I heard a song on Pandora called "How Could I Ever Say Thank You?" by Kathryn Scott. It reminded me of 2 things as I listened to it. The first is a verse from Psalm 116. Verse 12 says; "How can I repay the Lord for all the good he has done for me?" This is a rhetorical question. The answer is very clearly that we cannot repay the Lord for all the good he has done for us. The very next verse (v. 13) says; "I will take the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord." That is our only option; to call on the name of the Lord who has graciously and mercifully extended his hand to the very beings that have so corrupted his wondrous creation all the while reviling the creator who has offered this grace.
The second thing that struck me about this song is a line from the chorus. In it, Kathryn sings; "Love that reaches beyond each defense. Your mercy disarms the most broken of hearts. Such complete and profound faithfulness." What entered my mind the first time I heard this was what the Marine Corps calls tactics, techniques, and procedures or in the lingo of the military, TTP's. What in the world does this have to do with Marine Corps TTP's? Well, setting up a defense is one of the most complex and intricate things a combat leader can direct. Attacking, while also complex, is a bit simpler in that, as Marines, we tend to say; "Where's the enemy? OK, over there. Let's go kill them." There are various ways to set up defenses ranging from simply putting your men in a line facing the enemy and wait for them to come (think trenches in WW1) to a defense in depth (you've probably never seen this in a movie). I'm sure many of you have seen war movies of some sort and so you can think about all the implements that are used to stop the enemy while on defense: concertina wire, landmines, machine guns in overlapping fields of fire, mortars honed in on the fields of wire, etc. You can probably imagine the D-day scenes from Saving Private Ryan and the German defenses on the beach. Very complex. Now, a defense in depth is even more intricate. This calls for, in a basic way, putting a unit out as bait to bring the enemy in to a killing zone where all your firepower is concentrated. This can be done from the fire team level (4 men; smallest unit) to the army level (think General Patton directing units this way in North Africa). Defense in depth is a strategy that is generally used when trying to delay the enemy from adavancing while preparations for a counterattack are made.
All of this is to relate just how complicated military defenses can be. It gave me a visual image that matched the song because I think that we put defenses up in an effort to stave off and delay God in our rebellion. When we were lost, we were at war with God and his enemies as we were on the side of Satan (Rom. 6:15-23). But he never stopped pursuing us. He reached behind every labyrinthine defense we could muster to seek us out even though we were not seeking him (Rom 3:10-11) and as the next line in the song says; he disarmed us. His love overcame our every defense and his mercy that he freely offers disarms us. This is "such complete and profound faithfulness" that only the God of Jesus Christ could offer. No other religion presents a God so completely soldout in his effort to bring us into the Kingdom of God. Not Islam, not Mormonism, not Jehovah's Witnesses, and I could go on. Not one. It is only Yahweh who can proclaim "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." (Jer 31:3)
Paul makes this explicitly clear in a couple of passages from his letters that I will finish up with. Romans 5:8-10 says: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."
Titus 3:3-7 says: "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Praise be to our great God and savior, through his son Jesus Christ, our Lord!
Monday, August 29, 2016
Monday, August 22, 2016
Shepherds Feeding Themselves
There is an interesting connection between two passages in two very different books of the Bible. Jude 12 and Ezekiel 34:1-10 being those texts. Part of Jude 12 says: "These are...shepherds feeding themselves". This is said by way of analogy concerning the false teachers Jude is writing about. It is in the midst of a string of six analogies Jude uses to discuss what these false teachers are like. Likewise, Ezekiel 34:1-10 speaks of shepherds feeding themselves:
"The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them."
The passages are related in wording and subject matter, but have a different audience. Jude is addressing Christians with a warning of these false teachers who will do nothing but feed themselves. Ezekiel is prophesying a word from God directed at the shepherds of Israel as a warning of their evil behavior. While these passages are separated by a considerable amount of time from each other and from our time, they carry the same lesson that can help us right now. Ezekiel was written from approximately 595-575 BC. Most of the book is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC as well as the promises God makes to restore Israel. Jerusalem was destroyed because God had become fed up with the idolatry taking place in Israel. The "shepherds of Israel" were not merely participating in the idolatrous practices of the people, they were leading them (Ezekiel chapters 5-16). Jude most likely wrote late in the apostolic era, sometime around 65-80 AD. False teachers had slithered in to a congregation that Jude had apparently taught (Jude 5) and encouraged the disciples to use the grace of God to practice sexual immorality (Jude 4).
What can be said concerning how this relates to our time is this: there were shepherds feeding themselves in Ezekiel's time; 600 years later there were shepherds feeding themselves in Jude's time; chances are there are shepherds feeding themselves in our time (Jesus said there would be tares; Matt. 13:24-30) and these passages give us a clue as to what they act like and how we should deal with them.
1. Feeding the sheep is the shepherd's job. If a leader is feeding himself first, he isn't doing his job. If he isn't caring for the weak, the sick, the injured, or the strayed and lost, he isn't doing his job. If he is leading people astray with false teachings and encouraging sinful lifestyles, he isn't doing his job.
2. Ruling with force and harshness is not the way to lead. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). If a leader doesn't reflect these there is something wrong.
3. In the Ezekiel passage, verse 10, the Lord says: "I will require my sheep at their hand". Shepherds will be held accountable for the guidance they give their flock. This goes both ways: bad shepherds will face a fearful judgment and should be warned when they are not fulfilling their duties, and possibly even shunned and ignored while a body of believers builds themselves up (Jude 19-20), while good shepherds should be honored and given the benefit of the doubt considering the huge responsibility they have in being entrusted with a flock from God.
There are a lot of people putting themselves out there as "shepherds" of God's people in various ways. As an example, go to Lifeway or Family Christian bookstores and check out the enormous number of books being written about just about any topic you can think of concerning the Christian life. They are all trying to be shepherds in some way to the body of Christ. The message of this post is that not all of the people who put themselves forward as leaders should be trusted as sent from God. 1 John 4:1 says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." It is our duty as Christians to test every spirit and see if they are acting in accordance with the guidelines God has shown us in his word.
"The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
"Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them."
The passages are related in wording and subject matter, but have a different audience. Jude is addressing Christians with a warning of these false teachers who will do nothing but feed themselves. Ezekiel is prophesying a word from God directed at the shepherds of Israel as a warning of their evil behavior. While these passages are separated by a considerable amount of time from each other and from our time, they carry the same lesson that can help us right now. Ezekiel was written from approximately 595-575 BC. Most of the book is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC as well as the promises God makes to restore Israel. Jerusalem was destroyed because God had become fed up with the idolatry taking place in Israel. The "shepherds of Israel" were not merely participating in the idolatrous practices of the people, they were leading them (Ezekiel chapters 5-16). Jude most likely wrote late in the apostolic era, sometime around 65-80 AD. False teachers had slithered in to a congregation that Jude had apparently taught (Jude 5) and encouraged the disciples to use the grace of God to practice sexual immorality (Jude 4).
What can be said concerning how this relates to our time is this: there were shepherds feeding themselves in Ezekiel's time; 600 years later there were shepherds feeding themselves in Jude's time; chances are there are shepherds feeding themselves in our time (Jesus said there would be tares; Matt. 13:24-30) and these passages give us a clue as to what they act like and how we should deal with them.
1. Feeding the sheep is the shepherd's job. If a leader is feeding himself first, he isn't doing his job. If he isn't caring for the weak, the sick, the injured, or the strayed and lost, he isn't doing his job. If he is leading people astray with false teachings and encouraging sinful lifestyles, he isn't doing his job.
2. Ruling with force and harshness is not the way to lead. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). If a leader doesn't reflect these there is something wrong.
3. In the Ezekiel passage, verse 10, the Lord says: "I will require my sheep at their hand". Shepherds will be held accountable for the guidance they give their flock. This goes both ways: bad shepherds will face a fearful judgment and should be warned when they are not fulfilling their duties, and possibly even shunned and ignored while a body of believers builds themselves up (Jude 19-20), while good shepherds should be honored and given the benefit of the doubt considering the huge responsibility they have in being entrusted with a flock from God.
There are a lot of people putting themselves out there as "shepherds" of God's people in various ways. As an example, go to Lifeway or Family Christian bookstores and check out the enormous number of books being written about just about any topic you can think of concerning the Christian life. They are all trying to be shepherds in some way to the body of Christ. The message of this post is that not all of the people who put themselves forward as leaders should be trusted as sent from God. 1 John 4:1 says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." It is our duty as Christians to test every spirit and see if they are acting in accordance with the guidelines God has shown us in his word.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Why I am Not a Mormon
I grew up Mormon or a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). I have family that is still very involved and devoted to the teaching of the LDS church. The basic story of the LDS church is that the true gospel (the one we have in the Bible) was lost from the earth when the apostles died out and God chose to restore it through Joseph Smith in a series of visions and revelations (that later with even more revelation became the Doctrine and Covenants) and by showing him where the Book of Mormon was buried and then helping him translate it. The Book of Mormon is supposedly another testament of Jesus Christ. Specifically, it is the story of the peoples of the Americas, who are supposedly Israelites, and their eventual descent into corruption when all the good peoples were wiped out. You can read more in detail about their beliefs here.
In 2012 when God began to call me and draw me to his Son I started to investigate the claims made by Christians. In particular, I watched Lee Strobel's documentary of his book The Case for Christ. In it he made a claim that I had never heard: that the Bible generally and the New Testament in particular was reliable beyond any doubt. From there I read until, on an intellectual level, I was convinced that that claim was true. As I continued to struggle towards salvation and trust in Jesus Christ, I gave Mormon claims the same evaluation that I gave to Christian ones. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that Mormon claims don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Here are some of the things that I found in my studies and why I am not a Mormon (anymore).
1. The claim that the Bible has been changed and corrupted is false. This is a primary claim of the LDS church. Nobody in this debate is disputing that what the apostles and prophets wrote in biblical times is actually from God. What is disputed is whether or not the writings have survived accurately down to this time. Well, they have and I have posted about it here after reading and studying this issue on both sides for a couple of years. The other problem with the Mormon view of the Bible's corruption is that they accept the King James Version as being correctly translated, but the KJV has passages that clearly contradict doctrines that arose later in Mormon development.
2. The Book of Mormon does not hold up to the same investigation that the Bible does. It isn't historically reliable. There are no specific places mentioned that can be identified today. It has many anachronisms that are very hard to explain. For instance, at the end of Jacob 7:27 it says: "Brethren, adieu." This supposedly took place around 544-421 B.C. The French language doesn't start to appear until the 1st century A.D. How did a French word appear in writings from 500 B.C.? The LDS church offers this answer:
In 2012 when God began to call me and draw me to his Son I started to investigate the claims made by Christians. In particular, I watched Lee Strobel's documentary of his book The Case for Christ. In it he made a claim that I had never heard: that the Bible generally and the New Testament in particular was reliable beyond any doubt. From there I read until, on an intellectual level, I was convinced that that claim was true. As I continued to struggle towards salvation and trust in Jesus Christ, I gave Mormon claims the same evaluation that I gave to Christian ones. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that Mormon claims don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Here are some of the things that I found in my studies and why I am not a Mormon (anymore).
1. The claim that the Bible has been changed and corrupted is false. This is a primary claim of the LDS church. Nobody in this debate is disputing that what the apostles and prophets wrote in biblical times is actually from God. What is disputed is whether or not the writings have survived accurately down to this time. Well, they have and I have posted about it here after reading and studying this issue on both sides for a couple of years. The other problem with the Mormon view of the Bible's corruption is that they accept the King James Version as being correctly translated, but the KJV has passages that clearly contradict doctrines that arose later in Mormon development.
