Talking Pentecostalism: Quest for Power

Showing posts with label Quest for Power. Show all posts

The Quest for Power: Barnett & Jensen

These articles are a series of excerpts that were first published as a book, The Quest for Power | Neo-Pentecostalism and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishes, 1973, p. 1-106). It is reproduced here with permission.

Concerned Christians in every age have tried to rediscover the secret of effective life and service which was so evident in the witness of the apostolic church.

An encouraging aspect of the contemporary world-wide interest in the charismatic evidences is the renewed emphasis on the Holy Spirit.

In this book two younger Australian ministers, who are involved in theological teaching, share insights which have arisen out of practical experience at St. Barnabas, Broadway, where they exercise a team ministry. It is their desire to relate the truth of the New Testament to the claims of the neo-pentecostal movement.

Paul Barnett [now retired Bishop of North Sydney] is chaplain at Sydney University and teaches Early Church History, New Testament and Pastoralia at Moore Theological College.

Peter Jensen [currently Archbishop of Sydney] shares the ministry at St. Barnabas and teaches Biblical Exegesis and Greek at Moore Theological College.

CONTENTS

Introduction—The Bewildered Believer

1. What Neo-pentecostals believe

2. Reading the Bible

3. The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

4. The Acts Passages

5. The Holy Spirit and Conversion in the Writings of Paul

6. Weakness and Power in the New Testament

7. Neo-pentecostals and Conservative Evangelicals

Appendix 1. Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues

Appendix 2. Speaking in Tongues

Appendix 3. Healing

Appendix 4. 'Witness' in Acts

Appendix 5. Prophecy in the New Testament

The Acts Passages: Barnett & Jensen

This article is an excerpt that was first published in The Quest for Power | Neo-Pentecostalism and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishes, 1973, p. 29-41). It is reproduced here with permission.

There is no doubt that five passages in the Acts of the Apostles (2:1-42; 8:4-24; 9:1-19; 10:1-48; 19:1-7) are the most important source of neo-pentecostal doctrine. It is on the basis of these five occasions that the neo-pentecostal lays on the conscience of his fellow believer, with the awful solemnity of a word of God, the command to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Can the book of Acts support such a position?

In order to support his thesis the neo-pentecostal must prove all the following points (not some):

1. A narrative in the Bible contains a command from God.

2. His understanding of the passages is the only reasonable one.

3. The reception of the Holy Spirit in fact resulted in 'power for witness'.

4. Certain conditions had to be fulfilled beyond becoming a Christian.

5. The Holy Spirit's coming for power was subsequent to his first coming in our conversion. There is a second and different experience of him ('subsequence').

We will examine each passage in turn, then discuss the question of whether the five 'pillars' above have been established in fact.

The Day of Pentecost

Undoubtedly this was a subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit for the disciples of Jesus. They were converted men, they had been ministered to by the Holy Spirit already. They were, in fact, in the same position as Abraham or Moses or David: born again by the Holy Spirit. But the delay experienced by these men was caused by their unique position in God's timetable. They were both believers under the old covenant, and as such had the Holy Spirit in some measure, and believers under the new covenant, when by an act of Jesus the Holy Spirit was poured out so that God's people had a new and deeper experience of him. This was connected with belief in Christ's Lordship (Acts 11:17).

An illustration may clarify the point. If one went to Bondi on the last tram before buses took over the rout, one would have to travel back by bus. But that is not to say that any other traveller to Bondi would from now on travel by tram there and bus back. On the contrary, only the bus is now available both ways, and the trip was virtually unique, because of the date.

So with the disciples. A type of subsequent experience is true for them, but their situation is unique, not the norm for Christians who now live after Pentecost. Certainly there is no breath of a command from God that we are to have two experiences.

In fact, as can be seen from Peter's speech, since the dawning of the last days, the era of the Spirit, it is expected that Christian conversion will include the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the plain meaning of Acts 2:38:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, take the ordinary steps to become a Christian and you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit. At this point the neo-pentecostal will want to say that further faith and further repentance may be required. Such attempts to read further conditions into and out of this text seem hopeless in the face of the unambiguous nature of what is said. No one doubts that the tree thousand saved that day received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the only condition mentioned is that they become Christians.

The same may be seen in Acts 5:32 where Peter says, 'And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those to obey him.' This is often used to prove that 'obedience' is a condition for receiving the baptism over and above the conditions of Acts 2:38. However this is not the case. The meaning of the text is: '…the Holy Spirit whom God has given [one decisive past action] to those who obey [present continuous] him.' The past coming of the Holy Spirit has produced the present obedience of the Christians, not vice versa.

Another suggestion is that the disciples were praying for the Holy Spirit at the moment when he came, an idea without any support in the text, and most unlikely, since they were seated, a posture for prayer not adopted by the Jews (Acts 2:2). As one would have expected they did pray during the period of waiting (Acts 1:14), but no one knows the content of their prayer.

Samaria

On this occasion we are certainly confronted with a case of delay. We find Philip preaching and being believed. We find him baptising the Samaritans. But we find the apostles Paul and John in Samaria praying for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit 'for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit' (Acts 8:14ff.).

At first glance this passage seems to validate the neo-pentecostal position, but we ought to note the following features of it.

First, as far as the Samaritans were concerned we read of no conditions to be fulfilled. The delay is not their fault. The apostles prayed, and laid hands, but we are given no indication that the Samaritans did any more than they had done already in order to be baptized.

Second, there is no command here for us to follow, not even that of laying on hands. The passage is not being put forward by Luke as an encouragement to neo-pentecostal type practices. Luke's understanding seems to be that something abnormal is happening. The Samaritans had believed and had been baptized but the Spirit had not yet fallen. The norm of Acts 2:38 was for some unexplained reason not fulfilled. This abnormal incident (as suggested by Luke's words 'not yet fallen') cannot be made the basis for imitation.

Third, there is no mention of 'power for witness' attendant on the reception of the Spirit.

Fourth, although it is true that no explanation is given as to why this situation is abnormal, yet at least two other explanations are possible besides the neo-pentecostal one. One is that although the Samaritans had believed and been baptized, the object of their belief was inadequate (as was the case with the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19:2), and hence the Holy Spirit had not come. The other, which is more likely in our opinion, was that Philip's evangelistic activity with the outcast Samaritans was so contrary to what many in Jerusalem believed ought to be done (as was Peter's with Cornelius) that an extraordinary sign was given, witnessed by apostles, to prove the authenticity of the conversion. It is interesting to see that the apostles evangelised in Samaria on their way home (Acts 8:25). Here is the breakthrough described by Jesus (Acts 1:8)—a notable moment in the book of Acts, and surrounded by an extraordinary event: the leading of the Holy Spirit indeed! But hardly a normative pattern for today's believers.

Different people make this passage prove different things. From this passage Catholics prove confirmation and neo-pentecostals prove 'subsequence'. But can anyone prove more than one explicit coming of the Holy Spirit? Any such attempt would be in contradiction to what Luke himself says: 'he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized…' (Acts 8:16).

Saul

Here the position is made quite clear. The neo-pentecostal claim is that Saul's conversion was completed on the road to Damascus. Then it is said that at a later date Ananias was ordered to lay hands on Saul in order that he might receive his sign, and be filled with the Holy Spirit ('subsequence'). After this was done he was baptized, as the formal mark of his conversion.

As can be seen, all depends on the fact that Saul was actually converted on the road. We may confidently assert that he was not.

The substantial reasons put forward to support the neo-pentecostal position are that Saul called Jesus 'Lord' (Acts 9:5; 22:8, 10; 26:15), that Ananias addressed him as 'brother' (Acts 9:17), and that Ananias laid hands on him (Acts 9:17). However, we note that Saul was so impressed by the light that he called Jesus 'Lord' even before he knows who was there, so this cannot be the 'calling on the name of the Lord' for salvation mentioned in Romans 10:13. Nor can his request that Jesus tell him what to do be construed in the same way. (Note that Cornelius called an angel 'Lord' and obeyed him, Acts 10:1-8).

Furthermore, 'brother' was a common designation for a fellow Jew, and did not necessarily imply 'Christian brother' (see Acts 2:29, 37; 13:26 etc.).

Also, contrary to what some say, Ananias was told to lay hands on Saul in order that he might receive his sight (Acts 9:12). It is true that Ananias told Saul about receiving the Holy Spirit while laying hands on him (9:17), but this is quite a different matter from saying that the Holy Spirit came through the laying on of hands.

In fact we know that the Holy Spirit did not come then. In Acts 22:16 we find out that Ananias commanded Saul, after his sight had returned (and so after the laying on of hands):

Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (22:13).

Thus Saul was not even saved at that stage; he had still to wash away his sins and call on the name of the Lord. It is safe to assume in the absence of contrary evidence that his experience was quite normal, as set out in Acts 2:38.

This passage teaches a valuable lesson. One might be led to believe the neo-pentecostal claim but for the second account in Acts 22 which disproves it. Here is a basic problem with narratives like that about the Samaritans as opposed to statements as in the epistles and Acts 2:38. If we knew more, we might understand better. In the meantime we need to be very careful before we find commands from God in narrative passages.

Cornelius

This account, which is included in the list on which neo-pentecostal claims are based, is actually in direct opposition to these claims.

We have already noted in chapter one how the neo-pentecostal position is that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, but then must further believe in the Lord's promise for the Spirit in order to be baptized.

This condition is not in any text. But more, in this case it could not even possibly be in the text. Cornelius and his friends hear the gospel message, which may be read in Acts 10:34-43. In it there is no mention at all about receiving the Holy Spirit by any means. But they do hear about believing in Jesus for forgiveness.

At precisely this point they believe in Jesus. Peter says in Acts 15:7-9 while speaking about this incident:

Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith (authors' italics).

It is therefore while Peter is talking, in fact before he has finished (11:15), that they believe in Jesus. And at once the Spirit falls. There is no separate step mentioned or possible. There is no faith in the promise of the Holy Spirit released, for there has been no promise. Furthermore all the terminology of the alleged experience is used: 'received the Holy Spirit' (10:47); 'the Holy Spirit fell' (10:44); 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' (10:45); 'baptized with the Holy Spirit' (11:16). Receiving the word (11:1) and the baptism of the Spirit are part of one and the same work in this passage.

Notice in particular the teaching (as opposed to narrative) of Peter in Acts 15:7-9 above. The Holy Spirit is given as a witness of God's acceptance of them, that is of his forgiveness. His coming testifies also to the breach of that barrier between Jew and Gentile. There is no talk of coming to give power for witness in this or any part of the account. Rather, Peter remembers:

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning… 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 withstand God? (Acts 11:15-18; authors' italics).

One of the effects of this passage is to make it impossible for neo-pentecostals to reserve a special vocabulary for the 'subsequent' experience. Here is an experience of the Holy Spirit occurring precisely when men believed in Jesus (not the promise of the Spirit) which is called the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Further note

It may be urged by some that this was a subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit for power since Cornelius was a regenerate man before he heard Peter (see Acts 10:2). But even if we assume this, it would not validate the neo-pentecostal claims, for the following reasons: (a) Cornelius would then be part of that strange never-to-be-repeated group who were converted under the old covenant and then called into the new. This cannot be a pattern for Gentiles today. (b) The text itself makes it clear that Cornelius was believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation when the Holy Spirit fell (see, e.g., Acts 15:7-9). (c) The text also makes it clear that the Holy Spirit fell while Peter was talking about Christ and forgiveness, not the baptism of the Holy Spirit (10:44). Thus faith could only have been exercised in Christ, a point substantiated in Acts 11:15-17 and Acts 15:7-9.

Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7)

There are two points at which neo-pentecostal teaching appears to receive strong support in this passage.

The first is Paul's question in verse 2: 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' It is said that this question would be pointless, and even stupid, if men received the Spirit always when they believed in the Lord Jesus. If Paul know that a believer always received the Holy Spirit, why ask these men (designated 'disciples' and 'believers') whether the Spirit had come to them? Surely they would have received the Spirit automatically, if traditional Protestant teaching is correct.

Now this argument is most imposing if two conditions are reasonably proved: (a) that 'disciples' means 'Christian disciples'; (b) that Paul thought they were Christians.

But consider the actual case. We know for a fact that they were not true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, for otherwise they would not have been later re-baptized. Therefore Luke could not mean 'Christian disciples' in verse 1. Yet we also know that they had some belief in the coming of Jesus since they had received John's baptism (Mark 1:8-9). In this sense Luke calls them 'disciples'; and they claimed to be believers, as appears in Paul's question.

Thus Paul's question is easily understood. Here he is confronted with a group claiming to be believers (else his question would really have no point!), but who were not. A simple test is applied.

'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' If the answer is positive their claim is true and all they needed is more instruction, like Apollos (see Acts 18:24-28). If the answer is negative then these men are not genuine believers and need to give their submission to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul's question is neither pointless nor stupid. It is based not on his own estimate of their situation, but the claims of the twelve to be believers. He tests them, they fail the test, and he baptizes them. In fact, when the import of his question is understood it provides more evidence that the teaching of Acts 2:38 is to be taken as the norm, for their variance from that necessitated their rebaptism. Certainly it warns us about the difficulty of assessing narratives.

The second point at which neo-pentecostal teaching appears to receive strong support in this passage is in verse 5 and 6. This is because when Paul laid his hands on the Ephesians, as distinct from baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon them. Thus there reappears the neo-pentecostal claim to subsequence, since it is assumed that the Holy Spirit came when they were baptized, and for a second time a few moments later.

It is certainly impossible to say exactly what happened. It may be that the laying on of hands was part of baptism; our knowledge of how this was conducted is very slight. It may be that the laying on of hands was subsequent in the same sense (though without the same long delay) as occurred in Samaria. This possible lack of conformity to the norm of Acts 2:28 is not altogether surprising in view of the uncertain beginning that these twelve had experienced.

Our uncertainty stems from a lack of knowledge as to the precise significance of the laying on of hands. In general it does seem to express the subject's identification with the person prayed for. Sometimes it is for the recognition of gifts/commission (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6); sometimes it is for healing (Acts 9:12); twice it occurs in abnormal pastoral situations—at Samaria and Ephesus. On the available evidence there can be no doctrine of the laying on of hands, as many neo-pentecostals admit when they say that it is not a necessary pre-condition for the baptism in the Spirit. What is certain is that no one can prove two comings of the Spirit, for Luke mentions only one. The neo-pentecostal must assume a subsequence not found in the text.

However, let us agree to assume that in this passage the case for 'subsequence' is proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt (which is what the neo-pentecostal must do if he is to lay a command from God on the conscience of other Christians). There is still no command for us to do likewise in the text. There is still complete silence about the conditions for receiving this other blessing. There is no indication of power for witness being received. We are not told that God is going to work like this for others. If these details were supplied elsewhere, we may validly consider the Ephesian case of subsequence in line with the neo-pentecostal claims. But where is this information?

We began by setting out a list of the things to be established before the neo-pentecostal reading of Acts can be justified. Let us see how well the list has fared.

1. Have we discovered a narrative which is or contains a command by God for men to be baptized in the Spirit subsequent to their acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord?

Pentecost—no.

Samaria—no.

Saul—no.

Cornelius—no.

Ephesus—no.

2. Is the neo-pentecostal understanding of the passages the only reasonable one?

Pentecost—It is not reasonable at all.

Saul—It is not reasonable at all.

Cornelius—It is not reasonable at all.

Samaria—It is not the only reasonable one.

Ephesus—It is not the only reasonable one.

3. Do the texts prove that the reception of the Holy Spirit resulted in 'power for witness?'

Pentecost—yes! This was promised to the disciples by Jesus in Acts 1:8. But the promise cannot and does not apply to any Christian who has not seen the risen Christ, since he is not a 'witness' (see Appendix 4) in Luke's sense of that word.

Samaria—no.

Saul—yes; for he witnessed the risen Lord and was commissioned by him. Hence he began to preach (Acts 9:20-23; 22:25 etc.).

Cornelius—no.

Ephesus—no.

It is true, of course, that tongues speaking occurred with Cornelius, at Ephesus, and probably Samaria. But there is no suggestion that this represents power for witnessing, an activity which Luke restricts to a select group, or even power for evangelism. The same is true of the prophesying in Acts 19:6. Rather, the tongues and other signs seem to be an initial witness by God to the reality of the Spirit's coming (see Acts 15:8).

4. Do the texts show that certain conditions had to be fulfilled beyond becoming a Christian?

Pentecost—only that of remaining in Jerusalem for the risen Lord to inaugurate his new age; a position impossible to repeat.

Samaria—no conditions.

Saul—no conditions.

Cornelius—no conditions even possible.

Ephesus—no conditions.

Acts 2:28 is the only relevant teaching on this topic; the norm is that a man's conversion will be the time when God's Holy Spirit is poured out and no further step is required beyond that of becoming a Christian. This is confirmed by what is said of Cornelius (Acts 11:14-17).

5. Are these cases of 'subsequence'? (A second coming of the Holy Spirit.)

Pentecost—no.

Samaria—no.

Saul—no.

Cornelius—no.

Ephesus—no.

This is not to deny that there was a delay in some cases. At Pentecost this is not only explicable but necessary in that situation. In Samaria there is delay between repentance/baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit comes only once. Luke himself hints at some oddity. The delay is explicable in terms of the breakthrough involved, and the ideas of condition and power are absent. This is not neo-pentecostal 'subsequence' which requires two comings of the Holy Spirit. In Ephesus it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that there was a delay, let along subsequence in the neo-pentecostal sense. But if there was delay it is explicable in the circumstances, not a blueprint for future generations. Luke's descriptions of delay is not the neo-pentecostal theology of subsequence.

When our examination of the Acts passages is complete, we have three incidents which comply with Acts 2:38—men were baptized with the Holy Spirit on becoming Christians; and we have two seemingly abnormal situations of delay about which we are not told enough to be able to do more than speculate. Such is not the stuff with which consciences may be bound.

Christian Discussion on the Spirit & Pentecostal, Charismatic, Evangelical & Reformed Belief, the day of Pentecost, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of the Pentecostal movement, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance, revelation and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit - TALKING PENTECOSTALISM | By Joe Towns

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The Quest for Power | Neo-Pentecostalism and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishes, 1973, p. 17-28). It is reproduced here with permission.

The work of the Holy Spirit is a major theme in this Gospel. The first reference serves as a viewing point for John’s teachings about the Holy Spirit:

And John bore witness, ‘I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 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.” And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God’ (John 1:32-34).
In this text we have: (i) a testimony by the Baptist: ‘I saw the Spirit descend… and it remained on him’; and (ii) a prophecy by the Baptist: ‘This is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

The Baptist’s Testimony

The evangelist John does not describe what happened to Jesus in the Jordan, except through the eyes of John the Baptist. His version coincides in essence with the account in the synoptic Gospels. John the Baptist alone supplies the testimony that Jesus is the one on whom the Spirit ‘remained’. John the Baptist’s reason for this conviction can perhaps be seen in a further testimony about Jesus:

He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all… For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit (John 3:31-34).
God hasn’t ‘rationed’ his Spirit to the Son of God from heaven. The Spirit of God, who remained on Jesus, enabled him to speak the words of God. The idea is extended by Jesus when he taught that his words are the source of the Spirit in men’s lives (6:63).

Did Jesus receive the ‘baptism of the Spirit for power’? Many neo-pentecostal writers state that Jesus was already (before Jordan) fully Son of God. At Jordan he experienced the ‘baptism with/in the Holy Spirit’ and this enabled him to commence his powerful public ministry of teaching and miracle signs. Thus, it is argued, if he needed such a baptism for power, how much more do we need such a baptism for power.1

This is a plausible suggestion. But let us ask two questions:

1. Do the Gospels tell us that the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus baptized him with power which he did not previously possess? True, Jesus’ public ministry of announcement and signs began after Jordan, but have we any evidence that Jesus was powerless beforehand? We suggest that the Jordan experience reassured Jesus that he was the Father’s beloved Son in whom he was well pleased. We can hardly say more than this without importing our own interpretation into the text.

2. In any case, does the experience of Jesus automatically represent a pattern for us to follow? Are we at liberty to suggest that an IS of his experience has any claim to be an OUGHT in our experience? The scriptures have examples where his pattern is bound on us.2 If the scripture is silent we are not at liberty to invent our own typology with its consequent exhortations.

The Baptist’s Prophecy

John prophesied that the one on whom the Spirit descended and remained would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit. What does this mean?

John’s prophecy about Jesus undoubtedly refers to Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Ezekiel, for example, foreshadowed the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel by the breath (Spirit) of the Lord (Ezek. 37:1-14). While this passage appears to refer ultimately to the great resurrection at the Lord’s coming, it is quite valid to apply it to the ‘spiritual’ resurrection of Israel which Jesus achieved by his words and word and by the sending of his Spirit.

Joel also predicted a coming of the Spirit of the Lord. In words made famous by Peter’s remarks on the day of Pentecost he wrote:

It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-32).
This occasion was to be no less than the great Day of the Lord which would be accompanied by cosmic portents. Only those called by the Lord, who called upon his name, would be delivered in that Day.

John was convinced that his baptism with water was to be superseded by the baptism with the Spirit through the expected Coming One. The writings of Ezekiel, Joel and others undoubtedly influenced John’s understanding. What did Jesus understand about John’s prophecy?

It may assist the reader to have before him the major references by Jesus to the work of the Holy Spirit, as recorded by John.

4:14        Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman.
7:37-39   Jesus’ bold proclamation at the feast.
14:15-20 Jesus will not abandon them. Another Paraclete is promised (cf. 14:27).
14:26-27 The Paraclete will teach the disciples about Jesus.
15:26-27 The Paraclete will witness to the disciples about Jesus.
16:7-13   The Paraclete will convict the world and lead the disciples into the truth.

We ask three questions about the Holy Spirit in these passages: Who? When? What?

Who is the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the life-giver (6:63; see also 3:6-8). The Nicene Creed calls the Spirit ‘the Lord, and giver of life’. He imparts spiritual life and light to us.

The Holy Spirit is called water. He is a spring of water and rivers of living water (4:14; 7:37-39). John baptized men with water; Jesus baptizes men with living water. Paul wrote, ‘by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body… were all made to drink of one Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:13).

The Holy Spirit is called ‘the Spirit of truth’ (14:17; 16:13). Jesus is the truth (14:6); Jesus speaks the truth (16:7). The Holy Spirit will guide the disciples into the truth about Jesus (16:13-15). Our knowledge about Jesus rests upon the activity of the Spirit of truth in the first disciples because the scriptures of the New Testament have come from their hands.

The Holy Spirit is called ‘Paraclete’. The original Greek is translated variously as ‘comforter’ (AV), ‘counsellor’ (RSV), ‘advocate’ (NEB, JB), ‘helper’ (TEV). The primary meaning appears to be ‘legal assistant, advocate’. The usage of the word in John and elsewhere suggests the idea of ‘persuader’. The Paraclete persuades the mind and will of the believer with respect to peace. He persuades or convicts the world. The meaning must be controlled by the fact that the Holy Spirit is ‘another’ Paraclete. His work resembles Jesus’ work.

The Holy Spirit is said to come as an independent person and yet to be sent by Jesus from the Father (15:26). Nevertheless the Holy Spirit is Jesus spiritually present with us, Spirit to spirit.

‘I will not abandon you. I will come to you’ (14:18, own translation). It is to our advantage that Jesus goes to the Father. Then the Spirit of Jesus will come and indwell us (see 16:7-8). The Paraclete is Jesus in us, since Pentecost.

When does the Holy Spirit come?

The Lord taught, ‘If I do not go away, the Counsellor [Paraclete] will not come to you’ (16:7).

On almost every occasion when Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit he used a future verb: ‘I shall give’ (4:14); ‘the Father will give’ (14:16); ‘I will send’ (15:26); ‘the Father will send’ (14:26); he will convince (16:8), lead (16:13), declare (16:13), teach (14:26).

Does the gospel tell us precisely when the Holy Spirit will come? Quite clearly the Holy Spirit cannot come until Jesus departs (16:7). This is more closely defined by the ‘coming hour’ when men will worship God in spirit and in truth (4:23). What is this coming hour which is referred to in John (2:4)? It is the hour when Jesus is glorified and that is the hour of Jesus death (16:23-28). On another occasion his ‘glorification’ appears to refer to the ascended Jesus (17:4, 5). Another time-note, ‘on that day’, refers to the resurrection and beyond (14:20; 16:22-23).

When was Jesus glorified? We cannot say with absolute precision. It seems that the hour of Jesus’ glorification is applied to the complex of events—his death, resurrection and ascension. These events together can be regarded as his departure to the Father: the Holy Spirit did not begin to come until then.3

John puts the matter succinctly:

Now this he said about the Holy Spirit which those who believe in him were to receive; For the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified (7:39, own translation).4
Many neo-pentecostals believe that the disciples possessed the Spirit throughout the period of Jesus’ ministry and that the Spirit came in power at Pentecost to enable them to witness to Jesus. Further, they believe that this pattern is normative for believers today.

Did the disciples have the Spirit before Jesus was glorified? The first century witnessed the end of the old epoch and the inauguration of the new. The disciples and godly Jews of that time enjoyed a relationship with the God of Israel through his Spirit. This was true not only for the godly people we meet in the Gospels but also those whom we encounter in the Acts. The Pentecost pilgrims, the eunuch from Ethiopia, Saul, Cornelius, the twelve Ephesians, even the Samaritans possessed a knowledge of the Lord through his Spirit. Yet their knowledge of the Lord was limited by his own self-revelation. The disciples were further advanced than others through the ministry of the Spirit. They proclaimed the kingdom and performed the signs which signalled its coming. At least one of their number discerned Jesus to be the Christ, yet without penetrating beyond understanding him as a quasi-political leader (Mark 8:29-33).

Did the disciples already have the Spirit? Were they regenerate before Jesus was glorified? If this question is asked with respect to knowing God through the Spirit under the old covenant the answer is undoubtedly yes. If the question relates to Christian regeneration, to submitting to Jesus as Lord through the Spirit, the answer is no!5

The disciples are a difficult case. They have flashes of insight, yet they betray spiritual blindness for much of the time.6 We conclude that their comprehension of the master was limited by the measure of the Spirit which was apportioned to men under the old covenant. John’s text appears to us definitive:

The Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified…
This position is confirmed by Peter’s remarks three years or so after the resurrection:

…the Holy Spirit fell on… us… when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:15-18).
Peter dates his belief in the Lord Jesus from the time of Pentecost. Further, it was faith in the Lord Jesus which occasioned the coming of the Spirit.

Finally, what are we to say about this famous passage?

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven’ if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ (John 20:19-23).
Some neo-pentecostals believe this to be the first coming of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, which was to be completed by the coming of the Spirit in power at Pentecost. This position is difficult to support for the following reasons:

1. Only the eleven selected for apostleship were present. The gift of the Spirit was specifically related to ‘being sent’ and ‘remitting sins’. This passage is really a great commission not unlike Matthew 28:16-20 which concludes with ‘Lo, I [Jesus] am with you always’, a reference to the Holy Spirit as in John 20:22.

2. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 occurs in the second volume of Luke’s writings in response to Jesus’ promise about the Spirit at the end of Luke’s first volume (24:49). In his two volumes Luke is able to record the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit and describe historically his arrival at the time of Pentecost. Matthew and John, each writing in only one volume, incorporate the theological truth of Pentecost into their accounts of the great commission. We suggest that John 20:19-23 is, in effect, Jesus’ sign of Pentecost. But since John has no second volume in his account the sign actually serves also to describe the reality foreshadowed by the sign.7

3. The best understanding of the situation is that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost marked the point at which followers of Jesus became regenerated believers in the Jesus whom God had made Lord and Christ. This was the first occasion when Jesus baptized men with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). It was, further, in the case of the twelve, the beginning of the ministry for which they were especially empowered.

What will the Holy Spirit do?

If we do not know the promises of scripture it is scarcely possible to claim them as our own, by faith in them. Do we know the promises Jesus made with respect to the work of the Holy Spirit?

First, Jesus promised to satisfy spiritual thirst in our inner lives. He promises to any man who thirsts an inner spring whose supply of water is inexhaustible. Gone are the days of ‘bucket brigade’. He connects us up to the ‘main water supply’ which never fails.

Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst’ the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life (John 4:14).
Second, Jesus promises to bless others through our lives. Jesus does not intend us to enjoy the inner satisfaction of the Spirit selfishly. The thirsty person who comes to Jesus and drinks will have rivers of living water flowing out of him. The Spirit will flow out from Jesus into the life of the believer from whom living water will also flow out. Three of the prophets wrote of waters flowing out from the temple on Mount Zion as part of the blessings of the new age. The new temple, not made with hands, is Jesus’ body glorified by death and resurrection. From that new temple the living waters of the Holy Spirit flow out to men who come to him and drink. More, the coming of the Spirit makes our bodies temples from which rivers of living water flow out in blessing others.

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, ‘If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water”.’ Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:37-39).
Third, although the age before Jesus returns will be extremely trying, Jesus promises not to leave us desolate. The Father will give us another Paraclete who will dwell within us. Our hearts are uplifted beyond words when we discover that the other Paraclete who comes to us is none other than the Lord himself. And he promises peace:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you; not as the world gives… Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid (14:27).
*           *          *            *

There is another group of promises about the Holy Spirit which occurs within chapters 14-16. These promises were made to the disciples who were present with Jesus, who were to become the great apostles in the early church. The Holy Spirit was to exercise a special ministry to them.

First the Holy Spirit would teach them and remind them what Jesus taught.

But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26).
Second, the Holy Spirit would witness to them about Jesus. These, who had been with Jesus from the beginning, would in turn witness about him.

And you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning (John 15:27).
Third, the Holy Spirit would convict those who heard the apostolic testimony.

And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged (John 16:8-11).
Fourth, the Holy Spirit would reveal new things to them and guide them into the truth about Jesus. He would declare to them the things to come.

I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:12-15).
The great prayer of Jesus for these disciples, that they would be kept in the truth of the words of Jesus and be enabled to transmit that message, was to be fulfilled by the special work of the Holy Spirit within them. It was the apostles who were empowered to witness to the resurrection. It was the apostles who were empowered to perform the signs and wonders following the gospel. It was the apostles who were inspired to write the documents we have come to know as the New Testament.8

It is a matter of great rejoicing that Jesus imparted to certain men the gift of apostleship through the Holy Spirit. The New Testament, upon which we depend for our knowledge of the Lord, was made possible by this work of the Holy Spirit.

We may ask, is there nothing at all in these special promises for us who are not apostles? We may be confident that the same Spirit will minister to us as we seek to understand and communicate these truths which the Spirit initially enabled the apostles to write. But we may not identify ourselves with the apostles in their unique ministry.

---

1.E.g. J. Baker, Baptized in One Spirit (Fountain Trust, London, 1967), p. 11.

2.Mark 8:27 ff., where Jesus requires his disciples to take up a cross.

3.John 19:30 may contain a reference to the coming of the Spirit. It was the occasion of Jesus’ glorification: he cried ‘it is finished’. Jesus handed on the Spirit (of breath?). The verb ‘handed on’ is cognate with the verb used by Jesus with respect to ‘giving’ the Spirit (4:14). Against this we must observe that the word translated ‘Spirit’ can equally be translated ‘breath’. It is possible that we have here an example of Johannine ‘double intention’.

4.The RSV supplies the verb ‘given’ which is not found in the Greek text.

5.Even John the Baptist despite his greatness was not a member of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 11:11). This is not to say he was not saved. Rather, it indicates that in God’s timetable the kingdom was not yet inaugurated, merely announced, though the signs of its coming were manifest in Jesus who was the king.

6.In Mark they:

don't understand the parable of the soils (4:10-13);
have no faith during the storm (4:40);
fail to comprehend about the loaves (6:52);
display blindness and are rebuked by Jesus (8:14-21);
fail to comprehend the resurrection (9:10) or the death (9:32)
argue about the leadership (9:34; 10:35 ff.);
exclude other disciples (9:38) and children 10:13)

7.John’s approach is thoroughly theological. Whilst he takes history very seriously, there are occasions when historical narratives are infused with an overriding theological concern. For example, John locates the cleansing of the temple in chapter 2. This ought to warn us that his text demands a theological approach to exegesis rather than a too simplistic historical approach. This being so, we feel justified in explaining Jesus’ sign of Pentecost as being John’s account of Pentecost. If this is not the case we have the problem that many promises about the Holy Spirit in John remain unfulfilled, ‘up in the air’. Given the theological comprehensiveness of John this seems unlikely.

8.It is true that there was some overflowing of these activities (witness to the resurrection, and inspired writings) to others beyond the apostolic group. However, it was to the apostles alone that Jesus promised the gifts which made them the unique guarantors of the truth. The writings of others find their way into the New Testament on the grounds of their links with the significant figures of the apostolic age and their conformity to apostolic doctrine.

Christian discussion on the Spirit & Evangelical, Pentecostal, Reformed & Charismatic Belief, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of Pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit | http://TalkingPentecostalism.blogspot.com by Joe Towns

What neo-pentecostals believe: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 3-6). It is reproduced here with permission.

‘Neo’ is a prefix which means ‘new’. It serves to distinguish the neo-pentecostals from the denominations of Pentecostalism and some of the emphases of their teaching, especially because neo-pentecostals may be found within any Christian denomination.

The following description is a general account of neo-pentecostal belief, with which some neo-pentecostals will differ at particular points.

The name ‘pentecostalism’ is used because its distinctive teaching is to do with the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost (Acts 2). In doctrinal teaching it stands clearly within the historic Protestant Biblical tradition; that is, its exponents believe in the authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the true incarnation, the trinity, etc.

The neo-pentecostal will often complain about the deadness of the churches. He observes that there is little evidence of powerful preaching, of miraculous gifts and of growth in Christian commitment. This leads him to suggest that what is lacking is the power of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking from the Bible, he will complain that the traditional Protestant theology has misunderstood or ignored an experience which he entitles ‘the baptism with the Holy Spirit’. Traditional theology has held that when a man becomes a Christian he is then baptized with the Holy Spirit. Neo-pentecostals agree that the Holy Spirit makes a man a Christian and is given at that time for sanctification and growth in grace. But they say that the believer must also seek the fullness of the Spirit if he is to be a powerful Christian. This baptism is a gift of the Lord Christ to every Christian subsequent to and separate from his conversion. It is a gift of power for Christ’s service.

Thus a person who has not been ‘baptized in the Spirit’ will be saved, and he may well be Christ-like, but he will not be supernaturally gifted for service, that is, service within the church and also toward the unbeliever. Nor is it possible to receive the baptism unawares. It is a conscious experience, consciously sought, and ought to be accompanied by the gift of speaking in tongues, as a sign, although this is not invariably the case.

This is not to say, however, that the baptism ought to be long separated from a man’s conversion. Ideally they ought to occur in the same context of events. Today’s Christians are not instructed about this, however, and therefore the baptism occurs quite separately, generally speaking.

It is suggested that the Christians to whom the epistles were written were instructed about this experience, and this accounts for the lack of specific commands concerning it. However, various texts are mentioned where reference is allegedly made to the idea of a separate baptism in the Spirit—e.g. Galatians 3:2, 5, 14; 4:6; Ephesians 1:13 (AV); and 1 Corinthians 12:13.

The example is cited of the Lord Jesus receiving baptism in the Spirit in Jordan although he was obviously Spirit-filled before then. It is said that this Spirit-baptism equipped Jesus for his ministry.

However the main evidence for two experiences of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and then empowering is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles in five places:

(a) the day of Pentecost—Acts 2:1-42;
(b) the Samaritans—Acts 8:4-24;
(c) Saul—Acts 9:1-19;
(d) Cornelius—Acts 10:1-48;
(e) Ephesians—Acts 19:1-7.

To sum up, in the words of one neo-pentecostal writer: ‘The neo-pentecostal draws on the examples given in the Acts of the Apostles of people being baptized in the Holy Spirit as his guide to what the church may expect of such a baptism today. For these examples (listed above) he deduces certain experiential facts concerning the baptism in the Holy Spirit in the early church.

These facts are:

‘(1) Conversion and the baptism in the Holy Spirit are different experiences.
‘(2) They are not concurrent, though they may—and perhaps should—occur almost together.
‘(3) Initiative must be taken and faith released for a person to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is not the initiative taken nor the faith released for conversion.
‘(4) A person will know that he has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and this is not the same as knowing that he has been converted.
‘(5) The baptism in the Holy Spirit is essentially an experience of the Holy Spirit related to power for witnessing to Jesus Christ.
‘(6) The baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience for all Christians and thus all should be encouraged to enter into it.’1

Traditional Protestant Theology

(1) birth –> Conversion (baptism in the Holy Spirit –> death

Neo-pentecostalism

(2) birth –> (A) Conversion (coming of the Holy Spirit) –> (B) baptism in the Holy Spirit for power, with signs –> death

N.B.—In (2) the time-lag between A and B may be seconds or years, depending on the faith and understanding of the person

---

1. Reproduced by permission from a paper presented by R. B. Hobart to the Diocese of Sydney Commission of Enquiry into the Charismatic Movement.

Reading the Bible: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power |
neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 7-16). It is reproduced here with permission.

Knowledge basic to the Christian life

Paul asked:

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed?
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without a preacher?
He concludes:

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom. 10:14 and 17).
We learn here that our salvation comes by hearing the message of the gospel and believing; or, to put it another way, through the knowledge of God transmitted to us by human language. Nor is it only the beginning of the Christian life which depends on the knowledge of God.

When Paul prays for the Christians at Ephesus (1:16f.; 3:14-19), at Philippi (1:9), and at Colossae (1:9,10), he prays for knowledge. Certainly this means than intellectual understanding. It is indeed a word that speaks of our relationship with god, but it must include the assimilation of information, for our Christian life is not based on ignorance. That is why Paul exhorts Timothy:

Command and teach these things. Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching… Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers (1 Tim. 4:11-13, 16).

Notice the importance of scripture. Here we find the light we need to establish and maintain our relationship with God. That is why Paul stresses:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you have learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-17; authors’ italics).

Thus knowledge of God is of primary importance for every Christian. This explains why the New Testament speaks of a special class of person called a teacher, whose work is so vital to the body that he is to be paid for it (Gal. 6:6). It is not that the teacher is a more important person in God’s sight, but that his function is of great value (see Eph. 4:11-16), and it is necessary if the other members of the body are to work together properly.

Since the knowledge of God is basic to our salvation and growth as Christians, we ought to notice the means by which God has chosen to impart such knowledge to his children. He is free to do as he pleases, but, as has already been indicated, his usual method is through the scriptures. In fact since we know that the Bible is God’s word to us, we are bound to bring all other claims to reveal God’s mind to the test of whether they conform to it (see Deut. 13:1-4).

In short, Christians need to give special attention to the Bible. When they do, they discover at once that God has chosen to reveal his mind to us in human speech, using human grammar, literary forms and style. This means we are forced to respond to God’s word by reading it as a book.

That may seem obvious. But a surprising number of people seem to think of the Bible as a charm. Some people put a copy under their pillow at night. Others try to discover God’s mind by opening the book at random and reading what they find. Others have no hesitation in squeezing from plain words incredible meanings. Others use words torn from the very middle of sentences. Others read weird fantasies into the text. Thus the book becomes plasticine, to be set in whatever mould suits the person concerned, and the word of God is lost.

This last point can hardly be overstressed. It is no good thinking that if what we say has some vague relation to a part of the Bible, or has a pious air to it, then it is the word of God. It is a very serious matter to read something into the Bible that it is not saying, for then our relationship with God, based as it is on knowledge, is severely hindered. Relationships need truth.

There is a need therefore for us to have some rules in mind as we begin to read the Bible, and this chapter will set out some such rules. But our treatment can hardly be exhaustive, only preliminary, and the reader is asked to consult a book such as A. M. Stibbs Understanding God’s word (IVF).

Some suggestions for the Bible reader

To begin with, it would be good to ponder the words of one of the first translators of the Bible into English, Miles Coverdale:

It shall greatly help ye to understand Scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth (authors’ italics).

This is very good advice for the reading of any book, but especially so in relation to the Bible, where the meaning is so important. People often approach it with strange ideas. Chapter and verse divisions, quite foreign to the original writing, have been introduced. These divisions are very useful as study aids, but give the Bible a stilted, unique appearance which does not in fact belong to it.

(i) Clarify the words and phrases used. Most of us use a translated Bible. This means that words or phrases need to be studied for their meaning both in English and Greek. It will not do to assume that the English word is always exactly equivalent to the Greek or Hebrew word that it translates. And example of this is the key word ‘kingdom’. In English this almost always means a place, a geographical location. Although the word can have this meaning in some New Testament passages, yet often it would be better translated ‘rule’ or ‘reign’, a rather different concept. Another example of a word whose meaning is wider in the original than it is in modern English is ‘righteousness’. So it is obvious how important study is, even for a well-known text like Matthew 6:33!

(ii) Note the ‘terrain’. That is to say, the Bible has within it many types of literature: prose, poetry, fable, proverb, allegory, parable, etc. One ought not to handle the prose of a Pauline epistle in the same way as the poetry of a Psalm.

In Job we find statements about God and the world which are not meant to be true. The book is a dramatic poem, the speakers disagree and fall into error, and the whole needs to be read before we can get the message. This is quite different from the use to which a Pauline letter may be put.

(iii) Note the immediate context. Words plucked from mid-sentence, mid-paragraph, even sometimes mid-book, are in danger of being twisted. Read and understand the whole before separating the parts.

There is the story of the careless preacher whose bishop ironically suggested that he preach a sermon on ‘hang all the law and prophets’ (AV), a text wrenched from Matthew 22:40; or another of the missionary who saw the words ‘flee to Egypt’ (Matt. 2:13) as a command for him to do likewise. These are obvious examples of a practice which is perhaps the most frequent of all lapses in regard to the Bible.

Often a Biblical statement is taken from the context of the conversation being reported. Thus, for example, while no one thinks for a moment that we must all buy linen waistcloths because the Lord told Jeremiah to do so (Jer. 13:1), yet we have been told to ‘go, sell what you have, and give to the poor…’ (Mark 10:21) because Jesus told a rich young man to do this. In this regard a study of Coverdale’s advice is essential: we must ask ‘who is speaking?’ and ‘to whom?’

(iv) Know the background. Although the main message of the Bible is available to anyone who will read it by itself, yet the meaning of various parts will be enhanced greatly if the historical and geographical background to the passage is known.

To pick an example, the meaning of Christ’s injunction about swearing oaths is clear enough (Matt. 5:33-37), but it is helpful to know something of the lengths to which the contemporary legalists went in avoiding the implications of the Old Testament teaching.

Psalm 137 benefits from geographical and historical knowledge in the reader. A glance at Babylon and Jerusalem on the map and an acquaintance with the history of Babylonish/Jewish relationships will go far to explain the tone of this song.

For some passages the background information is not only desirable: it is necessary. This is especially true of the prophets.

(v) Note the Biblical context. Because the Bible says so much about God, and our understanding is so limited, there are unresolved tensions in its pages, for example that between the sovereignty of God and man’s responsibility. It can never be right to resolve such tension by ignoring a Biblical doctrine.

(vi) The consensus of Christian opinion. Amongst those who believer in the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, there is agreement on a large range of important issues, such as the trinity, the atonement, and the deity of Christ. Sometimes this agreement is expressed in creeds or in confessions. It is wisdom to treat these summaries of Bible teaching as fallible, but with great respect, and to ask ourselves whether we are certain that we have the Bible’s meaning clear when we find that we have stepped beyond the bounds of agreement reached by many different Christians over a long period of time.

It may indeed be that a new Luther or a new Calvin needs to emerge. But the onus is surely on the new interpretation to prove that it is accurate as over against the old, and we are wise to adopt a flexible conservatism.

Some pitfalls to avoid

(i) Flights of fancy. The man who interprets the Bible must always be asking himself ‘What did the human author mean?’ When he ascertains this he will be close to the meaning which God wants him to have.

Trouble is caused by those who wish to see the plan of salvation (or something else) everywhere in the Bible. Thus Naaman’s seven dips in Jordan have been used to give the seven points of conversion (contrition, confession, conversion, commitment … etc.) or the seven points of sanctification, or any seven points the speaker has in mind. Whatever we end with, it is not God’s word!

Similarly the parable of the good Samaritan has been abused, so that every detail of the story stands for something—the man for Adam, the priest for the law, the Samaritan for Christ, and the inn for the church. Anyone can read any meaning he wishes into the Bible if this is permitted.

Fantasies have been read into the high priest’s garments, Elijah’s robe, and Christ’s seamless robe. Someone recently said that he thought that the institutional churches were represented in the Bible by Saul, for whom God withdrew his Spirit!

There is no end to such examples: but the sad result is the same. The word of God is stolen from the Lord’s sheep and they are not fed. A man’s relationship with God requires true knowledge.

(ii) Fixation. This describes the habit of being so engrossed in one doctrine (e.g. predestination) as to read it everywhere in the Bible.

(iii) Wrong presupposition. We must come to the Bible very carefully and humbly, knowing that our culture and theology have conditioned us to read it in a certain way.

Thus, a person who has a firm conviction that God’s love is irreconcilable with punishment may well explain away those passages in the Bible which speak of his wrath. Some have even gone so far as to abandon the whole of the Old Testament on these grounds; others omit parts of the Psalms in church; others retain the unpleasant sections by unconsciously re-interpreting the Biblical language to suit the twentieth century.

We are all subject to this. We hear a Biblical word or phrase, read our own meaning into it, and then proceed on the assumption that the Bible is speaking like that.

(iv) The misuse of narrative. This is a common evangelical failing, and especially in relation to the book of Acts. We hear that the early church did something and we assume that it is a command from God for us to do it—that is, we turn a description (an ‘is’) into a prescription (an ‘ought’). In this way open-air preaching is justified; or small cell-group meetings; or appeals for commitment at meetings and so on.

Christ has granted freedom in these and many areas; some teachers seek to remove our liberty by turning narrative into commands. No one pretends that we must always ask anyone we meet who is reading the Bible, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8:30) as Philip did; or that we must pool our resources as the primitive Christians did (Acts 2:45);1 or that we must sing hymns at midnight if we are in gaol as Paul and Silas did (Acts 16:25). That men did these things is wonderful and interesting; that we must do them is nonsense.

A further example will illuminate the point. In 1 Corinthians 15:29 the practice of receiving baptism on behalf of the dead is referred to. This is the only mention of it in the New Testament, and Paul does not condemn it. If anything, he is favourable about it.

The Mormons actually practise the baptism for the dead, basing their activities on this text. Yet no one else does, for it is plain to most people that the description of a happening in apostolic days is not in itself a command for us to do the same. An ‘is’ is not an ‘ought’.

This example illustrates, too, the main problem with unexplained narratives—they cannot give the whole story. The author selects some details to tell us, but does not give us all; thus when we come with our questions, questions which did not trouble him, we find the text silent or ambiguous. One instance of this is in Paul’s conversion which is noted on page 33. The careless reader, too eager to see what is already in his mind, will be led astray.

Naturally, narratives have some use. They can, for example, confirm that a certain practice is not contrary to the gospel. So we may be confident that open-air preaching is not contrary to God’s word, since both Jesus and the disciples did this; but we are not to assume that it is commanded in God’s word. We may gather imperatives or doctrines from narratives where the author himself has given the details a theological significance known to us. This significance may be learned from his writings as a whole, or from the immediate context, or both. But taking a narrative on its own clear terms is rather different from the unfettered inventiveness so typical in much Biblical interpretation.

To take an example, Peter’s dealing with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) is not a model for us to follow. But it appears to be in Luke’s terms an illustration of the authority of the apostles (Acts 5:11, 12). Speeches given as part of a narrative are of the same character. We may indeed gather commands, promises, and doctrine from the words of an apostolic speech addressed to the public whether general or Christian.

Conclusion

All this may seem overwhelming to the ordinary person, and he may feel that he is not equipped to read the Bible himself. This is not the case. The rules above are common sense, the sort of thing a person does without thinking when faced with a book to read.

Because of our propensity to view the Bible as magic (as distinct from inspired) we sometimes approach it in the wrong way. Prayer for light, common sense and humility are sufficient for the ordinary Bible reader, and he should be encouraged to read on and find God’s plain way. Nor has God left us on our own. Besides the aid of the Holy Spirit, Christ has in every generation given some men the ability to teach. These men have a gift for understanding and explaining the Bible. Thus we ought to turn to such people for help as we read—whether it be to one’s local teacher or pastor, or to the books and commentaries written by teachers for our instruction.

---

1. Since writing this the author has become aware that the ‘Children of God’ do in fact bind their members to communal living.

The Bewildered Believer: Barnett & Jensen

This book is written for people who are bewildered and confused by the issue of neo-pentecostalism.

As a committed Christian you desire to be an effective disciple. You also desire the blessings of God’s spirit in your life.

Yet neo-pentecostals say one thing about this and orthodox Protestants say something else. They speak with conflicting voices.

Both groups appear to use the Bible and submit to its authority. Yet the old churches seem pretty dead whereas the neo-pentecostal meetings are bright and friendly. Things seem to be happening there, whereas nothing much seems to be happening in the old churches.

The baptism in the Holy spirit and speaking in tongues are made to sound attractive. Yet leading Christians from the historic denominations are known to be critical of what neo-pentecostals teach and do. It is all very bewildering to the ordinary believer who wants to be the best Christian he can.

This book sets out the neo-pentecostal position and then investigates some of the parts of scripture which bear on the issue. We feel that one of the major issues at stake is the way people use the Bible. For this reason we have discussed methods of using the Bible as one of our early chapters.

We, the authors, do not hold the neo-pentecostal point of view though we are grateful for its insight and emphasis in certain important areas.

We make a plea at this point. Some of the material in this book may be a little hard to understand. We are sorry about this, but it usually reflects difficult Bible passages which are hard to translate into simple language. Our plea is that the reader doesn’t give up on reading when he comes to a hard section. Sometimes it is a good idea to skip over a hard section for the moment and come back to it later.

There is another problem. Since we have written from convictions which repudiate the teachings of an exciting new group, we must often seem carping and over-critical.

Yet it must be remembered that the neo-pentecostal himself is a missionary with a view of Biblical truth which he is advocating as a pattern for all believers. He is quite deliberately posing a challenge to his fellow Christians. If his theology is wrong, his pattern becomes a burden on men’s consciences, and falsifies the gospel of God.

In that situation it is no great display of love to remain silent.

The Holy Spirit and Conversion in the Writings of Paul: Barnett & Jensen

Paul’s most heated letter is to the Galatians. In his absence they had moved away from the gospel of Christ which stated that God forgives people through their faith in Jesus. Certain Jewish Christians had been teaching the Galatians that they must also be circumcised. Paul points out that justification is no longer a gift from God if anything beyond mere accepting the gift (faith) is required. The gospel promises justification on the basis of acceptance (= faith-in-Jesus); the Galatians, by making the basis achievement, had in fact said, ‘we must contribute to our own salvation… the death of Jesus is inadequate’. So incensed is the apostle that he pronounces a curse from God on such teaching.

Faith-in-Jesus, not works of the law, means justification

Yet [we] who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified (Gal. 2:16).
Quite clearly one cannot add anything to faith-in-Jesus.

Justification by faith alone is God’s characteristic way of entering into relationships with men. The ‘father’ of the Jews, Abraham, was justified by faith (3:6-8), a fact significant for the Jewish teachers who demanded Jewish circumcision as a requirement for justification. Further, those who believe in Jesus are the ‘sons of Abraham’ (3:7), that is, they have a relationship with God like Abraham’s.

God promised Abraham that the nations (Gentiles) would be blessed through him (3:8). Centuries later as Gentiles like the Galatians believed in Jesus they became sons of Abraham (3:9, 14). To undergo circumcision was to perform a work of the law, which is to be under a curse, since it is not possible to be perfected by works. But Christ in his death has become a curse, and has redeemed us from the curse of breaking the law. Thus those who believe in Jesus, rather than the circumcised, are the true descendants of Abraham (3:9, 14).

Faith-in-Jesus, not works of the law, makes us sons of God

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (3:26, own translation).
God adopts us into his family as sons because he has redeemed us from the curse of the law:

When the time had fully come God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as his sons (4:4-5).
God has changed our status from slaves to sons, by adoption, through faith in Jesus (4:1-5). God not only changes our status to sons, he also gives us the attitude of sons. Because of our adoption God gives us the Spirit of his Son so that we might, with Jesus, regard God as our ‘Abba’, our ‘dear Father’.

Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ‘Abba! Father!’ (4:6).
It must not be thought that being redeemed, being adopted, receiving the Spirit are different and successive events, divided from one another by the passing of time. No! We have all these things ‘in Christ’, that is, when we exercise faith in him. Redemption, sonship, the Holy Spirit are all ours, then and there.

This is established as follows.

Faith-in-Jesus, not works of the law, brings the Holy Spirit into our lives

Having referred to the proclamation of Christ crucified Paul inquires:

Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? (3:2).
The ‘hearing with faith’ refers to the message about Christ crucified. When the message is heard and believed the Spirit comes. This truth is restated three verses later in the form of a question:

Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith? (3:5).
Clearly God ‘supplies’ the Spirit to those who ‘hear with faith’ the message about Christ crucified. Paul’s word for ