17)
When Peter visits Cornelius concerning the vision, he presents the Gospel and says that Jesus was anointed with the HS and power (v. 38). The HS and power seem to go together quite often and rightly so as it is the HS who empowers believers (1:8). While Peter is speaking the HS falls on the gentiles of Cornelius's household and they speak in tongues (v. 46).  They are then baptized in water (v. 48). This does not fit the supposed Pentecostal pattern of salvation with the infilling of the HS, then the baptism of the HS later on. Everything is out of order so to speak. This is one of the reasons why I think we should not use the upper room (John 20:22) plus the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as a strict model in which every believer experiences the exact same thing regarding salvation and the gift of the HS.

11:24
Barnabas is said to be full of the HS. This instance seems to be an ongoing thing for Barnabas. He is always full of the HS.

11:28
Agabus the prophet prophesied in the HS about a famine that would happen. As I have said before, the HS in the OT was primarily seen as the spirit of prophecy. This is another of the gifts of the HS and another non-apostle exercising the gift. This should come as no surprise however, because in Acts 2:38-39 Peter says the HS is for everyone which means so are the gifts.

13:4
Saul and Barnabas are sent out by the HS. Another example of daily guidance by the HS in a believers' life.

13:9
Here we have another instance of someone getting another filling of the HS. This time Paul when he rebukes Elymas blind.

13:52
Yet another instance of people, the disciples this time, being filled with the HS.

15:8
The Gentiles get the HS too as discussed at the Jerusalem council. This is perhaps, the first understanding among the apostles of the universality of the Church.

15:28
In the Jerusalem council's letter to the Gentile believers, there are certain requirements laid out. The apostles proclaim that this is both from them and the HS. This seems to me to be an indication of both the will of God in action through the free actions of those led by the HS.

16:6-7
The HS (v. 6) and the Spirit of Jesus (v. 7) forbid Paul and his companions from evangelizing in Asia (modern-day Turkey). I have no idea why!

18:25
This verse speaks of Apollos being "fervent of spirit" or "fervent in the Spirit" even though he knew only John's baptism. Fervent in the Greek is ζέω (zeō) which means to be hot. So Apollos was hot in the Spirit. Now that we are approaching the end of Acts, we can see this pattern of characters who are full of the HS doing the work of God. This is a major theme in Acts.

19:1-7
Paul questions the Ephesians concerning what baptism they received. They had John's only. Paul baptized them in Jesus' name and then laid hands on them. They received the HS, spoke in tongues and prophesied. This seems to fit the Pentecostal model. Salvation, then baptism in the HS. I don't agree that it works that way, but I will save my comments for the summary at the end.

19:21
Paul being led by the HS.

20:22-23
Paul being led by the HS that constrains him and testifies to him about affliction in every city.

20:28
Paul is speaking to the overseers at Ephesus. He reminds them that it is the HS and thus, God, who has charged them with the care of the "church of God". This is quite a statement. Paul finishes by reminding them that God himself obtained the Church with his own blood.

21:4
The Tyre disciples apparently are prophesying to Paul not to go to Jerusalem. It says that "through the Spirit" they were telling him these things. This of course concerns Paul's imminent arrest and imprisonment. I suppose this could also be a word of knowledge.

21:11
Agabus prophesies to Paul while in Caesarea about his arrest. He says "Thus says the HS."

28:25
Another instance of the HS inspiring the OT writings. This time Isaiah as Paul quotes 6:9-10 by saying that the HS spoke through Isaiah.