2. The Book of Mormon does not hold up to the same investigation that the Bible does. It isn't historically reliable. There are no specific places mentioned that can be identified today. It has many anachronisms that are very hard to explain. For instance, at the end of Jacob 7:27 it says: "Brethren, adieu." This supposedly took place around 544-421 B.C. The French language doesn't start to appear until the 1st century A.D. How did a French word appear in writings from 500 B.C.? The LDS church offers this answer:
"Some have questioned the use of the French word adieu in Jacob 7:27. One author explained:
“The
choice of words came through the manner of the language of Joseph
Smith, so that we might have understanding. This is why words not known
in Book of Mormon times are found in the translated text.
“The word adieu
is defined in a dictionary of Joseph Smith’s day as ‘a farewell; an
expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends’ [meaning that I
commend you to God]. (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language,
1828). While the word is of French origin, it had found common usage in
early nineteenth century New England” (Edward J. Brandt, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Oct. 1985, 17)."
It was given in Joseph Smith's language in which adieu was common at that time. This leads me to my next point.
3. The language of Jospeh Smith's time was not King James English. The Book of Mormon was "translated" into King James English, but this was not the spoken dialect of western New York state in the mid-1800's. The story of the Book of Mormons' translation is this: Joseph Smith was directed to recover the buried plates and by the use of a seeing stone God gave him the translation word for word. But why would God render it in an English translation that he didn't speak and then insert a French word that Smith used with the lingo of his time? Why didn't God translate the entire Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith's lingo as the LDS church says they did for the word adieu? Numbers 2 and 3 go together and are a small example of the enormous problems with the text of the Book of Mormon.
4. No one actually saw the golden plates that constituted the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith goaded and intimidated people into saying they saw the plates. No one really did. You can read a long article here.
5. The 11 witnesses at the beginning of the Book of Mormon had problems staying true to the faith. They are split into a group of 3; Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris and a group of 8; Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith. All of these men attested to seeing the plates. The 3 witnesses were all excommunicated from the LDS church, 2 of the 8 witnesses apostatized while another of the 8 witnesses was excommunicated. This is very curious. Having seen what could be considered the lynchpin of the Mormon faith, the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, 6 of the 11 witnesses then left or were forced to leave the LDS church. When you compare this with the apostles of the New Testament who similarly testified to the make or break event in Christianity, the risen Christ, and then died for that claim, never recanting and never being driven out by the body of Christ, the Mormon claim becomes befuddling at best and downright dishonest at worst seeing as how the LDS church keeps the testimony of these witnesses in the front of the Book of Mormon.
6. The Mormon conception of god suffers from a vicious infinite regress that cannot be real due to the fact that it would constitute an actual infinite set. In LDS doctrine, god was once a man who was exalted through a process of learning and improvement. He "created" the universe by forming chaotic matter into what we now see as the space-time universe. This means two things. One: there had to be another god who made it possible for the god of the Bible to become exalted and achieve godhood. Two: There are other universes and planets where the path to exaltation is playing out right now like it is here on earth. The problem with both of these implications is the same. If earth god (EG) had a higher level god (HLG) that enabled him to progress to godhood, then the HLG had to have HLG2 that did the same for him. And HLG2 had to have HLG3. And HLG3 had to have HLG4. And so on. This actual infinite set of gods cannot exist. William Lane Craig has shown very convincingly why actual infinites cannot exist.
7. Finally, the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ is wrong based on the Biblical account which their latter-day prophets have reinterpreted. They see Jesus as an entirely separate being from God the Father. He is a spirit child of Heavenly Father as we all are, including Satan. This means that Satan and Jesus are brothers. The former chose the evil path while the latter chose the righteous one. As I said above, the LDS church accepts the KJV of the Bible as being correctly translated. The problem with this is that the New Testament, whether in the KJV or other modern versions, sees Jesus Christ as something more than just another Son of God or child of God as Mormons say. He is equal in ontological status with the Father and he is above Satan in many ways. He is the unique Son of God in a way that we are not since we are adopted Sons of God (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:4-6). Colossians 1:16 says about Jesus: "For by him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers: all things were created by him, and for him". If Jesus created everything, then he created Satan. The Mormon doctrine that God formed the universe means that Jesus formed the universe (according to Colossians) while at the same time he was born as a spirit child of God after the creation of the universe. Jesus could not have created the universe after it was created; that is logically impossible. Also, Jesus is so far above Satan that he doesn't even fight with him. It is Michael the Archangel that disputed about the body of Moses with the devil (Jude 9) and it is Michael who will lead the battle against him in the end of time (Rev. 12:7-9). That doesn't sound like they are equals who merely chose the right and wrong paths.
I could list another bunch of reasons why I am not a Mormon, but I think you get the point. The simple fact of the matter is that Mormonism doesn't hold up to the reality it makes claims about. This means it isn't true and that means it is part of the wide path to destruction that Jesus warned us all about.
7. Finally, the Mormon conception of Jesus Christ is wrong based on the Biblical account which their latter-day prophets have reinterpreted. They see Jesus as an entirely separate being from God the Father. He is a spirit child of Heavenly Father as we all are, including Satan. This means that Satan and Jesus are brothers. The former chose the evil path while the latter chose the righteous one. As I said above, the LDS church accepts the KJV of the Bible as being correctly translated. The problem with this is that the New Testament, whether in the KJV or other modern versions, sees Jesus Christ as something more than just another Son of God or child of God as Mormons say. He is equal in ontological status with the Father and he is above Satan in many ways. He is the unique Son of God in a way that we are not since we are adopted Sons of God (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:4-6). Colossians 1:16 says about Jesus: "For by him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, powers: all things were created by him, and for him". If Jesus created everything, then he created Satan. The Mormon doctrine that God formed the universe means that Jesus formed the universe (according to Colossians) while at the same time he was born as a spirit child of God after the creation of the universe. Jesus could not have created the universe after it was created; that is logically impossible. Also, Jesus is so far above Satan that he doesn't even fight with him. It is Michael the Archangel that disputed about the body of Moses with the devil (Jude 9) and it is Michael who will lead the battle against him in the end of time (Rev. 12:7-9). That doesn't sound like they are equals who merely chose the right and wrong paths.
I could list another bunch of reasons why I am not a Mormon, but I think you get the point. The simple fact of the matter is that Mormonism doesn't hold up to the reality it makes claims about. This means it isn't true and that means it is part of the wide path to destruction that Jesus warned us all about.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Don't be a Perdurantist
Many people take issue, for various reasons, with the claim that the universe had a beginning. Some people believe that the science doesn't support that assertion. Others, I would argue most, who try to find some way around the universe's beginning are trying to avoid there being a personal cause of the universe because that points to the existence of God. William Lane Craig has been the foremost defender and expositor of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which uses the beginning of the universe as a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence, and I have written an extensive post about that argument here if you are unfamiliar with it.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.
1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.
2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?
3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.
The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!
References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.
One of the main contentions of opponents of this argument is that of the B-theory of time, also called the static conception of time. The B-theory of time suggests that moments of time are tenseless and exist equally. The "Back to the Future" movies would be a good way to think of this theory. Marty McFly goes back to 1955 in the first movie and the citizens of Hill Valley are going about their business: running into manure trucks and preparing for the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Eventually, he makes it back to 1985 and things are continuing on as if nothing happened. This seems to presuppose a B-theory of time in which every moment of time is equally real. On this view, it would be nonsensical to say that anything begins to exist. If every moment of time is equally real all the time, nothing comes into being, it just is. The implication of this is that the universe doesn't really begin to exist, because the "Big Bang" is always ongoing. If we could travel through time with Doc Brown, we could see the "Big Bang" as it is happening.
The point of this post is not to wrangle with those who argue about the beginning of the universe and thus God's existence, but to present a serious problem to believers who hold to the B-theory of time. Does this mean that I think those Christians who hold to a B-theory cannot believe in God and thus, are not Christians? NO! That is not what I mean. My intention is to convince Christians that hold this view that it is very problematic for one very troubling reason: perdurantism.
In order to understand what perdurantism is, we have to look at what is known as the problem of intrinsic change that the B-theorist encounters. The problem of intrinsic change "is how something can remain self-identical if it has different properties at different times" (1). This basically means how can a person, F. F. Bruce for instance, be F. F. Bruce moment to moment if every moment produces a change in him. A change means an object is taking on or jettisoning properties. B-theorists have posited that people are just 4-dimensional objects (the 4th dimension is time) that appear to us as 3-dimensional objects. So, B-theorists answer that indeed, F. F. Bruce is not the same moment to moment, but simply a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", which philosophers call "hyper-objects" that are extended in both time and space. Since the person we see as F. F. Bruce is but a part of the 4-dimensional object "F. F. Bruce", it follows that the F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago is a different part and thus, not identical to the present (to us) F. F. Bruce. In a nutshell, people are not the same self-identifying beings from moment to moment. Philosophers of time who hold this view merely say that objects perdure. So perdurantism is the view that ordinary things like animals, boats and planets have temporal parts (things persist by ‘perduring’) (2). The following is my summary of 3 reasons why perdurantism is false from William Lane Craig (3) followed by some other comments of my own.
1. Perdurantism's account of intrinsic change is implausible.
Since, on perdurantism, an object is a composition of spatio-temporal parts that make up a "hyper-object" in 4 dimensions, none of these parts are identical. But, if none of the parts are identical as the perdurantist admits, then nothing, including the parts or the "hyper-object" actually undergoes any intrinsic change. It is not correct to say that F. F. Bruce from 20 years ago gained wisdom and now has the property of being wise in our time because "present F. F. Bruce" and "F. F. Bruce from twenty years ago" are entirely different 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the hyper-object "F. F. Bruce". The parts merely have different properties that they neither gain nor lose. Thus, there is no intrinsic change going on, it is an illusion of philosophical theory.
2. Perdurantism flies in the face of the phenomenology of personal consciousness.
We know ourselves to be persons. This concept is known as self-consciousness. Perdurantists view people as spatio-temporal parts of hyper-objects with no self-consciousness. This means that these parts are not actually persons, just parts that do not have any of the properties normally associated with personhood. No intellect, emotions, will, moral responsibility, etc. Some perdurantists say that the 3-dimensional objects really are persons and the corresponding 4-dimensional object is a hyper-person, but this doesn't work either. This would mean that the hyper-person is comprised of a number of individual persons having, for instance, their own memories that are not shared by each individual part. So, it isn't really you having that memory of your wedding, it is a distinct, non-identical 3-dimensional part of the 4-dimensional "hyper-you-person". This seems absurd on many levels. Does anyone really think that they are not the same person second to second and that they are recalling someone else's wedding memory while walking down memory lane?
3. Perdurantism is incompatible with moral responsibility, praise, and blame.
Even if we grant that the 3-dimensional objects that are parts of the 4-dimensional hyper-person are persons as well, there is a problem. Since they are all distinct persons, how can a criminal spend his life in jail considering that even 5 minutes later he is not the same person? He can't be held accountable for the crime of "5 minutes ago criminal". If we back up to the initial perdurantist view that these parts are just that, parts not persons, this is even more absurd than our criminal above. How can a part of a 4-dimensional hyper-object be held responsible for good or bad actions? The answer is they cannot.
The balance of probability lies in favor of saying that perdurantism is false. Now, the B-theorist may try to use the opposite theory concerning the problem of intrinsic change. That of endurantism, which says that objects endure and are the same object moment to moment. But, the B-theorist really has no recourse to use this theory because they hold that one moment of time is equally real to another. This means that there are at least two identical objects that have different properties. This cannot be however, because for objects to be identical, they must have the same properties. The endurantist would appeal to the A-theory of time that sees only the present moment as real. Hence only one object, the person F. F. Bruce to use our earlier example, exists. If you subscribe to the B-theory of time, it looks like you are stuck with perdurantism and thinking that persons are not really persons.
