From the Comments: The Connection of the Church with Israel, Part 5 (Jesus an Old Testament Prophet?)

graftedolivetreeSo now it’s time to talk about Jesus some more. You see, lately I keep seeing this odd teaching that because Jesus taught before Pentecost, he’s really an Old Testament prophet and so his words are not binding on Christians.

Here’s a typical quotation

Jesus was an Old Testament “prophet” not a New Testament “evangelist.”

Jesus never preached the New Testament “gospel” in MMLJ — before the cross. He never produced one New Testament “Christian.”

Teachers of this doctrine include Dan Billingsly and Facebook writer New Covenant Truth.

This teaching occasionally shows up in the comments here, especially when we discuss divorce and remarriage, as it supposedly justifies ignoring Jesus’ teachings on divorce. Billingsly has been a tireless advocate for his position, and seems to have gained a following within the Churches of Christ. (And, no, I don’t want to start a discussion thread on divorce and remarriage.)

Billingsly says,

Matthew 19 is not New Testament doctrine…because every principle and prophecy of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — before the cross — was taken directly from the law of Moses in the books of Exodus through Malachi.

More than forty times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — before the cross — Jesus quoted the law of Moses and showed his fulfillment of the teaching of the law and the prophets in the Old Testament. …

More than 100 times in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — before the cross, Jesus declared that he was teaching the law of Moses. Not one time in these four books — before the cross — did Jesus ever state that he was teaching New Testament doctrine.

(emphasis added). It is, of course, true that Jesus spoke before the church was established, and that his sayings must be interpreted in light of the time in which he spoke. But this hardly relegates him to irrelevance!

After all, the Gospels weren’t even written until near the end of the apostolic age. Why would the early church have written and preserved these texts decades after they became irrelevant? Why include teachings that had expired at Pentecost? It makes no sense at all.

For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says,

(Mat 5:23-24 ESV) 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,  24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

The reference to offering a gift at the altar hardly fits the worship of Christians, but most readers would readily concede that the principle is eternal, although the application varies with the times. We should ask ourselves what is the contemporary equivalent of offering a gift at the altar. (Except, if you think a little deeper, the altar isn’t really the point at all but an example.)

Indeed, Jesus himself says,

(Mat 5:17 ESV) 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

So the logic is that Jesus is an Old Testament prophet and his words are therefore abolished? Not possible. Even if true, his words would be fulfilled not abolished.

Let’s pause a moment. Jesus was certainly a prophet. Billingsly wishes to relegate the Gospels to the Old Testament, making Jesus an “Old Testament prophet,” as though “Old Testament” implies “repealed and irrelevant.” Already we see that Billingsly starts with false assumptions about the relationship of the Old Testament to the New.

Let’s continue dissecting this theory a bit more. The words of the Old Testament prophets — the real ones — haven’t by any means been repealed. Whoever came up with that theory has not bothered to actually read the prophets. Many of the prophets’ words have been fulfilled. Some are still being fulfilled. Some are yet to be fulfilled. Few have been repealed.

If Jesus were a mere Old Testament prophet, that would hardly repeal the truth of his words. It would only mean that we should look to see when they are to be fulfilled.

What most readers fail to understand about Jesus is that most of what he spoke was in the nature of prophecy, because he came to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:43). And most of what he said about the Kingdom wasn’t to be fulfilled until Pentecost or later. He was speaking very directly and plainly about the age in which we Christians live.

For example,

(Luk 9:20-27 ESV)  20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”  21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one,  22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”  23 And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.  24 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.  25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?  26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.  27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Jesus is speaking of a future time — beginning within the lifetimes of many of his hearers. He prophesies not only his death but explains that his disciples should follow him by giving up their lives for the Kingdom — after his death. He is, therefore, plainly speaking of the church and Christianity.

Over and over Jesus speaks and acts to prepare his disciples for the coming Kingdom. He preaches the Kingdom. He promises the coming of the Spirit (Luke 11:13) as promised by the prophets as a sign of the Kingdom. And he forgives sin.