That is all the references to the HS in the book of Acts. I will summarize the main themes of the HS's work below.
1. The HS is a constant presence in the believers' life. Guiding him, speaking to him, and through the gifts that have been in action in Acts like prophecy, word of knowledge, miracles, and healings. The beginning of the book correlates receiving the HS with power. Power to witness, to perform signs and wonders, and operate in the gifts.
2. The baptism in the HS is directly related to John the Baptist's statement in the Gospels. The Pentecostal view can't be correct in light of this. Also, the instances of conversion and filling of the HS in Acts are all different:
(a) The apostles received the HS in the upper room (John 20:22) and then were baptized in the HS and spoke in tongues (Acts 2:1-4).
(b) The Samaritans received the word of God, were baptized in Jesus' name and then received the HS when Peter and John laid hands on them. No tongues are recorded. (Acts 8:14-20)
(c) Paul receives the HS from Ananias (Acts 9:17) laying on hands. He was baptized after Ananias' actions (v. 18). No tongues are recorded.
(d) Cornelius' household is overcome by the HS and they speak in tongues while Peter is sharing the Gospel with them. Then they are baptized. (Acts 10:38-48)
(e) The Ephesians were baptized, Paul laid hands on them, they received the HS, spoke in tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-7)
As can be seen, these are different. Different orders of events, different gifts or none displayed, different ways of receiving the HS. I don't think Acts is prescriptive, but descriptive. It tells us what happened, not what should happen every time. If it does tell us what should happen, it is that in any order someone can be baptized, receive the HS, and be saved. The HS also fills believers anew at different periods and for different tasks which is antithetical to the Pentecostal view that the baptism in the HS is a one-time, full empowerment subsequent to salvation.
3. The cessationist view that the gifts of the HS were only for the apostles (or the apostolic age) does not work with Acts. Men and women who were not apostles used the gifts. In particular, prophesy was given that was not recorded in scripture. This doesn't fit the cessationist model. I'll address this more in 1 Cor.
4. The HS is responsible for the OT writings. This has been indicated repeatedly both in Acts and in the Gospels. It will continue to be a theme throughout the NT.

That's it for Acts. Next time I will cover some of Paul's letters depending on how long the post gets.

Book Review: When Heaven Invades Earth by Bill Johnson

Bill Johnson is the lead pastor at Bethel Church in Redding, California. I first heard of him in the documentary Finger of God. The movie is about the everyday occurrence of miracles. I imagine many people are familiar with Johnson through the worship music produced by Jesus Culture and Bethel Music; both of which come out of Bethel Church Redding. Bill Johnson is also known for his association with the New Apostolic Reformation movement and for endorsing the Lakeland Revival in 2008. In particular, he endorsed Todd Bentley, who was seen as the leader of the revival. As with any prominent pastor or church leader who puts sermons and teaching "out there" for everyone to peruse, Johnson has his detractors. I have read many things about Bill Johnson's teaching, both good and bad, but I have never, until now, actually engaged with his material first hand. That is why I set out to read one of his books. I wanted the source for much of the material I had been reading about secondhand. When Heaven Invades Earth is the book I saw quoted from most often and so, that is the one I purchased and read.
I will be completely upfront. I don't have many positive things to say about this book. I think the only real solidly positive item is that Johnson thinks Christians do not rely on the power of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives nearly enough. I agree with him in principle, but how he comes to that conclusion I cannot agree with at all. Stylistically, this book is short (189 pages), written in a staccato style with short, choppy sentences, and is sometimes very difficult to read and understand what exactly Johnson is trying to convey. There are two overarching themes in the book. The first is, as I mentioned above, that believers should be walking in the power of the Holy Spirit every day of their lives. This means not only sanctification, but the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as signs and wonders, miracles, and healings as we ask in faith and the Holy Spirit performs. The second major theme of the book is that man has lost dominion of the Earth to Satan in the fall. Jesus has reclaimed that dominion through the cross and now, we, as adopted Sons of God, can walk in that victory and renewed dominion of the Earth with the power of the Holy Spirit. In filling out the details of these teachings Johnson steps in every obstacle and error in his path. I am going to focus on three main issues I see with his teaching. They are: a pseudo-Gnostic doctrine that pits the "invisible" realm against the "visible" realm wherein the former is superior to the latter, an utter disdain for any of the conventions of Biblical interpretation that leads to absurd uses of scripture, and worst of all, a faulty kenoticism concerning the emptying that occurred at the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Johnson begins his discussion of the invisible realm by telling us that in order to see it, we must repent and have faith. He says: "Faith is the key to discovering the superior nature of the invisible realm" (pg. 42). This sentence comes at the end of chapter three as a set-up for chapter 4, which is titled "Faith-Anchored in the Unseen." I am going to quote a large portion of the beginning of that chapter for two reasons. The first is that I don't want anyone thinking I took him out of context and the second is that we can better analyze the entirety of this particular teaching, including his scripture references, to see what's wrong with it. The following is the first three paragraphs unedited from page 43.

 "Faith has its anchor in the unseen realm. It lives from the invisible toward the visible. Faith actualizes what it realizes. The Scriptures contrast the life of faith with the limitations of natural sight. (2) Faith provides eyes for the heart."
"Jesus expects people to see from the heart. He once called a group of religious leaders hypocrites because they could discern the weather but couldn't discern the times. It's obvious why Jesus would prefer people to recognize the times (spiritual climate and seasons) over natural weather conditions, but it's not quite so apparent why He would consider them hypocrites if they didn't."
"Many of us have thought that the ability to see into the spiritual realm is more the result of a special gift than an unused potential of everyone. I remind you that Jesus addresses this charge to the Pharisees and Sadducees. The very fact that they, of all people, were required to see is evidence that everyone has been given this ability. They became blind to His dominion because of their own corrupted hearts and were judged for their unfulfilled potential."

There is a lot to dissect here. For starters, in general terms, there are no scripture references given to back any of this teaching up. I left in the only reference, the parenthetical 2, which I will discuss shortly. The first two sentences say faith is anchored in the unseen realm and lives from there toward here (the visible realm). Without scripture references I am unsure what he means. In the context of the rest of the book, which never specifies what the unseen realm consists of, I can only infer that the invisible realm is some kind of esoteric universe full of different spirit substances that can benefit us. The reason I think this is because Johnson calls many things substances, such as: faith and fear (pg. 50), peace (pg. 66), and anointing (pg. 75). So our faith should be anchored in this unseen realm that is full of substances. There is never any mention of Christ our cornerstone, the true object of our faith (Acts 4:11) or of the invisible God (1 Timothy 1:17). As for the second sentence, how can the invisible live toward the visible if we are supposed to have the "eyes for the heart" fixed toward the invisible realm? I don't know and Johnson never explains. The third sentence is flat out false and comes from a mixture of mind science teachings and Christianity as popularized by Kenneth Hagin. He taught that faith is a substance and our words can be containers of this faith-substance. By speaking these faith-filled words aloud we create our own reality and can have anything we want through faith. This is where the prosperity gospel comes from and is the root teaching of Hagin and his disciples. In Johnson's defense, he never discusses prosperity, but nonetheless, this idea that "faith actualizes what it realizes" is the very same teaching. By believing in faith for anything we desire (realizing it), we can make it happen (actualize it). There is never any mention of God's purposes or will in this discussion of actualizing things. Ultimately, God's purposes will be done no matter how we think, say words, or believe in faith (Isaiah 46:8-11). This doesn't mean God won't do things we ask for, but it is not a simple matter of speaking words in faith for them to happen. Faith-filled words don't create or do anything, God does.
Johnson's next sentence is correct if we stick to the context of the Biblical citation he provides; 2 Corinthians 5:7, which says "For we walk by faith, not by sight." In the context of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is talking about the heavens (v. 1) and our wanting to be there (v. 2-3). Our being in heaven means our mortality has been "swallowed up by life" (v. 4). God has prepared us for this and sealed us with His Holy Spirit (v. 5) so we can walk in courage looking towards our redemption by walking in faith, not by sight (v. 6-7). This "good courage" (v. 8) drives us to please Him (v. 9) in anticipation of the final judgment (v. 10). This passage never says anything about seeing with the eyes of the heart through faith. Some may object that what Johnson means by invisible is the heavens, and this might be the case, but, again, as I stated above, he doesn't ever say that is what the invisible realm is. The context of the entire book leads me away from thinking that is what he intends.
I want to mention that there is a verse that says "eyes of the heart" in Ephesians, but this is not what Johnson references, so it's impossible to say if he has that in mind here. It is found in Ephesians 1:18-21 which says: "having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,  and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might  that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,  far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come." Even if Johnson is thinking about this verse concerning his sentence above, it is clear that "eyes of your hearts" has nothing to do with seeing into an invisible realm. It is about fixing our hearts on the hope of Jesus Christs' return.
The second paragraph opens with an assertion that we are expected by Jesus to see with our heart. I have already established that faith does not provide eyes for the heart to see into the invisible realm. Since that is the case, Jesus couldn't have expected us to see that way. It is an unbiblical concept. The passage in question, which Johnson does not cite, is Luke 12:54-57 (with a similar, but not the same, narrative in Matthew 16:1-4). Jesus does call people hypocrites for being able to discern the weather but not the "present time" (v. 56). The Matthew passage has the Pharisees and Sadducees, not Luke. Johnson is apparently conflating two different passages with a similar rebuke from Jesus. Luke says in 12:1 that "so many thousands of the people had gathered together" and in 12:54 "He [Jesus] also said to the crowds." This is the kind of careless Bible handling that I will discuss later on. Craig Keener, in his background commentary on the New Testament says that the signs for the weather (v. 54-55) were obvious and so was the truth of Jesus' message. They should be able to judge rightly about him (v. 56-57) (Keener, pg. 215). The Bible Exposition Commentary on these verses makes it more clear why they were called hypocrites:

"If people were as discerning about spiritual things as they are about the weather, they would be better off! The crowd could predict a storm, but it could not foresee the coming judgment. It knew that the temperature was about to change, but it could not interpret the “signs of the times.” The Jewish nation had the prophetic Scriptures for centuries and should have known what God was doing, but their religious leaders led them astray." (Wiersbe, pg. 223)

The issue was not some misinterpreted eyes for the heart that should be used. It was the fact that the Jewish religious leaders didn't recognize or refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and as a result, led the Israelites away from their and the world's Savior.
The last paragraph in this section has more of the same stuff about seeing with the eyes of the heart. I am not going to comment on that anymore. What I will comment on is, in my view, the pseudo-Gnostic language Johnson uses in the paragraph. Just to make sure we are all on the same page; Gnosticism taught that flesh is evil and spirit is good, and through secret and/or special knowledge (Gnosis) the elite (those who show interest) have access to it and are superior to "regular" believers (Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies, pg. 44). While Johnson doesn't quite say the same thing as the original Gnostics, hence my use of the term pseudo, he is saying that there is knowledge he has that gives us access to a superior realm, the invisible one, that can make us better Christians. He says that we have "unused potential" to do this. How do we have the "unused potential" to do this? Because we can all become divine, just like Jesus according to Johnson. On page 79 he says: "The anointing [Holy Spirit] is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil. These miraculous ways helped to set something in motion that mankind could inherit once we were redeemed." The implication is that we all have the potential to become divine. This sounds like New Age divine potential teaching which you can read about here. This is clearly wrong. Many biblical passages discuss God's uniqueness (Deut 4:35,39; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 46:9; Psalm 18:31). Also, Jesus, being fully God (Col 1:19) and fully man (Heb 2:14-18), is utterly unique among humanity. We can be conformed or transformed into the image of Christ as Paul says and partake of the divine nature as Peter says, (Romans 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; Phil 3:21; Col 3:10; 2 Peter 1:4) but does this mean we can be just like Jesus and somehow a part of God? Hardly. This means we have God living inside of us and by His power we can live holy lives. The Bible Knowledge Commentary comments on 2 Peter 1:4: "These promises enable Christians to participate in the divine nature. “Participate” is literally “become partners” (genēsthe … koinōnoi). Because they are “partakers” (KJV) of God’s nature, Christians can share in His moral victory over sin in this life and share in His glorious victory over death in eternal life" (Walvoord and Zuck, pg. 865, Vol. 2).
This discussion of the partaking of the divine nature leads us right into the next main idea in Johnson's book that I want to address. It is his view of the incarnation of Jesus Christ wherein he professes kenoticism, that being an emptying of the divine nature while on Earth. It is this error that leads Johnson to conclude that we can be exactly like Jesus Christ.
Concerning Christs' incarnation, Johnson presents three conflicting statements. The first is as follows:

"Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations. He laid his divinity aside (3) as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father: to live life as a man without sin, and then die in the place of mankind for sin." (pg. 79)

The reference he gives is Philippians 2:5-7, where indeed, it does say that Christ "emptied himself". Jesus did live His life with all of our limitations except sin. The problem is when he says that Jesus laid His divinity aside. What exactly does he mean by this? On the same page, we find the second statement:

"The anointing Jesus received was the equipment necessary, given by the Father to make it possible for Him to live beyond human limitations...That would include doing supernatural things...The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil. These miraculous ways helped to set something in motion that mankind could inherit once we were redeemed." (pg. 79)

First of all, the anointing, which Johnson explains is the Holy Spirit as he opens the chapter being quoted from, is not a substance as he says on page 75. God is spirit; the Holy Spirit is God; so the Holy Spirit is an immaterial spirit, not something physical. He says that this is what linked Jesus to the divine. In other words, Jesus while on earth was not divine until the Holy Spirit rested on Him. Jesus could not perform supernatural acts before His baptism and the dove's (Holy Spirit) coming down. By implication given the next sentence, we also can be divine once we are saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Is this a correct understanding of Jesus' emptying during the incarnation? I don't think so. While the original kenotic theologians said that Christ gave up some of His divine attributes (omnipresence, for instance) in order to be human, Johnson is teaching something very similar, perhaps even taking a further step, by saying Jesus laid His divinity aside and thus, all of His divine attributes rather than just some. Theologian Wayne Grudem addresses kenosis:

"But does Philippians 2:7 teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, and does the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of Scripture points to a negative answer to both questions. We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes. Second, we must recognize that the text does not say that Christ "emptied himself of some powers" or "emptied himself of divine attributes" or anything like that. Third, the text does describe what Jesus did in this "emptying": he did not do it by giving up any of his attributes but rather by "taking the form of a servant," that is, by coming to live as a man, and "being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this "emptying" as equivalent to "humbling himself" and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, "He emptied himself," translates it, "but made himself nothing" (Phil 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature. A fourth reason for this interpretation is seen in Paul's purpose in this context. His purpose has been to persuade the Philippians that they should "do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2:3), and he continues by telling them, "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2:4). To persuade them to be humble and to put the interests of others first, he then holds up the example of Christ: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant..." (Phil 2:5-7). Now in holding up Christ as an example, he wants the Philippians to imitate Christ. But certainly he is not asking the Philippian Christians to "give up" or "lay aside" any of their essential attributes or abilities! He is not asking them to "give up" their intelligence or strength or skill and become a diminished version of what they were. Rather, he is asking them to put the interests of others first: "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:4). And because that is his goal, it fits the context to understand that he is using Christ as the supreme example of one who did just that: he put the interests of others first and was willing to give up some of the privilege and status that was his as God. Therefore, the best understanding of this passage is that it talks about Jesus giving up the status and privilege that was his in heaven: he "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (or "clung to for his own advantage"), but "emptied himself" or "humbled himself" for our sake, and came to live as a man. Jesus speaks elsewhere of the "glory" he had with the Father "before the world was made" (John 17:5), a glory that he had given up and was going to receive again when he returned to heaven. And Paul could speak of Christ who, "though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9), once again speaking of the privilege and honor that he deserved but temporarily gave up for us. The fifth and final reason why the "kenosis" view of Philippians 2:7 must be rejected is the larger context of the teaching of the New Testament and the doctrinal teaching of the entire Bible. If it were true that such a momentous event as this happened, that the eternal Son of God ceased for a time to have all the attributes of God-ceased, for a time, to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, for example-then we would expect that such an incredible event would be taught clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament, not found in the very doubtful interpretation of one word in one epistle. But we find the opposite of that: we do not find it stated anywhere else that the Son of God ceased to have some of the attributes of God that he had possessed from eternity. In fact, if the kenosis theory were true (and this is a foundational objection against it), then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth. The kenosis theory ultimately denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and makes him something less than fully God. S. M. Smith admits, "All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology."
(Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg. 550-551)

The "emptying" of Jesus at the incarnation is a very difficult topic, hence the long quote from Grudem, and I do not pretend to know everything about it or even propose a model for how he was truly man and truly God at the same time. What I hope is evident at this point however, is that Johnson teaches a faulty and dangerous version of kenosis that strips the uniqueness of Jesus and ultimately takes away his ability to be a truly redeeming sacrifice for all mankind because he is not God while on earth. He is only some sort of semi-divine human possessed with the power of God. In the third conflicting passage to be highlighted concerning Jesus' emptying, Johnson says: "Jesus Christ said of Himself, "The Son can do nothing."...He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever! While He is 100 percent God, He chose to live with the same limitations that man would face once He was redeemed." (pg. 29)
This doesn't agree with what Johnson says later in the book (pg. 79) that I covered above. If Jesus laid aside His divinity He isn't God. If He is 100 percent God, He can't have laid aside His divinity while on earth. It has to be one or the other. Jesus' supernatural abilities (or the lack of them) is also a difficult issue. Based on many passages from both the Old and New Testament (Isa. 11:2-3, 42:1, 61:1 cf. Luke 4:18-19; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Luke 4:1, 14, 36, 40-41; Acts 10:38) it appears that Jesus operated by the power of the Holy Spirit during His ministry. According to Johnson, without the Holy Spirit, Jesus "had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever!" Is this the case? I don't think so. Luke 2:41-52 relates a story about the 12 year old Jesus giving and asking amazing answers and questions in the temple. Jesus was also sinless for 30 years (or so) before being empowered by the Holy Spirit. How did He do that if He had no supernatural capabilities? There is yet another problem with this line of thinking as well. If Jesus is truly God while on earth (as well as truly man), how did He not have supernatural abilities? If He didn't have those powers, then He isn't God.
The final point of contention I have with Johnson's book is that of his use of the Bible. Based on the scripture citations and my analysis of them, Johnson uses the Bible in a very helter-skelter and slipshod manner. He reads into the Bible what he wants to get out of it and he doesn't hesitate to partial quote verses out of context. Since I have already dealt with his use of scripture somewhat, I will just give one big, clear example of his poor usage.
The example concerns the typology of the Israelites crossing the Jordan river into the Promised Land. After relating the exodus from Egypt story Johnson says:

"When the Jews finally entered the Promised Land, they entered through a river-another baptism. This baptism was not a departure from sin. Such was illustrated when they left Egypt. This new baptism would take them into a different way of life. For example: they fought wars on the wilderness side of the river and won. But once they crossed the Jordan River, wars would be fought differently. Now they would march around a city in silence for days, finally raising up a shout and watching the walls fall (6). Later they would experience the challenge of sending a choir into battle first (7). And then there was the time God intentionally sent over 30,000 soldiers back home so He could fight a war with 300 torch wielding trumpet blowers. He makes the Promised Land possible, and we pay the price to live there. He'll give us His baptism of fire if we'll give Him something worth burning. This baptism in the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the Old Testament picture of entering the Promised Land." (pg. 71-72)

Again, I quoted a full passage in context with no omissions or chopped sentences including the parenthetical references, 6 and 7, which are the scriptures Joshua 6 and 2 Chronicles 20:21 respectively. His last sentence where he declares that the Israelites entrance into the Promised Land is the picture of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is what I want to address here. The reason I want to consider this interpretation is, 1) maybe you don't agree with my corrections of Johnson's interpretations up to this point and 2) it is the Biblical text itself that will correct him all on its own. The passage that will make this evident is found in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 and deals with both the Israelites who, by unbelief, were allowed to perish in the desert, and the obedient Israelites who entered the Promised Land. What did the author of Hebrews say the entry into the Promised Land could be compared to?

"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.' As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'" Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."  And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 3:7-4:13)

There isn't anything in there that discusses the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The answer to my lead-in question is that entering the Promised Land was a picture of entering God's rest. No commentary from me or commentaries from professionals needed. The Bible refutes Johnson's interpretation all by itself. If he is willing to interpret the Bible in this way, with careless disregard for what the text itself says, then I think that any other interpretation he gives of any section of scripture should be closely scrutinized before being internalized as proper teaching.
In conclusion, Bill Johnson of Bethel Church-Redding has written a book that teaches: a pseudo-Gnosticism wherein the "invisible" realm of esoteric substances is what our focus should be on, an error-filled kenosis that makes Jesus out to be just a man with some divine power during ministry, not actually God, and that you can interpret the Bible any way you like as long as it fits your own personal theology and doctrine, notwithstanding what the Bible really says. Without exaggeration, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the poor interpretations and arguments made in this book. I would not recommend this book to anyone because I would be inviting them to read incorrect theology. I also am going to be very wary of anything that comes out of Bethel Church-Redding, including their music, because I don't know exactly what the sermons, conference talks, and lyrics of songs mean and I will not pollute my mind with a blatantly mistaken view of both the focus of the Christian life and God, specifically in the person of Jesus Christ.

References
Scripture quotations taken from the ESV unless otherwise noted. Crossway. 2008.
When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles by Bill Johnson. Destiny Image Publishers, Inc. 2003.
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craig S. Keener. InterVarsity Press. 2014.
The Bible Exposition Commentary by Warren W. Wiersbe. Victor Books. 1996.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Victor Books. 1985.
Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present by Harold O. J. Brown. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1984.
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem. Zondervan. 1994.

Literary Genres in the Bible, Part 2

Video length: 30:41

A. Prophets

            1. Paragraph: God tells Habakkuk that He is about to do a wondrous work

            2. Oracle: Habakkuk complains about Israel’s treatment, God answers

            3. Book: Israel rejects God, He punishes them but promises them hope in the end

4. Sinaitic covenant (the Law): God’s chastisement of Israel through the prophets is all related to the Law and Israel’s inability/unwillingness to obey God’s commands

5. Bible: God must constantly call Israel to repentance for their disobedience which He does through His prophets. This sets up the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice by showing that nothing we could ever do would merit God’s forgiveness. Even the people with the Law from Heaven could not do it!!! How can we ever expect to?

            6. Near and distant future mixed in a confusing manner (telescoping)

            7. Reference helps: use outside help abundantly, biblehub.com

B. Psalms

            1. What kind of Psalm is it?

                        a. Laments

                                    i. individual: 3, 22, 31, 39, 42, 57, 71, 88, 120, 139, 142

                                    ii. Corporate: 12, 44, 80, 94, 137

                        b. Thanksgiving

                                    i. individual: 18, 30, 32, 34, 40, 66, 92, 116, 118, 138

                                    ii. Corporate: 65, 67, 75, 107, 124, 136

                        c. Hymns of Praise: 8, 19, 33, 66, 100, 103, 111, 113, 114, 117, 145-149

                        d. Salvation-History: 78, 105, 106, 135, 136

                        e. Celebration and Affirmation: 2, 18, 20, 21, 24, 29, 45-48, 50, 72, 76, 81,                                    84, 87, 89, 93, 95-99, 101, 110, 122, 132, 144

                        f. Wisdom: 36, 37, 49, 73, 112, 127, 128, 133

                        g. Songs of Trust: 11, 16, 23, 27, 62, 63, 91, 121, 125, 131

2. Reference helps: Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today, Steven Bishop; How to Read the Psalms, Tremper Longman III; biblehub.com commentary section

C. Wisdom

            1. Proverbs: practical attitudes and behaviors in everyday life

            2. Job: speculative wisdom about suffering and evil in the world; points to                                     Christ's destruction of evil in the end

            3. Ecclesiastes: speculative wisdom about the nature of earthly pleasure; points                           to Christ's crucifixion that gives us eternal life

            4. Song of Solomon (Song of Songs): marital romance and appropriate sexual                               desire, not sexual lust and pleasure

            5. Reference helps: biblehub.com commentary section

D. Law (12 rules from Fee and Stuart, pg. 186)

            1. Do see the OT law as God's fully inspired word for you.

            2. Don't see the OT law as God's direct command to you.

            3. Do see the OT law as the basis for the old covenant, and therefore for Israel's                          history.

            4. Don't see the OT law as binding on Christians in the new covenant except                                 where specifically renewed.

            5. Do see God's justice, love, and high standards revealed in the OT law.

            6. Don't forget to see that God's mercy is made equal to the severity of the                                  standards.

            7. Do see the OT law as a paradigm-providing examples for the full range of                                expected behavior.

            8. Don't see the OT law as complete. It is not technically comprehensive.

            9. Do remember that the essence of the law (the Ten Commandments and the                             two chief laws) is repeated in the Prophets and renewed in the NT.

            10. Don't expect the OT law to be cited frequently by the Prophets or the NT.                               Legal citation was first introduced only in the Roman era, long after the OT was                                    complete.

            11. Do see the OT law as a generous gift to Israel, bringing much blessing when                           obeyed.

12. Don't see the OT law as a grouping of arbitrary, annoying regulations limiting                                    people's freedom.