Finally, what is to me the most serious matter regarding perdurantism and the B-theory of time is that of the cross of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 says: "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." If the Christ hanging on the cross is: i) not a person or ii) not the same person who submitted to the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane; how can it be rightly said that he atoned for our sin and reconciled us to God? It doesn't seem to me that this can be said if you hold to perdurantism. Likewise, if the B-theory of time is true, Christ forever hangs on the cross, forever offering payment to the Father for our sins that we are committing forever. "Once for all" just doesn't make any sense on the perdurantism/B-theory of time view. And if you hold to the B-theory of time, then you are stuck with perdurantism. So, don't be a perdurantist!
References
1. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 200.
2. Temporal Parts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
3. William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. 2001. Page 203-6.
Monday, August 1, 2016
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: General Epistles
Part one, part two, part three. The first three parts; the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters, can be found with the links above. This post, the final one in this series, will cover the general epistles including Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude, and Revelation. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in James, 2 John, or 3 John.
Hebrews
2:4
A big theme through the Gospels and Acts is that God is doing miracles as signs of the new covenant that he was making with the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here, the author of Hebrews explicitly says that that is what God was doing. He also mentions gifts of the HS. The gifts are distributed according to the will of the HS (who is God), so once again, these gifts are not available when we want to use them, but as the HS wills. Also, cessationism/continuationism can be addressed here. The continuationist will say that the Gospel is attested by signs, wonders, and gifts through the power of the HS. He did it then, he will do it now. I would agree with this position. The cessationist will point to verse 3a, "It was declared at first by the Lord...", to indicate that it was only done for the inauguration of the Church until the scriptures were solidified. As I have shown before, this is a stretched interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 that doesn't really seem to work. At the very least it doesn't convince me.
3:7
Another instance of the HS being given credit for the OT text.
6:4
As believers, we share in the HS. I am not going to get into the argument over whether this passage of Hebrews means we can or cannot lose our salvation once we have it. I haven't made my mind up over that issue, though I am inclined to think we could lose it, but only from unbelief.
9:8
This is yet another instance of the HS being credited with writing the OT text. This time however, the author is expositing an underlying inference about the tabernacle structure that he says the HS meant. That is that the first section of the tabernacle must be closed before we can have access to the second section. The first section had the menorah (candle that burned oil), bread of presence, etc. These were all things that pointed to Christ. When he came, they were done away with. That left only the Holy of Holies where God's presence actually dwelt at times in Israel's history. Christ's blood gave us entry into that place and that is why the veil was torn when he died (Mark 15:38).
9:14
Translators are unsure what to make of "the eternal Spirit" that appears in this verse. Some say Holy Spirit, other think it means something about Christ's divine nature. The jury is out, and so am I on what this means!
10:15
One more time. The HS wrote the OT!
10:29
Those who "go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth" (v. 26) outrage the HS.
1 Peter
1:2
The HS sanctifies.
1:11
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1:12
The disciples preaching the Gospel do so by the power of the HS.
4:14
Persecution brings a blessing of the HS's presence.
2 Peter
1:21
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1 John
3:24
We know that God abides in us by the HS's witness.
4:2
John tells us to test every spirit. This is something that the Church severely lacks. John says that things from the HS confess that Jesus is from God and came in the flesh. This is dealing with the spirit of antichrist, which is about teachings directly contrary to the Word of God. So, in this case, it is about the words, as opposed to 1 Cor. 12:3.
4:6
People from God listen to the apostles teaching, which for us is found in the scriptures. This is how we know it is from the HS and not error.
4:13
Just like 3:24, we know God abides in us by the HS's witness.
5:6-8
The HS testifies of Christ's work because he is truth.
Jude
v. 19-20
Scoffers of prophecy and worldly people are devoid of the HS. This may be people in the church as that is what was going on with the recipient's of Jude's letter. We should ignore them and pray in the HS. This praying in the HS could be one of two things that I covered in the note at Ephesians 6:17-18.
Revelation
1:10
John says he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." This could mean he was worshipping the Lord on Sunday or it could mean he was having a vision on Sunday or it could mean that he was having a vision about the Day of the Lord. Take your pick, it is very difficult to make a convincing case for any of the options.
2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22
The HS is speaking to the churches. Notice that says churches, not church. These letters from Christ are to more believers than just in the cities on the heading.
4:2
Another instance of John being in the Spirit. This seems to help us figure out 1:10 in that clearly, this time he is having a vision, which would eliminate the first option above that John was just having a special moment of communion with God.
14:13
The voice John hears from heaven is the HS.
17:3
John gets carried away in the HS. Much like Ezekiel, scholars argue over whether this means in a vision or that physically John was transported away.
22:17
The HS and us (the Bride) are both saying, "Come", in regard to Jesus' second advent.
Most of the stuff from the general epistles could fall under the bullets from Paul's letters, so I won't rehash those. Thanks for reading. I sincerely hope that you have learned something from this series.
Hebrews
2:4
A big theme through the Gospels and Acts is that God is doing miracles as signs of the new covenant that he was making with the whole world through Jesus Christ. Here, the author of Hebrews explicitly says that that is what God was doing. He also mentions gifts of the HS. The gifts are distributed according to the will of the HS (who is God), so once again, these gifts are not available when we want to use them, but as the HS wills. Also, cessationism/continuationism can be addressed here. The continuationist will say that the Gospel is attested by signs, wonders, and gifts through the power of the HS. He did it then, he will do it now. I would agree with this position. The cessationist will point to verse 3a, "It was declared at first by the Lord...", to indicate that it was only done for the inauguration of the Church until the scriptures were solidified. As I have shown before, this is a stretched interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 that doesn't really seem to work. At the very least it doesn't convince me.
3:7
Another instance of the HS being given credit for the OT text.
6:4
As believers, we share in the HS. I am not going to get into the argument over whether this passage of Hebrews means we can or cannot lose our salvation once we have it. I haven't made my mind up over that issue, though I am inclined to think we could lose it, but only from unbelief.
9:8
This is yet another instance of the HS being credited with writing the OT text. This time however, the author is expositing an underlying inference about the tabernacle structure that he says the HS meant. That is that the first section of the tabernacle must be closed before we can have access to the second section. The first section had the menorah (candle that burned oil), bread of presence, etc. These were all things that pointed to Christ. When he came, they were done away with. That left only the Holy of Holies where God's presence actually dwelt at times in Israel's history. Christ's blood gave us entry into that place and that is why the veil was torn when he died (Mark 15:38).
9:14
Translators are unsure what to make of "the eternal Spirit" that appears in this verse. Some say Holy Spirit, other think it means something about Christ's divine nature. The jury is out, and so am I on what this means!
10:15
One more time. The HS wrote the OT!
10:29
Those who "go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth" (v. 26) outrage the HS.
1 Peter
1:2
The HS sanctifies.
1:11
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1:12
The disciples preaching the Gospel do so by the power of the HS.
4:14
Persecution brings a blessing of the HS's presence.
2 Peter
1:21
The HS inspired the prophets of the OT.
1 John
3:24
We know that God abides in us by the HS's witness.
4:2
John tells us to test every spirit. This is something that the Church severely lacks. John says that things from the HS confess that Jesus is from God and came in the flesh. This is dealing with the spirit of antichrist, which is about teachings directly contrary to the Word of God. So, in this case, it is about the words, as opposed to 1 Cor. 12:3.
4:6
People from God listen to the apostles teaching, which for us is found in the scriptures. This is how we know it is from the HS and not error.
4:13
Just like 3:24, we know God abides in us by the HS's witness.
5:6-8
The HS testifies of Christ's work because he is truth.
Jude
v. 19-20
Scoffers of prophecy and worldly people are devoid of the HS. This may be people in the church as that is what was going on with the recipient's of Jude's letter. We should ignore them and pray in the HS. This praying in the HS could be one of two things that I covered in the note at Ephesians 6:17-18.
Revelation
1:10
John says he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." This could mean he was worshipping the Lord on Sunday or it could mean he was having a vision on Sunday or it could mean that he was having a vision about the Day of the Lord. Take your pick, it is very difficult to make a convincing case for any of the options.
2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22
The HS is speaking to the churches. Notice that says churches, not church. These letters from Christ are to more believers than just in the cities on the heading.
4:2
Another instance of John being in the Spirit. This seems to help us figure out 1:10 in that clearly, this time he is having a vision, which would eliminate the first option above that John was just having a special moment of communion with God.
14:13
The voice John hears from heaven is the HS.
17:3
John gets carried away in the HS. Much like Ezekiel, scholars argue over whether this means in a vision or that physically John was transported away.
22:17
The HS and us (the Bride) are both saying, "Come", in regard to Jesus' second advent.
Most of the stuff from the general epistles could fall under the bullets from Paul's letters, so I won't rehash those. Thanks for reading. I sincerely hope that you have learned something from this series.
Monday, July 25, 2016
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: Paul's Letters
In part one we looked at the Gospel's information about the Holy Spirit. In part two we looked at Acts. Now we are going to take a look at Paul's letters. These are the letters written to particular churches/regions and the Pastoral epistles with specific admonitions and corrections for them. These letters are Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Philemon says nothing about the HS.
Romans
1:4
Jesus is declared to be the Son of God by the proof of his resurrection which was through the working of the HS. This is a proof that Jesus is divine.
2:29
It is the HS that circumcises our hearts. I think this means that we are cleansed by the HS, given a new heart by the HS, and as we will see later on in Galatians, makes us partakers of God's covenant with Abraham and thus "a Jew" inwardly.
5:5
This could be a follow-up to 2:29. The HS is the deliverer of God's love that has transformed our hearts. This allows us grace to suffer, endure, gain character, and hope (v. 3-4) as we await his return.
7:6
Paul is here juxtaposing the law and the Spirit. The Spirit is the new way, the way of freedom. The law is what held us captive and that we are no longer a slave thanks to the HS's work in our lives.
8:2-17
Paul expounds the point he started on in 7:6. The HS has set us free from the law (v. 2) and when we walk in step with the HS the law is fulfilled (v. 4). This means our mind is set on the things of the Spirit (v.5) which gives us life and peace (v. 6). If you do not have the HS, you are not of God and do not have life (v. 9-10). The HS will give us life just as he did Jesus Christ (v. 11). Finally, the HS bears witness that we are God's (v. 15-16) and this means we are adopted Sons of God.
8:23
As Paul continues, he says that the Romans have the firstfruits of the Spirit which testifies about our adoption that will be complete when Christ returns. Like the rest of creation, we groan for it to be remade.
8:26-27
The HS helps us pray by interceding according to the will of God. This is not a proof of praying in heavenly language tongues. The text clearly says that the "groanings [are] too deep for words."
9:1
Paul says that his conscience bears him witness in the HS. In other words the HS is reassuring Paul he actually is telling the truth.
14:17
A blunt statement from Paul about the uselessness of the law for the Kingdom of God. The kingdom is about the righteousness, peace, and joy in the HS. I presume that Paul is talking about the earthly evidence of the kingdom that will come in full when Christ returns.
15:13
Only through the HS can we have hope.
15:16
The HS sanctifies believers. This context is the Gentiles.
15:18-19
Paul evangelized Gentiles by word and deed, power of signs and wonders, and power of the HS. I think all of these things were empowered by the HS.
15:30
Paul appeals to the Romans by the love of the HS.
1 Corinthians
2:4
Paul tells the Corinthians that his message was by the power of the HS, not just his own worldly wisdom.
2:9-16
This is an important passage. Paul says that God reveals the hope of glory by the HS (v. 9-10). He then says that only the spirit of a person knows that person's thoughts (v. 11a), so only the HS knows the thoughts of God (v. 11b). We have received this HS (v. 12a) so we can understand godly things (v. 12b) and impart them to others (v. 13). The natural person doesn't understand these godly things because he doesn't have the HS (v. 14). We can judge all things by the HS (v. 15) because the HS knows the "mind of the Lord" (v. 16a) which is the very same "mind of Christ" that we have (v. 16b). This is what gives us the ability to read and ponder the Bible with clarity and understanding and why the Bible seems so ridiculous and foolish to those not being led by the HS.
3:16
We are the temple of God because the HS dwells in us. This correlates to the presence of God dwelling in the tabernacle/temple in the OT. We don't have to go to a certain place to worship and serve God (John 4:21-24).
6:11
When a believer is save they are washed, sanctified, and justified in Jesus Christ. Because of the finished work of the cross, it does not require any work on our part. This all happens by the power of the HS.
6:19
We are the temple of the HS. This tells us once again that the HS is God when we compare this with 3:16.
7:40
Paul comments that he too has the Spirit of God. I think he is saying that he is writing under inspiration from God on the matter of unmarried and widows (v. 25-39).
12:3
No one can say "Jesus is Lord" without the HS. Does this mean that everyone who says this combination of words is a faithful servant of Jesus Christ teaching everything correctly? No, I don't think Paul has that kind of mechanical view here. I think he is saying that those who actually profess Jesus as Lord and mean it can only do so by the HS. The mere annunciation of the words "Jesus is Lord" don't serve to prove anything about a person.
12:4
The HS gives out a variety of gifts.
12:7
The gifts or manifestations as Paul now calls them, are for the common good of the body of Christ.
12:8-11
The gifts of the HS are listed. Paul continues his line of thought that these gifts are all from the same Spirit. They are for individuals and the HS gives as he wills. While we might have one of these gifts (there are other gifts listed elsewhere in Paul's writings: Romans 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 7:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 4:11 also), it is the HS who has the charge of operating through us with the gifts. A person is not empowered with healing for instance, and can go around healing people at will. It is very clearly up to the HS's will (i.e. God's will), not ours. This also doesn't mean that a believer only has one gift. They may have multiple. Finally, as we will see shortly, this list is not comprehensive by any means and some of these gifts are mingled with others which leads me to the conclusion that Paul was listing gifts off the top of his head as examples of spiritual gifts, not as an exhaustive list. I will talk about his more at 1 Cor. 12:14-30 (v. 28 in particular).
12:13
This verse is interpreted differently in various translations, but sometimes (NIV) it is translated as "For we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." This is a similar phrase to the baptism in the HS from the Gospels and Acts that we have already discussed. Is this another example of the Pentecostal baptism in the HS? Pentecostals would say no, because the context is clearly talking about when the Corinthians were saved, not a subsequent experience of empowerment by the HS. I don't think this interpretation holds up however. The prima facie reading of this statement seems the same to me as John the Baptists' "baptism with the HS." Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology (pg. 766-773), makes a compelling case from the Greek text that it is essentially the same phrase. This makes baptism in the HS a salvation experience. But, as I said when writing about Acts, I think that there are several things that happen as a person is converted and walks with Christ that could happen in any order God chooses. Figuring out exactly what order isn't important, it is being aware of all that God has to offer when he decides to give it to us.
12:14-30
Paul finishes this section (12:1-30) by explaining that there are different gifts so the whole Church can be built up and operate as God intended. He compares this to a body and its parts, which must work together or they will fail. No one has all the gifts and all the answers for guiding the Church, except God, who is giving out all these gifts to be used in harmony. In verse 28 we find another list of gifts, the second of this chapter. What is interesting is that miracles, healing, and tongues are mixed in with other gifts that were not mentioned in v. 8-11. This makes me think that none of Paul's lists are exhaustive as I said above. We will look at another list in Eph. 4.
13
This whole chapter says that without love, these gifts mean nothing. What does this have to do with the HS? The first fruit listed in Gal. 5:22 is love, which is manifested in us when we walk by the Spirit. Of note here as well is verse 10: "...when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." Cessationists will say that the gifts were for the apostles (or the apostolic age) only. They then died away after the church was built up and off the ground so to speak. The "perfect" is the canon of scripture that is our guide. We don't need the gifts anymore. Paul goes on to say that "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (v. 12). What is the now and then? It seems to me that Paul is talking about when Christ comes. Mirrors don't show images perfectly, just like the gifts don't show God perfectly. Earthly knowledge, even if led by the HS in discovery, isn't perfect, but when Christ comes we will see him perfectly and know him perfectly just as he knows us now.
14:2
Speaking in tongues is to God because no one understands the "mysteries in the Spirit." Paul is saying that there should be an interpretation if a tongue is given or else it is not useful to the body.
14:12
The Corinthians, who were eager for the HS to operate openly, need to operate in the gifts that build up the church. That means interpreted tongues and singing in the Spirit per verse13. This whole chapter is concerned with the appropriate use of the gifts which Paul says should be in order (v. 26-33).
2 Corinthians
1:22
The HS is a believers' guarantee or down payment of salvation that will be paid in full when we are glorified with Christ at his second coming.
3:3
Here Paul is using a metaphor. The Corinthians are a letter written with the HS on tablets of human hearts. This relates directly to the previous verse about the HS living with us. Paul also says "Spirit of the living God" indicating for us, once again, that the HS is God.
3:6
Paul says he is a minister of the new covenant that is of the Spirit, not the letter. The HS gives life while the letter kills. This hearkens back to Jesus saying that one must be born again to enter the kingdom (John 3:3-8) and to creation when the HS was instrumental in the universe's "birth" (Gen. 1:2) and mankind's "birth" (Gen. 2:7).
3:8
Paul again constrats the ministry of the Spirit and the letter. If the law (letters) had glory, how much more does the Spirit have?
3:17-18
Here we have an explicit statement of the HS being God. Paul uses the word Lord (kyrios) and says that "the Lord who is the Spirit." This Spirit, who is God, gives freedom. Freedom to behold God in his glory which then transforms us into his image.
6:6
Paul says that his ministry is marked by the HS in commendation.
Galatians
3:2-6
Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions of the Galatians as they struggle with a false gospel from the Judaizers who want to add works of the law to the finished work of Christ. In order, the answers are:
1. We received the HS by hearing with faith
2. Yes, we can all be that foolish.
3. We are not ever perfected by the flesh.
4. We don't have to suffer in vain.
5. By hearing with faith, just like Abraham.
This passage makes it very clear that we are saved by the work of Christ through the HS and not by works of any law (Paul just happens to be dealing with Mosaic law, but all laws are useless to earn eternal life).
4:6
This is an interesting verse. Note the order. We are sons, therefore the HS is in our hearts. This could go two ways (at least). This could be seen as adoption first, then the HS. Or it could be that adoption follows conversion as two separate events in which the HS is performing different actions at different times. It seems more natural to me to read this passage and related ones (Gal. 3:26; Rom. 8:15-16) as a single event that encompass several things at once: justification, conversion, adoption, regeneration. All of this is accompanied by the HS doing all sorts of things.
4:29
During Paul's analogy concerning Ishmael (the flesh) and Isaac (the Spirit) he says that the former's persecution of the latter is happening now. The flesh torments the Spirit.
5:5-23
We wait in hope only by the HS, through faith. Paul then continues contrasting the flesh and the Spirit urging the Galatians to forsake the false gospel hindering them and live according to the Spirit. He tells them that the Spirit is against the flesh and vice-versa. In verse 22 he recounts the fruit of the HS: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Unlike the various HS gift lists, there is only one fruit list. Since Paul says that all the gifts are worthless without love and love is one of the fruits of the HS; it follows that the fruit is more important than the gifts. Something that many in the Christian world seem to get backwards.
6:8
As Paul concludes the flesh/Spirit comparison he says that the flesh reaps corruption and the Spirit reaps eternal life.
Ephesians
1:17
Paul is praying that the Ephesians receive the HS, which he describes as being of wisdom and revelation. This wisdom and revelation is related to Christ's finished work and the hope of glory that awaits us (v. 18-21).
2:18
In the HS we have access to the Father through Jesus.
2:22
Paul again says that we are a dwelling place for God like 1 Cor. 3:16 does (as individuals). The HS is building us. This is in the context of the whole Church this time.
3:5
The mystery of the Gospel is revealed to apostles and prophets of this age by the HS. If you know anything about Mormon doctrine, you know that they believe that the "fullness of the Gospel" was preached in every generation and lost. That includes Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. But, Paul nixes that idea in this verse. The Gospel, he says "was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed."
3:16-17
The power of the HS gives us faith so that Christ can dwell in us.
4:3-4
Paul urges the Ephesians to be unified which can only take place by the one HS.
4:30
The HS should not be grieved. The HS seals us for the day of redemption. This again shows that it is God's work to save and persevere us, not ours.
5:18
An oft-quoted verse. We should always be filled with the HS. The verb tense makes this something like "be being filled with the HS". It is a continuing action that we should always be doing. The HS will fill us if we don't grieve him (4:30).
6:17-18
The sword of the HS is the word of God. It is our offensive weapon against the enemy. We should also pray in the HS. This could mean tongues, like a heavenly prayer language (1 Cor. 14), or with the HS intercessing (Rom 8:26-27).
Philippians
1:19
The HS helps Paul's ministry. The HS is called the "Spirit of Jesus Christ" in this passage. This rounds out the names for the HS in the NT. He has been called the HS, comforter, teacher, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of God, and now Spirit of Christ. It should be clear now that there is some realtionship between the Father, Son, and HS that goes beyond master and servant. They are being equated by the use of these names.
2:1
Paul encourages the Philippians to have unity. If they have any participation in the HS, they will be unified.
3:3
Worship is by the HS. This hearkens back to John 4:24. It is only through the HS (and truth!) that we can properly worship God.
Colossians
1:8
Love is in the HS, per 1 Cor. 13.
1 Thessalonians
1:5-6
The Gospel came to the Thessalonians in the HS (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:4) and they received it in the joy of the HS (Gal 5:22).
4:8
God gives the HS to you. The physics of this means that the Father, the Son, and the HS give the HS to you. This makes the HS a person because he is willingly giving himself to you. He can't have a will without being a person.
5:19
"Do not quench the Spirit." Enough said
2 Thessalonians
2:13
The HS sanctifies believers, which means he cleanses us in preparation for our final redemption.
1 Timothy
3:16
Speaking of Christ, Paul says that he was "vindicated [or justified] by the Spirit." I think this is talking about his resurrection which happened through the HS. The order would make sense as well with that interpretation.
4:1
The HS prophesied about the end times.
2 Timothy
1:14
Paul tells Timothy to guard the deposit (the Gosepl v. 8-13) by the HS. Presumably, he is telling him not to wander from the actual Gospel as that is the thrust of this whole section.
Titus
3:5
Another instance of the sanctifying work of the HS.
Paul's letters carry a few themes that recur.
1. We are both individually and collectively a temple(s) of the HS. This is God's presence inside of us just like he descended on the tabernacle and the temple in the OT.
2. The Gospel message is delivered in the power of the HS, not in fancy arguments.
3. The HS is God. We can deduce this from the various names the HS is called throughout Paul's letters as well as the Gospels and Acts.
4. The HS is preparing us for the 2nd coming of Christ. He circumcises our hearts, seals us, sanctifies us, washes us, and testifies to us that we are sons of God.
5. The HS's work is ongoing in both the gifts (less important) and the fruit (more important). Remember, without love nothing is worthwhile including the HS's gifts.
Next time we will finish this series by covering the general epistles including Revelation.
Romans
1:4
Jesus is declared to be the Son of God by the proof of his resurrection which was through the working of the HS. This is a proof that Jesus is divine.
2:29
It is the HS that circumcises our hearts. I think this means that we are cleansed by the HS, given a new heart by the HS, and as we will see later on in Galatians, makes us partakers of God's covenant with Abraham and thus "a Jew" inwardly.
5:5
This could be a follow-up to 2:29. The HS is the deliverer of God's love that has transformed our hearts. This allows us grace to suffer, endure, gain character, and hope (v. 3-4) as we await his return.
7:6
Paul is here juxtaposing the law and the Spirit. The Spirit is the new way, the way of freedom. The law is what held us captive and that we are no longer a slave thanks to the HS's work in our lives.
8:2-17
Paul expounds the point he started on in 7:6. The HS has set us free from the law (v. 2) and when we walk in step with the HS the law is fulfilled (v. 4). This means our mind is set on the things of the Spirit (v.5) which gives us life and peace (v. 6). If you do not have the HS, you are not of God and do not have life (v. 9-10). The HS will give us life just as he did Jesus Christ (v. 11). Finally, the HS bears witness that we are God's (v. 15-16) and this means we are adopted Sons of God.
8:23
As Paul continues, he says that the Romans have the firstfruits of the Spirit which testifies about our adoption that will be complete when Christ returns. Like the rest of creation, we groan for it to be remade.
8:26-27
The HS helps us pray by interceding according to the will of God. This is not a proof of praying in heavenly language tongues. The text clearly says that the "groanings [are] too deep for words."
9:1
Paul says that his conscience bears him witness in the HS. In other words the HS is reassuring Paul he actually is telling the truth.
14:17
A blunt statement from Paul about the uselessness of the law for the Kingdom of God. The kingdom is about the righteousness, peace, and joy in the HS. I presume that Paul is talking about the earthly evidence of the kingdom that will come in full when Christ returns.
15:13
Only through the HS can we have hope.
15:16
The HS sanctifies believers. This context is the Gentiles.
15:18-19
Paul evangelized Gentiles by word and deed, power of signs and wonders, and power of the HS. I think all of these things were empowered by the HS.
15:30
Paul appeals to the Romans by the love of the HS.
1 Corinthians
2:4
Paul tells the Corinthians that his message was by the power of the HS, not just his own worldly wisdom.
2:9-16
This is an important passage. Paul says that God reveals the hope of glory by the HS (v. 9-10). He then says that only the spirit of a person knows that person's thoughts (v. 11a), so only the HS knows the thoughts of God (v. 11b). We have received this HS (v. 12a) so we can understand godly things (v. 12b) and impart them to others (v. 13). The natural person doesn't understand these godly things because he doesn't have the HS (v. 14). We can judge all things by the HS (v. 15) because the HS knows the "mind of the Lord" (v. 16a) which is the very same "mind of Christ" that we have (v. 16b). This is what gives us the ability to read and ponder the Bible with clarity and understanding and why the Bible seems so ridiculous and foolish to those not being led by the HS.
3:16
We are the temple of God because the HS dwells in us. This correlates to the presence of God dwelling in the tabernacle/temple in the OT. We don't have to go to a certain place to worship and serve God (John 4:21-24).
6:11
When a believer is save they are washed, sanctified, and justified in Jesus Christ. Because of the finished work of the cross, it does not require any work on our part. This all happens by the power of the HS.
6:19
We are the temple of the HS. This tells us once again that the HS is God when we compare this with 3:16.
7:40
Paul comments that he too has the Spirit of God. I think he is saying that he is writing under inspiration from God on the matter of unmarried and widows (v. 25-39).
12:3
No one can say "Jesus is Lord" without the HS. Does this mean that everyone who says this combination of words is a faithful servant of Jesus Christ teaching everything correctly? No, I don't think Paul has that kind of mechanical view here. I think he is saying that those who actually profess Jesus as Lord and mean it can only do so by the HS. The mere annunciation of the words "Jesus is Lord" don't serve to prove anything about a person.
12:4
The HS gives out a variety of gifts.
12:7
The gifts or manifestations as Paul now calls them, are for the common good of the body of Christ.
12:8-11
The gifts of the HS are listed. Paul continues his line of thought that these gifts are all from the same Spirit. They are for individuals and the HS gives as he wills. While we might have one of these gifts (there are other gifts listed elsewhere in Paul's writings: Romans 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 7:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 4:11 also), it is the HS who has the charge of operating through us with the gifts. A person is not empowered with healing for instance, and can go around healing people at will. It is very clearly up to the HS's will (i.e. God's will), not ours. This also doesn't mean that a believer only has one gift. They may have multiple. Finally, as we will see shortly, this list is not comprehensive by any means and some of these gifts are mingled with others which leads me to the conclusion that Paul was listing gifts off the top of his head as examples of spiritual gifts, not as an exhaustive list. I will talk about his more at 1 Cor. 12:14-30 (v. 28 in particular).
12:13
This verse is interpreted differently in various translations, but sometimes (NIV) it is translated as "For we were all baptized in one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." This is a similar phrase to the baptism in the HS from the Gospels and Acts that we have already discussed. Is this another example of the Pentecostal baptism in the HS? Pentecostals would say no, because the context is clearly talking about when the Corinthians were saved, not a subsequent experience of empowerment by the HS. I don't think this interpretation holds up however. The prima facie reading of this statement seems the same to me as John the Baptists' "baptism with the HS." Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology (pg. 766-773), makes a compelling case from the Greek text that it is essentially the same phrase. This makes baptism in the HS a salvation experience. But, as I said when writing about Acts, I think that there are several things that happen as a person is converted and walks with Christ that could happen in any order God chooses. Figuring out exactly what order isn't important, it is being aware of all that God has to offer when he decides to give it to us.
12:14-30
Paul finishes this section (12:1-30) by explaining that there are different gifts so the whole Church can be built up and operate as God intended. He compares this to a body and its parts, which must work together or they will fail. No one has all the gifts and all the answers for guiding the Church, except God, who is giving out all these gifts to be used in harmony. In verse 28 we find another list of gifts, the second of this chapter. What is interesting is that miracles, healing, and tongues are mixed in with other gifts that were not mentioned in v. 8-11. This makes me think that none of Paul's lists are exhaustive as I said above. We will look at another list in Eph. 4.
13
This whole chapter says that without love, these gifts mean nothing. What does this have to do with the HS? The first fruit listed in Gal. 5:22 is love, which is manifested in us when we walk by the Spirit. Of note here as well is verse 10: "...when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." Cessationists will say that the gifts were for the apostles (or the apostolic age) only. They then died away after the church was built up and off the ground so to speak. The "perfect" is the canon of scripture that is our guide. We don't need the gifts anymore. Paul goes on to say that "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (v. 12). What is the now and then? It seems to me that Paul is talking about when Christ comes. Mirrors don't show images perfectly, just like the gifts don't show God perfectly. Earthly knowledge, even if led by the HS in discovery, isn't perfect, but when Christ comes we will see him perfectly and know him perfectly just as he knows us now.
14:2
Speaking in tongues is to God because no one understands the "mysteries in the Spirit." Paul is saying that there should be an interpretation if a tongue is given or else it is not useful to the body.
14:12
The Corinthians, who were eager for the HS to operate openly, need to operate in the gifts that build up the church. That means interpreted tongues and singing in the Spirit per verse13. This whole chapter is concerned with the appropriate use of the gifts which Paul says should be in order (v. 26-33).
2 Corinthians
1:22
The HS is a believers' guarantee or down payment of salvation that will be paid in full when we are glorified with Christ at his second coming.
3:3
Here Paul is using a metaphor. The Corinthians are a letter written with the HS on tablets of human hearts. This relates directly to the previous verse about the HS living with us. Paul also says "Spirit of the living God" indicating for us, once again, that the HS is God.
3:6
Paul says he is a minister of the new covenant that is of the Spirit, not the letter. The HS gives life while the letter kills. This hearkens back to Jesus saying that one must be born again to enter the kingdom (John 3:3-8) and to creation when the HS was instrumental in the universe's "birth" (Gen. 1:2) and mankind's "birth" (Gen. 2:7).
3:8
Paul again constrats the ministry of the Spirit and the letter. If the law (letters) had glory, how much more does the Spirit have?
3:17-18
Here we have an explicit statement of the HS being God. Paul uses the word Lord (kyrios) and says that "the Lord who is the Spirit." This Spirit, who is God, gives freedom. Freedom to behold God in his glory which then transforms us into his image.
6:6
Paul says that his ministry is marked by the HS in commendation.
Galatians
3:2-6
Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions of the Galatians as they struggle with a false gospel from the Judaizers who want to add works of the law to the finished work of Christ. In order, the answers are:
1. We received the HS by hearing with faith
2. Yes, we can all be that foolish.
3. We are not ever perfected by the flesh.
4. We don't have to suffer in vain.
5. By hearing with faith, just like Abraham.
This passage makes it very clear that we are saved by the work of Christ through the HS and not by works of any law (Paul just happens to be dealing with Mosaic law, but all laws are useless to earn eternal life).
4:6
This is an interesting verse. Note the order. We are sons, therefore the HS is in our hearts. This could go two ways (at least). This could be seen as adoption first, then the HS. Or it could be that adoption follows conversion as two separate events in which the HS is performing different actions at different times. It seems more natural to me to read this passage and related ones (Gal. 3:26; Rom. 8:15-16) as a single event that encompass several things at once: justification, conversion, adoption, regeneration. All of this is accompanied by the HS doing all sorts of things.
4:29
During Paul's analogy concerning Ishmael (the flesh) and Isaac (the Spirit) he says that the former's persecution of the latter is happening now. The flesh torments the Spirit.
5:5-23
We wait in hope only by the HS, through faith. Paul then continues contrasting the flesh and the Spirit urging the Galatians to forsake the false gospel hindering them and live according to the Spirit. He tells them that the Spirit is against the flesh and vice-versa. In verse 22 he recounts the fruit of the HS: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Unlike the various HS gift lists, there is only one fruit list. Since Paul says that all the gifts are worthless without love and love is one of the fruits of the HS; it follows that the fruit is more important than the gifts. Something that many in the Christian world seem to get backwards.
6:8
As Paul concludes the flesh/Spirit comparison he says that the flesh reaps corruption and the Spirit reaps eternal life.
Ephesians
1:17
Paul is praying that the Ephesians receive the HS, which he describes as being of wisdom and revelation. This wisdom and revelation is related to Christ's finished work and the hope of glory that awaits us (v. 18-21).
2:18
In the HS we have access to the Father through Jesus.
2:22
Paul again says that we are a dwelling place for God like 1 Cor. 3:16 does (as individuals). The HS is building us. This is in the context of the whole Church this time.
3:5
The mystery of the Gospel is revealed to apostles and prophets of this age by the HS. If you know anything about Mormon doctrine, you know that they believe that the "fullness of the Gospel" was preached in every generation and lost. That includes Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. But, Paul nixes that idea in this verse. The Gospel, he says "was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed."
3:16-17
The power of the HS gives us faith so that Christ can dwell in us.
4:3-4
Paul urges the Ephesians to be unified which can only take place by the one HS.
4:30
The HS should not be grieved. The HS seals us for the day of redemption. This again shows that it is God's work to save and persevere us, not ours.
5:18
An oft-quoted verse. We should always be filled with the HS. The verb tense makes this something like "be being filled with the HS". It is a continuing action that we should always be doing. The HS will fill us if we don't grieve him (4:30).
6:17-18
The sword of the HS is the word of God. It is our offensive weapon against the enemy. We should also pray in the HS. This could mean tongues, like a heavenly prayer language (1 Cor. 14), or with the HS intercessing (Rom 8:26-27).
Philippians
1:19
The HS helps Paul's ministry. The HS is called the "Spirit of Jesus Christ" in this passage. This rounds out the names for the HS in the NT. He has been called the HS, comforter, teacher, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of God, and now Spirit of Christ. It should be clear now that there is some realtionship between the Father, Son, and HS that goes beyond master and servant. They are being equated by the use of these names.
2:1
Paul encourages the Philippians to have unity. If they have any participation in the HS, they will be unified.
3:3
Worship is by the HS. This hearkens back to John 4:24. It is only through the HS (and truth!) that we can properly worship God.
Colossians
1:8
Love is in the HS, per 1 Cor. 13.
1 Thessalonians
1:5-6
The Gospel came to the Thessalonians in the HS (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:4) and they received it in the joy of the HS (Gal 5:22).
4:8
God gives the HS to you. The physics of this means that the Father, the Son, and the HS give the HS to you. This makes the HS a person because he is willingly giving himself to you. He can't have a will without being a person.
5:19
"Do not quench the Spirit." Enough said
2 Thessalonians
2:13
The HS sanctifies believers, which means he cleanses us in preparation for our final redemption.
1 Timothy
3:16
Speaking of Christ, Paul says that he was "vindicated [or justified] by the Spirit." I think this is talking about his resurrection which happened through the HS. The order would make sense as well with that interpretation.
4:1
The HS prophesied about the end times.
2 Timothy
1:14
Paul tells Timothy to guard the deposit (the Gosepl v. 8-13) by the HS. Presumably, he is telling him not to wander from the actual Gospel as that is the thrust of this whole section.
Titus
3:5
Another instance of the sanctifying work of the HS.
Paul's letters carry a few themes that recur.
1. We are both individually and collectively a temple(s) of the HS. This is God's presence inside of us just like he descended on the tabernacle and the temple in the OT.
2. The Gospel message is delivered in the power of the HS, not in fancy arguments.
3. The HS is God. We can deduce this from the various names the HS is called throughout Paul's letters as well as the Gospels and Acts.
4. The HS is preparing us for the 2nd coming of Christ. He circumcises our hearts, seals us, sanctifies us, washes us, and testifies to us that we are sons of God.
5. The HS's work is ongoing in both the gifts (less important) and the fruit (more important). Remember, without love nothing is worthwhile including the HS's gifts.
Next time we will finish this series by covering the general epistles including Revelation.
Monday, July 18, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, July 11, 2016
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: The Gospels
A while ago I spent some time reading through the entire New Testament looking for the Holy Spirit. Who is he? What did he do during Jesus' ministry? What did he do after Jesus' ministry? What is his role in the age of grace among believers? Non-believers? My interest in this study was relieving myself of any preconceived notions I may have had about who and what the Holy Spirit was all about. Except for looking up some Greek words occasionally, I tried not to use reference material of any sort. The ideas that follow are my own based almost exclusively on the New Testament text, mainly from the ESV translation. That also means I am open to being wrong. Trying to piece together a doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the wide array of books that make up the New Testament is difficult and certainly I have misconstrued some things. Respectful comments and reasoned arguments are always welcome. I am going to do this in parts, starting with what the Gospels have to say about the Holy Spirit.
The Gospels
Matthew 1:18 (also Luke 1:35)
The Holy Spirit (HS) conceived Jesus in Mary. Given that the HS is spirit, he is immaterial, with no body (Luke 24:39). That means this isn't and can't be physical sexual intercourse a la Mormonism (page 115, right column, 3rd paragraph). This immediately gives us a recognition of who the HS is when we compare these passages. The Matthew passage says that Mary was found with child from the HS while the Luke passage says that both the HS will come upon her and the power of the Most High will overshadow her. This equating of the HS with the Most High indicates that the HS is God given some Old Testament (OT) references that clue us in to whom the Most High is (Gen. 14:18-22; Deut 32:8; Psalm 9:2).
Matthew 3:11-12 (also Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16-17; John 1:33)
In these passages we find John the Baptist's comments about Jesus baptizing with the HS. Only Matthew and Luke say that Jesus will baptize with fire as well. The context bears out what this means. In both Matthew and Luke, John the Baptist says Jesus will gather the wheat into the barn the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. So, if you are baptized with the HS, you are "wheat" that will be gathered into the barn, while if you are not baptized with the HS, you are "chaff" that will be burnt with unquenchable fire. This seems to comport with the OT (Isa 17:13; 66:24; Jer 13:24; 15:7, etc.).We'll come back to this point in a minute. Some other observations are in order first. This seems to indicate that water baptism is a lesser baptism than HS baptism. It also seems as though Jesus is directing the HS, which raises a few questions. Namely: Does this mean our equating the HS with God as we did above is incorrect? Is the HS not God, but subordinate in deity to the Father and the Son and thus, directed by their will? Is the HS God, but functionally subordinate in some way like the Son submits to the Father concerning the cross even though the Son is fully God? (I will answer these questions as we go through the NT, but I want to be open to hearing what the text says, not what I think it says.)
Let's go back to the Baptism in the HS. This raises some serious issues if you are a Pentecostal/Charismatic. Traditionally, Pentecostals (article 11 in the link) have seen the Baptism in the HS as a second act of grace subsequent to the initial infilling of the HS at the salvation moment (when people generally say the sinner's prayer in order to be saved). This means that Pentecostals believe that this baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is different than the salvation experience, but could be concurrent with it. Pentecostals believe that the initial evidence for the Baptism in the HS is speaking in tongues, which they differentiate from the gift of tongues from 1 Corinthians 12:10 that is only for some believers as the HS gifts them. This Baptism in the HS gives a believer the ability to operate in the HS's gifts as enumerated in 1 Cor. 12:8-11. Charismatics, though not holding to a single doctrine of the Baptism in the HS, generally believe all of this except that the initial evidence of this baptism could be a wide array of things, not only tongues. Again, there are questions that the Gospel passages bring to the forefront. If the individuals who are not baptized in the HS are chaff that will be burned with unquenchable fire (they will go to hell), how is it that the Pentecostal Baptism in the HS is a second act of grace that is not necessary for salvation? These don't seem to go together.
Defenders of this doctrine point to John 20:22 and Acts 1:5 and 2:1-4. The apostles received the HS from the breath of Jesus in the upper room at the end of John's Gospel, but then are told they will be baptized with (or in) the HS not many days from now in the beginning of Acts. They will say that the John passage is salvation, while the Acts passage is the Baptism in the HS. People who object to this doctrine say the same thing about the John passage, it was the salvation experience for the apostles, but they differ on the Acts passage pointing to Peter's speech in Acts 2:17-18 that says the falling of the HS is fulfilled prophecy from Joel and therefore, is a unique experience that inaugurated the church. The objectors will say that no one has this sort of experience today, only the filling of the HS when people are saved (like the apostles in the upper room, we are "breathed on", so to speak, by Jesus). I think both of these are wrong.
I think both of these events in the apostles lives were unique. In John 20:22 Jesus breathed on the apostles, but the apostles still didn't understand the full impact of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection until they were baptized in the HS at Pentecost. This makes the objectors to the Pentecostal doctrine incorrect in saying that the apostles received the fullness of the HS in the upper room. If they did have all of the HS, why did they not start evangelizing with a clear understanding until Pentecost? As far as the day of Pentecost experience, I think that was unique as well. It was the inauguration of the body of Christ, the Church, being sealed by the HS. It was the transition between covenants. Clearly this was a unique event. If we consider John the Baptist's words in the Gospels about Jesus' baptism with the HS, this was necessary for the salvation of the apostles. But then that begs the question of what exactly the upper room experience was. This leads me to the conclusion that these were both unique experiences. The danger lies in thinking that we can use the apostles experiences as a strict model for what should happen to us. Acts itself has a number of different ways that people are saved and filled with the HS, both with and without tongues. In the next installment of this series I will address Acts in more detail with a comprehensive look at all of the passages dealing with salvation and filling of the HS. In the meantime, let me just say that I think any number of things could happen to an individual concurrent with salvation or after salvation. I also don't think there is just one experience to be had, what Pentecostals and Charismatics would generally call the Baptism in the HS, by believers. There is always more of the HS to be filled and empowered with as Paul says in Ephesians 5:18: "but be filled with the Spirit". As we continue through the NT we will encounter some other passages that deal with being filled with the HS after conversion.
Matthew 3:16 (also Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)
After Jesus is baptized, the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove. What spirit is this? Matthew says Spirit of God; Mark says Spirit; Luke says Holy Spirit; John says Spirit. Putting all these together we can see that this is the HS and that he is God. Jesus is unique, so I am not going to try to draw any conclusions about the Baptism in the HS debate above from his baptism by water and receiving the HS.
Matthew 4:1 (also Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-2)
This is Jesus' temptation period. The text says he was led or drove by the HS into the desert. This is our first indication, of many more to come, that Jesus was dependent on the HS during his ministry on Earth. In some way this serves as an example for us. That we should be as reliant on the HS's guidance as Jesus was on Earth, though we can never obtain the perfection of submission that Christ did due to our imperfect lives.
Matthew 10:20 (also Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12)
In the context of persecution, Jesus tells the apostles not to worry about what to say (v. 19) because the Spirit of the Father will speak through them. Though this was said specifically to the apostles, I think this could be for all believers based on the fact that Jesus was sending them out (v. 5) and he has also sent us out (28:19). Also, in the Luke passage, Jesus is discussing "everyone who acknowledges me" (v. 8), not just the apostles.
Matthew 12:18-21
Matthew quotes from Isaiah 42:1-3. This passage says that God will put his Spirit upon his servant to do three things: proclaim justice to the Gentiles, bring justice to victory, and bring hope to the Gentiles. This is another passage that points to Christ's reliance on the HS during his earthly ministry.
Matthew 12:28
Jesus casts out demons by the Spirit of God. Yet another passage about Jesus' empowerment by the HS.
Matthew 12:31-32 (also Mark 3:29-30; Luke 12:10)
The blasphemy of the HS is outlined. It will not be forgiven. It is unclear to me exactly what this blasphemy is. Blasphemy by definition is the speaking profanely of God. The Mark passage's context is that of the scribes accusing Jesus of casting out demons by Satan's power. So it would seem that the blasphemy of the HS is not recognizing the HS actions.
Matthew 22:43
Jesus hints at the inspiration of the scriptures by saying that David wrote a Psalm in the Spirit.
Matthew 28:19
The Great Commission says that we should baptize people in the name of all three members of the Trinity including the HS. This may indicate their equality within the Godhead.
Luke 1:15
John the Baptist will be filled with the HS from the womb. This is an indication that he is a prophet.
Luke 1:41-43
Mary visits Elizabeth. John the Baptist jumps in the womb in the presence of Jesus (in Mary's womb). Elizabeth is then filled with the HS and acknowledges Jesus as Lord.
Luke 1:67
Zechariah filled with HS and prophesies.
Luke 2:25-27
Simeon filled with HS and knew that the baby Jesus was the Messiah. The OT saw the HS as the Spirit of prophecy in particular. These 4 examples show that idea in practice as all of these characters were prophets and/or prophesied when filled with the HS.
Luke 4:14, 18
Another indication that Jesus used the HS in his ministry. He began his ministry in the power of the Spirit.
Luke 10:21
Even in praise of God, Jesus was operating in the HS.
Luke 11:13
In the context of friends and fathers giving gifts, Jesus says that the Father will give the HS to those who ask him. Jesus is comparing us, who are evil, giving good gifts, with the Father, who is perfectly good giving the greatest gift of all, the HS. This would have been a radical idea to the Jews hearing this. In their view, only kings and prophets got the HS, but now Jesus is saying that anyone who asks can have the HS. While many Pentecostals will use this verse as a prooftext of the Baptism in the HS, there is no mention of this baptism in this passage.
Luke 24:49
Jesus says he is sending the promise of the Father so the disciples can be clothed with power. This is directly connected to the beginning of Acts (1:5, 8; 2:33) where the HS descends on the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus says this is so they can have power to witness (Acts 1:8).
John 3:34
Akin to the Luke 11:13 passage, Jesus will give the Spirit without measure. Here we have an equating of Jesus and the Father. Notice that they are both sending the Spirit apparently. At least in function it appears that the HS is subordinate to the Son and the Father.
John 6:63
After Jesus tells people that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life (v. 35-59), the disciples are confused. Jesus says it is the Spirit who gives life, not the flesh. I think he is correcting them in their thinking that they actually had to eat his flesh and drink his blood physically to have eternal life. He is not speaking literally here. This would discount the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
John 7:37-39
Jesus says if you thirst, come to me and drink. Those who do will have rivers of living water flowing from their heart. In v. 39 John says that is the Spirit. Those who believe will get it after Jesus is glorified. Based on this passage, Jesus isn't glorified fully until he ascends to the throne (Acts 1:9). Then the HS is poured out on believers (Acts 2ff). This means the John 20:22 passage where Jesus breathes on the apostles in the upper room was unique and not a model for every believer. This further strains the Pentecostal Baptism in the HS doctrine because the upper room experience is seen as salvation before the baptism. But it seems to me that this is clearly one-of-a-kind because the HS wasn't given until Christ's glorification.
John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15
The HS is called the Helper which the Father gives to believers when Jesus asks him to. The world cannot receive him. He will teach us all things and bring to remembrance all of Jesus' teachings. The Helper will also bear witness about Christ. When Jesus goes away the Helper will come and he will: convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, guide believers into truth, won't speak on his own authority, and will glorify Christ by declaring what is his. These passages together portray the HS as being directed by the Father and the Son, but also as continuing the Son's work that was started during his ministry (proclaiming the Kingdom of Heaven). This further helps us to understand that the HS is God, but functionally he is acting in submission to the Father and the Son even though he is equal in nature.
This concludes the Gospel portion of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Next time I will cover Acts all by itself. The Book of Acts has quite a bit to say about the actions of the HS and we will continue to look at the Pentecostal Baptism in the Holy Spirit doctrine.
The Gospels
Matthew 1:18 (also Luke 1:35)
The Holy Spirit (HS) conceived Jesus in Mary. Given that the HS is spirit, he is immaterial, with no body (Luke 24:39). That means this isn't and can't be physical sexual intercourse a la Mormonism (page 115, right column, 3rd paragraph). This immediately gives us a recognition of who the HS is when we compare these passages. The Matthew passage says that Mary was found with child from the HS while the Luke passage says that both the HS will come upon her and the power of the Most High will overshadow her. This equating of the HS with the Most High indicates that the HS is God given some Old Testament (OT) references that clue us in to whom the Most High is (Gen. 14:18-22; Deut 32:8; Psalm 9:2).
Matthew 3:11-12 (also Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16-17; John 1:33)
In these passages we find John the Baptist's comments about Jesus baptizing with the HS. Only Matthew and Luke say that Jesus will baptize with fire as well. The context bears out what this means. In both Matthew and Luke, John the Baptist says Jesus will gather the wheat into the barn the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. So, if you are baptized with the HS, you are "wheat" that will be gathered into the barn, while if you are not baptized with the HS, you are "chaff" that will be burnt with unquenchable fire. This seems to comport with the OT (Isa 17:13; 66:24; Jer 13:24; 15:7, etc.).We'll come back to this point in a minute. Some other observations are in order first. This seems to indicate that water baptism is a lesser baptism than HS baptism. It also seems as though Jesus is directing the HS, which raises a few questions. Namely: Does this mean our equating the HS with God as we did above is incorrect? Is the HS not God, but subordinate in deity to the Father and the Son and thus, directed by their will? Is the HS God, but functionally subordinate in some way like the Son submits to the Father concerning the cross even though the Son is fully God? (I will answer these questions as we go through the NT, but I want to be open to hearing what the text says, not what I think it says.)
Let's go back to the Baptism in the HS. This raises some serious issues if you are a Pentecostal/Charismatic. Traditionally, Pentecostals (article 11 in the link) have seen the Baptism in the HS as a second act of grace subsequent to the initial infilling of the HS at the salvation moment (when people generally say the sinner's prayer in order to be saved). This means that Pentecostals believe that this baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is different than the salvation experience, but could be concurrent with it. Pentecostals believe that the initial evidence for the Baptism in the HS is speaking in tongues, which they differentiate from the gift of tongues from 1 Corinthians 12:10 that is only for some believers as the HS gifts them. This Baptism in the HS gives a believer the ability to operate in the HS's gifts as enumerated in 1 Cor. 12:8-11. Charismatics, though not holding to a single doctrine of the Baptism in the HS, generally believe all of this except that the initial evidence of this baptism could be a wide array of things, not only tongues. Again, there are questions that the Gospel passages bring to the forefront. If the individuals who are not baptized in the HS are chaff that will be burned with unquenchable fire (they will go to hell), how is it that the Pentecostal Baptism in the HS is a second act of grace that is not necessary for salvation? These don't seem to go together.
Defenders of this doctrine point to John 20:22 and Acts 1:5 and 2:1-4. The apostles received the HS from the breath of Jesus in the upper room at the end of John's Gospel, but then are told they will be baptized with (or in) the HS not many days from now in the beginning of Acts. They will say that the John passage is salvation, while the Acts passage is the Baptism in the HS. People who object to this doctrine say the same thing about the John passage, it was the salvation experience for the apostles, but they differ on the Acts passage pointing to Peter's speech in Acts 2:17-18 that says the falling of the HS is fulfilled prophecy from Joel and therefore, is a unique experience that inaugurated the church. The objectors will say that no one has this sort of experience today, only the filling of the HS when people are saved (like the apostles in the upper room, we are "breathed on", so to speak, by Jesus). I think both of these are wrong.
I think both of these events in the apostles lives were unique. In John 20:22 Jesus breathed on the apostles, but the apostles still didn't understand the full impact of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection until they were baptized in the HS at Pentecost. This makes the objectors to the Pentecostal doctrine incorrect in saying that the apostles received the fullness of the HS in the upper room. If they did have all of the HS, why did they not start evangelizing with a clear understanding until Pentecost? As far as the day of Pentecost experience, I think that was unique as well. It was the inauguration of the body of Christ, the Church, being sealed by the HS. It was the transition between covenants. Clearly this was a unique event. If we consider John the Baptist's words in the Gospels about Jesus' baptism with the HS, this was necessary for the salvation of the apostles. But then that begs the question of what exactly the upper room experience was. This leads me to the conclusion that these were both unique experiences. The danger lies in thinking that we can use the apostles experiences as a strict model for what should happen to us. Acts itself has a number of different ways that people are saved and filled with the HS, both with and without tongues. In the next installment of this series I will address Acts in more detail with a comprehensive look at all of the passages dealing with salvation and filling of the HS. In the meantime, let me just say that I think any number of things could happen to an individual concurrent with salvation or after salvation. I also don't think there is just one experience to be had, what Pentecostals and Charismatics would generally call the Baptism in the HS, by believers. There is always more of the HS to be filled and empowered with as Paul says in Ephesians 5:18: "but be filled with the Spirit". As we continue through the NT we will encounter some other passages that deal with being filled with the HS after conversion.
Matthew 3:16 (also Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)
After Jesus is baptized, the Spirit of God descends on him like a dove. What spirit is this? Matthew says Spirit of God; Mark says Spirit; Luke says Holy Spirit; John says Spirit. Putting all these together we can see that this is the HS and that he is God. Jesus is unique, so I am not going to try to draw any conclusions about the Baptism in the HS debate above from his baptism by water and receiving the HS.
Matthew 4:1 (also Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-2)
This is Jesus' temptation period. The text says he was led or drove by the HS into the desert. This is our first indication, of many more to come, that Jesus was dependent on the HS during his ministry on Earth. In some way this serves as an example for us. That we should be as reliant on the HS's guidance as Jesus was on Earth, though we can never obtain the perfection of submission that Christ did due to our imperfect lives.
Matthew 10:20 (also Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12)
In the context of persecution, Jesus tells the apostles not to worry about what to say (v. 19) because the Spirit of the Father will speak through them. Though this was said specifically to the apostles, I think this could be for all believers based on the fact that Jesus was sending them out (v. 5) and he has also sent us out (28:19). Also, in the Luke passage, Jesus is discussing "everyone who acknowledges me" (v. 8), not just the apostles.
Matthew 12:18-21
Matthew quotes from Isaiah 42:1-3. This passage says that God will put his Spirit upon his servant to do three things: proclaim justice to the Gentiles, bring justice to victory, and bring hope to the Gentiles. This is another passage that points to Christ's reliance on the HS during his earthly ministry.
Matthew 12:28
Jesus casts out demons by the Spirit of God. Yet another passage about Jesus' empowerment by the HS.
Matthew 12:31-32 (also Mark 3:29-30; Luke 12:10)
The blasphemy of the HS is outlined. It will not be forgiven. It is unclear to me exactly what this blasphemy is. Blasphemy by definition is the speaking profanely of God. The Mark passage's context is that of the scribes accusing Jesus of casting out demons by Satan's power. So it would seem that the blasphemy of the HS is not recognizing the HS actions.
Matthew 22:43
Jesus hints at the inspiration of the scriptures by saying that David wrote a Psalm in the Spirit.
Matthew 28:19
The Great Commission says that we should baptize people in the name of all three members of the Trinity including the HS. This may indicate their equality within the Godhead.
Luke 1:15
John the Baptist will be filled with the HS from the womb. This is an indication that he is a prophet.
Luke 1:41-43
Mary visits Elizabeth. John the Baptist jumps in the womb in the presence of Jesus (in Mary's womb). Elizabeth is then filled with the HS and acknowledges Jesus as Lord.
Luke 1:67
Zechariah filled with HS and prophesies.
Luke 2:25-27
Simeon filled with HS and knew that the baby Jesus was the Messiah. The OT saw the HS as the Spirit of prophecy in particular. These 4 examples show that idea in practice as all of these characters were prophets and/or prophesied when filled with the HS.
Luke 4:14, 18
Another indication that Jesus used the HS in his ministry. He began his ministry in the power of the Spirit.
Luke 10:21
Even in praise of God, Jesus was operating in the HS.
Luke 11:13
In the context of friends and fathers giving gifts, Jesus says that the Father will give the HS to those who ask him. Jesus is comparing us, who are evil, giving good gifts, with the Father, who is perfectly good giving the greatest gift of all, the HS. This would have been a radical idea to the Jews hearing this. In their view, only kings and prophets got the HS, but now Jesus is saying that anyone who asks can have the HS. While many Pentecostals will use this verse as a prooftext of the Baptism in the HS, there is no mention of this baptism in this passage.
Luke 24:49
Jesus says he is sending the promise of the Father so the disciples can be clothed with power. This is directly connected to the beginning of Acts (1:5, 8; 2:33) where the HS descends on the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus says this is so they can have power to witness (Acts 1:8).
John 3:34
Akin to the Luke 11:13 passage, Jesus will give the Spirit without measure. Here we have an equating of Jesus and the Father. Notice that they are both sending the Spirit apparently. At least in function it appears that the HS is subordinate to the Son and the Father.
John 6:63
After Jesus tells people that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life (v. 35-59), the disciples are confused. Jesus says it is the Spirit who gives life, not the flesh. I think he is correcting them in their thinking that they actually had to eat his flesh and drink his blood physically to have eternal life. He is not speaking literally here. This would discount the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
John 7:37-39
Jesus says if you thirst, come to me and drink. Those who do will have rivers of living water flowing from their heart. In v. 39 John says that is the Spirit. Those who believe will get it after Jesus is glorified. Based on this passage, Jesus isn't glorified fully until he ascends to the throne (Acts 1:9). Then the HS is poured out on believers (Acts 2ff). This means the John 20:22 passage where Jesus breathes on the apostles in the upper room was unique and not a model for every believer. This further strains the Pentecostal Baptism in the HS doctrine because the upper room experience is seen as salvation before the baptism. But it seems to me that this is clearly one-of-a-kind because the HS wasn't given until Christ's glorification.
John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15
The HS is called the Helper which the Father gives to believers when Jesus asks him to. The world cannot receive him. He will teach us all things and bring to remembrance all of Jesus' teachings. The Helper will also bear witness about Christ. When Jesus goes away the Helper will come and he will: convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, guide believers into truth, won't speak on his own authority, and will glorify Christ by declaring what is his. These passages together portray the HS as being directed by the Father and the Son, but also as continuing the Son's work that was started during his ministry (proclaiming the Kingdom of Heaven). This further helps us to understand that the HS is God, but functionally he is acting in submission to the Father and the Son even though he is equal in nature.
This concludes the Gospel portion of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Next time I will cover Acts all by itself. The Book of Acts has quite a bit to say about the actions of the HS and we will continue to look at the Pentecostal Baptism in the Holy Spirit doctrine.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Gospel Privilege
Something that I have heard and read a few times, mainly from proponents of social justice gospels, skeptics, and liberal Christians, is that we, as Americans, are privileged in a way that is unfair to less Christianized or non-Christian countries and their countrymen. We live in a predominantly Christian nation where the Gospel is readily available in a grand array of different formats. There are Christian television and radio stations, a church on every corner, and even Christian bookstores that sell books, DVDs, and CD's that, in one way or another, talk about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are saturated with the Gospel message in all aspects of our lives. Even our politicians pander to the "evangelical vote" because of the perceived impact of faith-informed voters.
Contrast that picture with the one in say, a village in the deep rain forest of Brazil or somewhere like that. No television, no radio, no Christian bookstores, no pandering politicians claiming they love Jesus. It might not be unthinkable that some of our hypothetical villagers hear the Gospel one time their entire lives from a lone missionary or missionary couple. The perceived implication is that we have a much greater opportunity to come to know the Lord here in America and that ultimately, people are lost (non-Americans) without having heard the Gospel. How is that fair? How could God have set-up such an unfair world system? Why would He allow that to happen?
I would like to offer three points that perhaps, won't answer these accusative questions directly, but will cause everyone on both sides of this issue to pause and think more deeply about their own worldview; particularly if you claim to have a Biblical worldview centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ.
The first is that I converted to Christianity when I was 32 years old. I did not grow up in a Christian home and when I left home for the Marines I didn't go to any church or ascribe to any religion for the 13 years between my initial enlistment and my conversion. My wife grew up Christian and then wandered from the Lord until about 10 years ago. So for the first 5 (or so) years of our marriage, we lived a Godless life devoid of anything that anyone would call spiritual or religious. What's the point of this you ask? In all my years on Earth before I converted, I heard the Gospel twice. One of those was from my wife and one from my father-in-law and both of those were in the last 10 years. For 22 years, I knew exactly bupkis about the Gospel of Jesus Christ which Paul says is "as of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3). I was never saturated with the Gospel even though I lived in America.
The next point deals with an implicit assumption in this line of reasoning. The assumption is that people go to hell because they haven't heard of Jesus. This assumption also has its own assumption as well; that everybody is generally good and would go to heaven if they just hear of Jesus. Both of these are wrong. No one goes to hell because they haven't heard of Jesus. We all are or were deservedly on the road to hell because we sin and God's justice must be satiated. The other part of this is found in Romans 1-3. Specifically, 1:18-32 and 3:10-23 that says everyone is guilty and even though we know God exists, we ignore that reality and don't follow or seek Him. Without the "bad news" of our inherent and guilty sinfulness, the good news doesn't make any sense. Jesus just becomes some arbitrary marker that must be reached for no apparent reason for entry to heaven instead of the understanding that we all are dying of a disease of which Jesus is the only cure. Why is Jesus the only cure? Because God poured His wrath out on Him on the cross (Isa. 52:13-53:12; especially 53:10-12) in order to "make many to be accounted righteous" (53:11). Now we can ask: Is it fair that God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ came and lived among men in order to live a sinless life and sacrifice Himself willingly that we might have eternal life even though we were, for instance, trying to live a good life to get to heaven or suppressing the truth of God's existence so we could remain the lord of our own lives? The reality of this line of thought is that it is incredibly shallow and human-centered when the very foundational message of the Bible is absolutely God-centered.
The final point I have is just a thought exercise that I conjured up when discussing this topic with both my wife and a friend of mine at separate times. We had been discussing these very questions in an attempt to parse out some serious Christian answers that deal with the mechanics of how God accomplishes all his saving purposes with people who may only hear the Gospel once in their lifetime. For the sake of argument, I will grant that Americans are saturated with the Gospel message contrary to my first point above. Paul says in Acts 17:26-27 that God has "determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him." God has personally put every one of us in both the time and place where He knew that we had the best chance to find him. That is a comforting thought. Since God has done this, we can presume that He knows our personality and sensitiveness to Him better than we do. If you have been around followers of Christ for any length of time you know that some people are just naturally more sensitive to God's presence and moving than others. Even non-believers can be incredibly sensitive to God though they do not really know Him (Albert Camus in his book The Fall for instance). With this in mind, maybe we as Americans are not the privileged ones. Maybe we needed to hear the Gospel from every possible medium, repeatedly, in order to find our way to God. Maybe we are weak and totally insensitive to God. Since God knows everything, He knew that fact about all of us and knew that our weakness needed a profoundly Gospel swamped "allotted period" and "dwelling place" so we might succumb to His grace. And on the other hand, maybe it is the distant villager who really has the privilege. Maybe he is the one who is sensitive to God and thus, the stronger one compared with an average American. He only needed to hear the Gospel once in his life in order for it pierce him to the soul and change his life forever. Maybe he only needed to hear the only name that can save, the name above all names, Jesus Christ, once, before the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual barriers in his being came crashing down and he embraced what he knew had been missing from his life for as long as he could remember. I hope that this will give you something to think about when you consider the (apparent) problem that deals with: What about those who have never heard?
Contrast that picture with the one in say, a village in the deep rain forest of Brazil or somewhere like that. No television, no radio, no Christian bookstores, no pandering politicians claiming they love Jesus. It might not be unthinkable that some of our hypothetical villagers hear the Gospel one time their entire lives from a lone missionary or missionary couple. The perceived implication is that we have a much greater opportunity to come to know the Lord here in America and that ultimately, people are lost (non-Americans) without having heard the Gospel. How is that fair? How could God have set-up such an unfair world system? Why would He allow that to happen?
I would like to offer three points that perhaps, won't answer these accusative questions directly, but will cause everyone on both sides of this issue to pause and think more deeply about their own worldview; particularly if you claim to have a Biblical worldview centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ.
The first is that I converted to Christianity when I was 32 years old. I did not grow up in a Christian home and when I left home for the Marines I didn't go to any church or ascribe to any religion for the 13 years between my initial enlistment and my conversion. My wife grew up Christian and then wandered from the Lord until about 10 years ago. So for the first 5 (or so) years of our marriage, we lived a Godless life devoid of anything that anyone would call spiritual or religious. What's the point of this you ask? In all my years on Earth before I converted, I heard the Gospel twice. One of those was from my wife and one from my father-in-law and both of those were in the last 10 years. For 22 years, I knew exactly bupkis about the Gospel of Jesus Christ which Paul says is "as of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3). I was never saturated with the Gospel even though I lived in America.
The next point deals with an implicit assumption in this line of reasoning. The assumption is that people go to hell because they haven't heard of Jesus. This assumption also has its own assumption as well; that everybody is generally good and would go to heaven if they just hear of Jesus. Both of these are wrong. No one goes to hell because they haven't heard of Jesus. We all are or were deservedly on the road to hell because we sin and God's justice must be satiated. The other part of this is found in Romans 1-3. Specifically, 1:18-32 and 3:10-23 that says everyone is guilty and even though we know God exists, we ignore that reality and don't follow or seek Him. Without the "bad news" of our inherent and guilty sinfulness, the good news doesn't make any sense. Jesus just becomes some arbitrary marker that must be reached for no apparent reason for entry to heaven instead of the understanding that we all are dying of a disease of which Jesus is the only cure. Why is Jesus the only cure? Because God poured His wrath out on Him on the cross (Isa. 52:13-53:12; especially 53:10-12) in order to "make many to be accounted righteous" (53:11). Now we can ask: Is it fair that God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ came and lived among men in order to live a sinless life and sacrifice Himself willingly that we might have eternal life even though we were, for instance, trying to live a good life to get to heaven or suppressing the truth of God's existence so we could remain the lord of our own lives? The reality of this line of thought is that it is incredibly shallow and human-centered when the very foundational message of the Bible is absolutely God-centered.
The final point I have is just a thought exercise that I conjured up when discussing this topic with both my wife and a friend of mine at separate times. We had been discussing these very questions in an attempt to parse out some serious Christian answers that deal with the mechanics of how God accomplishes all his saving purposes with people who may only hear the Gospel once in their lifetime. For the sake of argument, I will grant that Americans are saturated with the Gospel message contrary to my first point above. Paul says in Acts 17:26-27 that God has "determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him." God has personally put every one of us in both the time and place where He knew that we had the best chance to find him. That is a comforting thought. Since God has done this, we can presume that He knows our personality and sensitiveness to Him better than we do. If you have been around followers of Christ for any length of time you know that some people are just naturally more sensitive to God's presence and moving than others. Even non-believers can be incredibly sensitive to God though they do not really know Him (Albert Camus in his book The Fall for instance). With this in mind, maybe we as Americans are not the privileged ones. Maybe we needed to hear the Gospel from every possible medium, repeatedly, in order to find our way to God. Maybe we are weak and totally insensitive to God. Since God knows everything, He knew that fact about all of us and knew that our weakness needed a profoundly Gospel swamped "allotted period" and "dwelling place" so we might succumb to His grace. And on the other hand, maybe it is the distant villager who really has the privilege. Maybe he is the one who is sensitive to God and thus, the stronger one compared with an average American. He only needed to hear the Gospel once in his life in order for it pierce him to the soul and change his life forever. Maybe he only needed to hear the only name that can save, the name above all names, Jesus Christ, once, before the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual barriers in his being came crashing down and he embraced what he knew had been missing from his life for as long as he could remember. I hope that this will give you something to think about when you consider the (apparent) problem that deals with: What about those who have never heard?
Monday, June 13, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)