It’s the forgiveness of sin that throws people off, I think, because Jesus rarely if ever conditions forgiveness on water baptism. He repeatedly forgives based solely on faith in Jesus, and we in the Churches of Christ have had the necessity of baptism so pounded into us that Jesus’ freely granting forgiveness seems strange, even foreign, to the New Testament.

But forgiveness is a mark of Christianity, according to the prophets.

(Jer 31:33-34 ESV)  33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

That’s a promise from God, delivered through Jeremiah, regarding the Kingdom. This is the “new covenant.” And it’s implicitly about the Holy Spirit, as the Jews of Jesus’ day understood, because they’d read the Law and the Prophets.

(Eze 36:27-33 ESV)  27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.  … 33 “Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt.”

There is nothing in the Prophets about baptism, but much about forgiveness from God that will come with the Kingdom and the outpouring of the Spirit.

By forgiving people of faith, Jesus was simply offering a preview of what the Prophets had promised and what would soon be much more broadly available — showing the necessity of faith in Jesus for forgiveness.

One thing that changed at Pentecost is that God poured out his Spirit on those who believed, giving the Spirit concurrently with water baptism (Acts 2:38) (in the normal case). In the Prophets, water often symbolized the Spirit. John’s baptism of water became baptism of water and the Spirit (or just baptism of the Spirit when no water was used, as in the cases of Cornelius and the 120 disciples in Acts 2). And the Spirit transforms forgiveness to become a continual spiritual relationship that provides continuing forgiveness — far and way beyond anything seen before — because as Ezekiel says (and as Paul in Romans 8 says), the Spirit transforms God’s children to be obedient.

In short, Jesus spoke as of his time, but he was both Messiah and a prophet. As Messiah he is king of the Kingdom — and he’s still King of the Kingdom.

But he speaks as of when he speaks, often — usually — regarding the Kingdom that was to shortly come, and therefore certainly applicable to us as citizens of God’s Kingdom.

But his actions — healing, forgiving — all speak as well. These are not mere incidents of pre-Christian Judaism (obviously). These also speak of the Kingdom that was to come.

When the John the Baptist, while in prison, sent to learn whether Jesus is in fact the Messiah, Jesus replied in terms of his healing —

(Mat 11:2-6 ESV)  2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples  3 and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”  4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:  5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.  6 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

In short, Jesus knew these to be signs of the Kingdom and hence signs of the true Messiah, as promised by the Prophets. By healing, he taught that the Kingdom was dawning — and the message was well understood by many Jews.

Now, notice that the model of the Mosaic law being passed and then repealed, so that all that happened pre-Pentecost is irrelevant to us, just doesn’t work. Jesus was issuing instructions for the Kingdom not yet come. Those instructions still apply.

But Jesus was fulfilling Old Testament prophecies that speak not only of Jesus but of the Kingdom and even the end of time. Those texts will speak to us and instruct us until Jesus returns.

The challenge, I’m sure, is to discern how the Law of Moses continues to apply today, because we know for certain that much of it does not.

Nor is it sufficient to imagine that the Law of Moses is entirely gone, because the New Testament plainly speaks of the Law as having continuing vitality.

But … I’m out of space.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Connection of Church with Israel, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to From the Comments: The Connection of the Church with Israel, Part 5 (Jesus an Old Testament Prophet?)

  1. Gary says:

    “the principle is eternal, although the application varies with the times.” Exactly. Sometimes in fact the application today varies so much that the very thing forbidden is now permissible. For example, the principle behind the prohibition of tattoos in the Law of Moses would seem to be that God’s people are to refrain from practices associated with paganism or pagan worship. That principle is still valid today. Even though some of us still find tattoos to be barbaric they are not typically associated with paganism or pagan worship today. Therefore the underlying principle allows today the very thing, tattoos, forbidden to ancient Jews.

  2. Ray Downen says:

    Any teacher who assumes that water baptism is not the baptism commanded by Jesus and practiced by the apostles is obviously wrong. And any teacher who ignores that Jesus commanded baptism for every NEW believer is simply teaching false doctrine. Jesus is quoted by the apostle John as stating that entry into the kingdom is only by a new birth “of water and spirit.” So the apostle Peter (speaking for himself and the other apostles) is quoted as replying to seekers that what they needed to do in order to have their sins remitted and in order to receive God’s Spirit was to “repent AND be baptized (as Jesus had commanded was to be done).”

    Some seem to believe there are two ways to enter the kingdom. They add an “alone” or “only” to the many statements which speak of salvation by faith in Jesus, emphasizing the “faith” rather than the “faith in JESUS,” and assert that all who believe in Jesus are saved by believing. This is to distort and disbelieve apostolic teaching and practice. It’s JESUS who commands baptism for every new believer. It’s JESUS who personally and through His apostles points to water baptism as the specific time when sin is remitted and the Spirit is given. The plan for salvation is so clearly stated that every student of the Bible SHOULD understand that salvation in Jesus is not through faith alone. It isn’t now. It never was.

    Of course we need to see that turning away from sin and turning to JESUS as Lord precedes the baptism which saves. We do not do well if anyone hears us and understands wrongly that we believe baptism alone saves. We would never say such a thing. Baptism is the culmination of new birth. It is not the entirety of new birth of water AND SPIRIT. What our message to seekers should be is the gospel about Jesus. That’s what we need to preach and teach. When a person is convinced that JESUS is Lord and they ask what next, THEN we speak of baptism which brings believers INTO Christ (Galatians 3:27). No one is saved by faith alone. The gift of the Spirit is promised to those who have repented and have been baptized (Acts 2:38).

  3. Grace says:

    Not everyone who reads the whole context of Jesus speaking to Nicodemus about born of water and the Spirit believes He is saying born of baptism in water and the Spirit. Such as, I see Jesus saying born again of the Spirit by the context of their conversation. Nicodemus couldn’t see being born again after the first birth of the womb, Jesus’ last reference to Nicodemus, Jesus wasn’t saying born again is of water and the Spirit but the rebirth is being born again of the Spirit.

    John 3:7-8 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

    And all who see it different are going to say they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong and so on and so on.

  4. Ray Downen says:

    Grace comments–Not everyone who reads the whole context of Jesus speaking to Nicodemus about born of water and the Spirit believes He is saying born of baptism in water and the Spirit. Such as, I see Jesus saying born again of the Spirit by the context of their conversation. Nicodemus couldn’t see being born again after the first birth of the womb, Jesus’ last reference to Nicodemus, Jesus wasn’t saying born again is of water and the Spirit but the rebirth is being born again of the Spirit.

    John 3:7-8 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

    And all who see it different are going to say they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong and so on and so on.

    RAY REPLIES: It’s hard to understand what Jesus said when some translators choose to insert into what Jesus said a “the” prior to “spirit” and choose to capitalize “spirit.” Jesus spoke of a new birth “of water and spirit.” Peter explains what that rebirth consists of. It’s a change of the HUMAN spirit and a baptism in water as Jesus commands for all NEW believers. It’s NOT a “baptism in water and the Spirit” as some translators would have us suppose.

    The Holy Spirit is gifted to each new Christian, as is made clear in Acts 2:38 and other verses. The Spirit is not involved in conversion. New birth into Christ is caused by seed which is the gospel. As the gospel is HEARD and believed, new birth begins. Believers then are told to turn to the One they now know is Lord (repent), to accept the baptism He commands, and then having been born again of water and spirit, to then live for Jesus.

  5. John Fewkes says:

    Re Nicodemus Jn 3:3 awthen: reborn from above: ditto to Ray’s comments, but also IF baptism is “optional” why did Peter ORDER (more explicit: COMMAND [prostasso0 (Ac 10:48) Cornelius to be baptized?

    Again re: Jesus as OT prophet:
    Ac 1:2-3 (JESUS) He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
    3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. NASU

    If through the Gospels we see little organizational detail regarding the things of the kingdom, Luke clearly establishes Apostolic authority here that is consistent with the authority demonstrated through the balance of the New Testament.

    No OT prophet here, the risen LORD “speaking of things” the apostles spent their lives implementing.

    [deleted per site policy]

  6. And once “correct exegesis” is fully established in the mind, further consideration is forsworn and even God himself cannot change it.

  7. Ray Downen says:

    Jay writes, “But sometimes he (God) prefers to act sacramentally — through animal sacrifice or through water baptism, for example.” And Jay is wrong to suggest that baptism into Christ is a sacrament. A sacrament is in itself active and creative. If baptism were a sacrament, baptism ALONE would save. But this theory is never taught by an apostle of Jesus Christ.

    Just as faith alone is dead, baptism alone is useless. New birth into Christ is not done by baptism ALONE. It’s a process of growth. A seed is planted by hearing or reading about Jesus and His offer of salvation. If faith comes through that seed, then it will progress so that the person can turn to Jesus AS Lord (turning away from self-love and love of “the world”) and be baptized and thereby be brought “into Christ” (Galatians 3:27). But baptism alone is just getting wet. If baptism were a sacrament, baptism ALONE would create new life in the person. It won’t.

  8. Ray Downen says:

    Jay writes–One thing that changed at Pentecost is that God poured out his Spirit on those who believed, giving the Spirit concurrently with water baptism (Acts 2:38) (in the normal case). In the Prophets, water often symbolized the Spirit. John’s baptism of water became baptism of water and the Spirit (or just baptism of the Spirit when no water was used, as in the cases of Cornelius and the 120 disciples in Acts 2). And the Spirit transforms forgiveness to become a continual spiritual relationship that provides continuing forgiveness — far and way beyond anything seen before — because as Ezekiel says (and as Paul in Romans 8 says), the Spirit transforms God’s children to be obedient.

    RAY REMARKS: There is nothing said in apostolic writings about any “baptism of water and the Spirit.” Not once. No place can such a phrase be found in apostolic writings. Baptism as commanded by Jesus and practiced by the apostles and the early church was in water. And it’s promised that God will GIFT His Spirit to those believers in Jesus who do repent and are baptized (in water). And Luke makes clear that the baptism in the Spirit was NOT to 120 but was to 12. Jesus made the promise of Spirit baptism only to the apostles. Only the apostles preached and performed miracles. Luke makes this clear.

    As for “the Spirit” transforming us, Peter makes clear that it’s we ourselves who are to ADD TO our faith the qualities which are desired of Christians. He does NOT say the Spirit will do the adding. I’m sure Peter is right that we ourselves need to do the adding to our faith.

  9. laymond says:

    1Pe 3:20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
    1Pe 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
    “this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also”
    What !! I can’t believe my ears, Peter said we are saved by baptism, what in this world must he be thinking.?

  10. Ray Downen says:

    I figure he was thinking the same way he was as recorded in Acts 2:38. No change. No argument. He in both texts is pointing out that baptism INTO CHRIST is essential for salvation. No foolishness about being saved by faith alone. Obeying the gospel is what is called for, as Paul agrees in more than one clear passage (2 Thess. 1:1-10, Galatians 3:26,27, Romans 6:1-11 to list a few).

  11. Ray Downen says:

    I wrote a reply and clicked on SUBMIT, and the comment disappeared. I’ll try again and click on Google Plus and see what happens. Peter agrees with Jesus & Paul that baptism is essential for salvation. I’m glad you noticed!

  12. Jay Guin says:

    Ray wrote,

    A sacrament is in itself active and creative. If baptism were a sacrament, baptism ALONE would save. But this theory is never taught by an apostle of Jesus Christ.

    Where do you get this from? I’ve never seen such a thing in Christian literature. Not even the Catholics and Orthodox understand “sacrament” in this way.
    For example, this is said regarding the Catholic view —

    The Church further teaches that the effect of a sacrament comes ex opere operato, by the very fact of being administered, regardless of the personal holine

    ss of the minister administering it.[8] However, a recipient’s own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block the effectiveness of the sacrament in that person. The sacraments presuppose faith and through their words and ritual elements, nourish, strengthen and give expression to faith.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church

    If we were speaking of Church of Christ baptism, most in the Church would agree with every word, except we’d be upset at the use of “sacrament” because that’s a reflex built into us, but it’s a mistake

    You see, the REformed/Baptist view of baptism rejects the sacramental nature of baptism — it’s just something you do because you’ve been commanded to do so. It’s pure obedience. But it does nothing for the recipient.

    However, the Church of Christ view is that God actually saves at the moment of baptism — that salvation comes if and only if baptism happens. This is definitionally a sacramental understanding of baptism.

    I suppose because “sacrament” sounds Catholic, many in the CoC object to the word “sacrament” claiming that a sacrament is like magic, saving even if the recipient doesn’t have faith. And there likely were times in the Middle Ages when some Catholics took this magical view, but that is not true today. As stated in the quoted text, “The sacraments presuppose faith,” which is exactly the Church of Christ position.

    The Bing dictionary defines “sacrament” as —

    religious rite or ceremony: in Christianity, a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it.

    And that sure sounds like the Church of Christ point of view. And as I said, I know of no Christian denomination that takes the view that baptism without faith saves. The closest would be, of course, infant baptism, but even then, the efficacy of the baptism is dependent on confirmation and the infant coming to his or her own faith.

  13. Jay Guin says:

    Ray wrote,

    There is nothing said in apostolic writings about any “baptism of water and the Spirit.” Not once. No place can such a phrase be found in apostolic writings.

    (Mar 1:8 ESV) 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

    (Joh 1:33 ESV) 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

    The traditional CoC argument is that the references to baptizing with the Spirit refer exclusively to Pentecost and Cornelius. But notice Mar 1:8: “he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Who is “you”? Do we seriously believe that all 12 apostles were there only them? That’s not the context.

    Rather, “you” refers to faithful Israel — the Jews who repent and accept the Messiah. The Jews there would not have read Acts but they would certainly know the Prophets and the many promises of God to outpour the Spirit — like water. The immerse in the Spirit would fit that imagery very well and sound like a promise that God would soon outpour his Spirit as the prophets had said. And they would have understood correctly.

    This is indeed a major theme of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 — the outpouring of the Spirit promised by Joel (and other prophets) — and the “promise of the Spirit” was promised by Peter to all present.

    When we are baptized in water, with faith in Jesus, we receive the Spirit — just as did the apostles and Cornelius. We receive the baptism of the Spirit together with baptism with water. John’s prophecy is once again fulfilled. Because we Gentiles are grafted into Israel, a promise made to the Jews now benefits us Gentiles.

    H. Leo Boles wrote a hugely influential book on the Holy SPirit (within the CoC), and he treated “baptism of the Spirit” as a separate gift from the ordinary indwelling — hoping that by splitting the gifts apart, he could avoid any suggestion that ordinary baptisms led to tongues. But we don’t get that result through subdivision and classification of gifts. It’s not scientific or Baconian. Rather, it’s the choice of the Spirit, as the scriptures plainly say. The SPirit is a person with free will and a mission, not a rule book.

    Besides, there are plenty of examples of “ordinary” baptisms that lead to tongues (Eph 19; the baptism of the Corinthian church members).

    He then argues that baptism of the Spirit ended before Eph 4, which declares that there is “one baptism.”

    Well, baptism brings the Spirit (Acts 2:38), and the Spirit is an essential element of an effective baptism. You see, Boles’ theory only works if you minimize the importance of the Spirit, so that it makes sense to deny that ordinary water baptism is baptism of “water and Spirit.” If you truly appreciate how very active the Spirit is in baptism, you would find it obvious that ordinary Christian baptism is of water and Spirit.

    (Tit 3:4-7 ESV) 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 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, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

    Cornelius

    (Act 11:16-17 ESV) 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

    Who is “us” and “we”? Peter was present with Cornelius and several unnamed Jews — not apostles. “We” includes them. In fact, this passage relates a conversation Peter had with members of the “circumcision party.” Acts 11:2 — not the apostles. “Us” and “we” means “us Jews” and “we Jews”! His point in quoting JOhn the Baptist is that John promised baptism of the Spirit to THE JEWS not to the apostles. Therefore, he reasons, if Cornelius received the same gift as the Jews received (not the apostles — he was not in any sense something like an apostle; he was a prototypcial Gentile), then Gentiles may be baptized, too.

    Luke expends 3 or 4 chapters on the admission of the Gentiles, and you can’t read these conversations as being about Church of Christ/Pentecostal debates. It’s about Jews and Gentiles and the fact that Cornelius, a Gentile, has been accepted by God the same as the Jews, not the same as the apostles.

    When we see the historical context, we see that God separates water and Spirit in order to drive the apostles to honor the Great COmmission and to convert Samaritans and Gentiles. Thus, baptism of water and Spirit is normative. They usually happen at the same time as a single event. Water symbolizes Spirit, per the Prophets (as well as burial, of course), and reminds us of the promised “outpouring” of the Spirit — which applies not just to the apostles and Cornelius but to all Christians (Tit 3:5-6). But God can separate them when it suits his purposes, as in the case of Pentecost and Cornelius — and in a backwards way, the initial Samaritan converts who received water baptism without the Spirit — which was so unexpected as to prompt the apostles to (finally) leave Jerusalem and go to Samaria and show their personal acceptance of the Samaritan converts by laying hands on the prevoiusly unclean Samaritans.

  14. Jay Guin says:

    Ray wrote,

    As for “the Spirit” transforming us, Peter makes clear that it’s we ourselves who are to ADD TO our faith the qualities which are desired of Christians.

    Ahem. See —

    (2Co 3:17-18 ESV) 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

    “Are being transformed” is in passive voice, meaning it’s not us doing the transforming. Rather, “this comes from …the Spirit.” Nice Trinitarian blending of Jesus and the Spirit here, but in larger context, you see Paul is saying it’s the Spirit come to us thanks to the work of Jesus.

  15. Les says:

    ‘The Spirit is not involved in conversion’ ??????

    …he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior… Titus3:5-6

    …After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?…Gal.3:3

    …You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ…Rom.8:9

    …For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God…Rom 8:13-14

    …But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Sprit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness, with ever.increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit…2 Cor.3:16-18.

  16. John Fewkes says:

    Is there a contrast between the “gift of the Spirit” we received at baptism (Acts 2:38) and the “gifts of the Spirit” in 1Cor.12-14 that were given as the Spirit willed (1Cor.12:11) through Apostolic authority (Acts 8:18)? Yes, the apostles authorized by Jesus were enabled by the will of God to impart “some spiritual gift” (Romans 1:11). But there were numbers of believers who were “filled” or “full” of the Holy Spirit who did not receive (from the New Testament record) what we have normally called “the miraculous measure of the Spirit” (McGarvey and his commentary heirs , among them John the Baptizer, Elizabeth, Mary (mother of Jesus), those present at Acts 4:31, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas. Also, we do not see any record of “gifts of the Spirit” among the household of Cornelius beyond the initial tongues speaking in Acts 10 nor do we see the Apostles of Acts 2 continuing in the gift of tongues. Neither is it certain that every believer had the hands of the Apostles laid upon him or her. What seems to be apparent is the Spirit at work as the Spirit wills. Acts 2:38 does not promise us a partial, limited, measured gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not “and you shall receive the x% gift of the Holy Spirit; no limit or measure is mentioned. It is not that Jesus was given 100%, the Apostles 70%, those who received an Apostolically imparted gift 40%, and us “ordinary” Christians 10% or some other measure. What seems clear is that Jesus had the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work that God had for Him to do; the Apostles had the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work that God had for them to do; those Apostolically gifted had the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work that God had for them to do; we receive through baptism the Holy Spirit in all fullness to accomplish the work God has for us to do. The only difference is the will of God through the Spirit in every situation, whether it is Jesus, the Apostles, Cornelius, those apostolically gifted, or we today. We were all baptized by the Spirit into one body and made to drink of one Spirit (1Cor.12:13) and different gifts were given to different people and at different times and through different means, but the same Spirit, just as God desired (1Cor.12:18).

  17. Les says:

    Hello Jay. Really appreciate your blog. Have been especially blessed by your ebooks ‘Do we preach another gospel? and ‘Revolutionary Grace’. In fact, I recently printed and gave a copy of ‘Buried Talents’ to our senior minister for Xmas and he told me that he really appreciated the humility that is evident in your writings. I serve as a deacon at Calvary christian church in Winchester, Ky. and our staff and elders will be taking another look at the role of women in the church over the coming year. I saw some earlier post which seemed to negate the Spirit’s work in our conversion and transformation so I started a post, then my wife called me to dinner, and then afterwards, I completed and sent the post only to discover that you had already answered my ????? Thank you for being a sharpener of men

  18. Ray Downen says:

    A sacrament, regardless of who is doing the defining, is an act which brings desired results from the performance of the act. Anyone who claims that baptism ALONE saves considers baptism to be a sacrament, an act which in itself produces salvation. Historically, the members of Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and anti-instrument Churches of Christ have considered that salvation resulted from a new birth of water and spirit as defined by Peter in Acts 2:38. Baptism is the final “step” in the plan of salvation which brings sinners into Christ, as Paul clearly states in Galatians 3:27 and which is denied by all who believe in salvation by faith alone.

  19. Jay Guin says:

    John,

    I think I agree with your entire comment re the Spirit. Scary, isn’t it? How do you take such passages as Eph 5:18-19 commanding us to be “filled with the Spirit.” Although the construction is passive, the effect of the sentence is to compel us to submit to the infilling.

    The present tense rules out any once-for-all reception of the Spirit but points to a continuous replenishment (literally, “go on being filled”). Nor does it appear that Paul is urging his readers to enter into a new experience (“up to now you have not been filled with the Spirit, but you must start to be so”). Rather, he is inviting them to go on as they began (“you have, of course, been filled with the Spirit; keep on like that”). Finally, the verb is passive: “Let yourselves be filled with the Spirit.” This is not a manufactured experience, though it can be rejected (cf. Gal 3:2, 5). There may, therefore, be successive fillings of the Spirit; indeed, the Christian life should be an uninterrupted filling. What this verse will not substantiate is the claim that after becoming a Christian, a single, additional, definitive filling is essential for completion.

    A. Skevington Wood, “Ephesians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 72.

    This sounds about right to me — and is not the same thing as receiving gifts of the Spirit or receiving the Spirit — it’s becoming more susceptible to the Spirit’s work. It’s submission to the Spirit’s influence.

  20. Jim Haugland says:

    Jesus WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT!!

  21. Jay Guin says:

    Les,

    I greatly appreciate your encouraging note. And may you, your elders, and staff be blessed in your studies.

    Let me mention two books that came out after I wrote Buried Talents that I’ve found instructive —

    After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change

    Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities

    Both are very scholarly and by Bruce Winter, a historian who knows his stuff.

    There are gobs of books that try to reach conclusions on the role of women — and any blogger or preacher feels qualified to express an opinion — but there are only a few historians who can speak to the First Century background with authority.

    I would also recommend some materials by N. T. Wright —

    http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

  22. Grace says:

    “Thank you God for sending Jesus who did some of what saved me. Thank you God for our baptismal pool that saved me.Thank you God that I had someone to dunk me in the water to save me. I have put my faith in my water baptism that saved me and I know that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross wasn’t enough, I know I needed a source of water and needed another person to apply your grace on me. Praise be to water baptism and Jesus, Amen.”

  23. Grace says:

    “And God, please help those people that go to other churches that are lost with faith that Jesus saved them and are out giving care and warmth to the homeless and the poor during the coldest of nights, who are loving each other and are just so lost not knowing that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t enough.”

  24. Ray Downen says:

    In my study available at http://missionoutreach.org/OwensMaxey.pdf I explain why I believe that it’s JESUS who saves us rather than the Holy Spirit, and why some translators are obviously wrong in causing Paul to claim that there is a baptism by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). I hope every reader will consider that study and ponder over whether or not Paul was correct in teaching that there is for the church ONE baptism just as there is ONE God and ONE Lord and ONE church which belongs to and is led by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6).

    Those who want there to be two baptisms for Christians have little regard for Scriptural truth. There is no baptism by the Spirit taught by apostles or by Jesus. There is no baptism by the Spirit ever reported in apostolic writings. The baptism IN the Spirit was performed by Jesus Himself. Careful readers will notice that the only time HE spoke of baptism in the Spirit was when He was speaking only to His apostles. The prophecy of John the Baptist was that Jesus would baptize in the Spirit. The apostolic record shows that Jesus did indeed baptize HIS APOSTLES in/with the Spirit.

    None other than the apostles were reported to have been baptized in/with the Spirit. Obvious external signs accompanied that baptism. As for the Spirit baptizing anyone, that’s totally unknown to the apostles or to the Master. As for a sacrament, regardless of any denials, the teaching is that if you perform a particular act, particular results will ensue as a result. There are no sacraments in the Christian system. None.

  25. Ray Downen says:

    It should be obvious to every student of the Word that Jesus lived as a Jew and seldom even spoke with anyone who didn’t live or work in Jewish lands. He spoke once with a Samaritan city. He healed Gentiles. He taught whoever came to hear Him teach. Most were Jews, but not all. Of course He taught that obedience to the Law was necessary for those who lived under the Law. If His words apply more broadly than just to those listening, that should surprise no one. But we are not to believe that all His teaching was for everyone everywhere. When His topic was obeying the (Jewish) Law, he was teaching those who lived under that law system how they should obey it. So some of His teaching is not applicable to us who are not living under law.

    Jesus told His apostles that THEY would be led into all truth, that some things He had NOT taught them but that they would later learn. So when we point out that Jesus taught prior to the New Covenant, we are not saying what He taught was in any way incorrect for those He was teaching. We do point out that it may not apply to us. Foot washing is one of the things which was common then and is very uncommon now. We all do wash our own feet. But it’s NOT customary to wash the feet of our guests in our homes.

    But whatever the Master spoke concerning Himself and His relationship to the Father is of course not limited to the Jews who first heard His words. And advice concerning getting along with our neighbors is timeless, just as true today as when He said it first. And what Jesus said about keeping the Jewish law does not apply to anyone who does not live under that law system. Advice from the Master is frequently just as important for us to follow as it was for those to whom He spoke.

  26. Ray Downen says:

    In connection with our growing in Christ, Jay writes:(2Co 3:17-18 ESV) 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

    “Are being transformed” is in passive voice, meaning it’s not us doing the transforming. Rather, “this comes from …the Spirit.” Nice Trinitarian blending of Jesus and the Spirit here, but in larger context, you see Paul is saying it’s the Spirit come to us thanks to the work of Jesus.

    I hope no one will suppose we are to be passive and simply wait for Jesus to transform us with His Spirit (or BY His Spirit) into the godly people we seek to become. The Spirit is given to HELP us grow and serve, not to make us do so and not to do our thinking and learning and growing for us.

    Jay may seem to be disagreeing with Peter (and Jesus and James and Paul who think and teach) who thinks it’s up to US to add to our faith, and to grow into what God wants us to become. If we just wait to see what God will do to us, I feel we’ll still be waiting the day we die. Those who first heard the gospel asked what they needed to DO. Peter told them what was necessary to become a babe in Christ. They had to turn to Jesus as LORD and be baptized as Jesus had commanded was to be done for every new believer, and THEN they could start on the glory road.

    It was to ones already IN Christ (Galatians 3:27) that advice is given to study and learn and work for Jesus so that growth is possible. Paul wrote the Corinthian letter to the CHURCH in Corinth. He urged them to continued doing good things and loving one another. He scolded their self-confidence and self-centeredness. He urged them to grow up and to act as adults. Did he think the Spirit was going to do it TO them? Or did he think they had to do it with help from the Spirit?

Comments are closed.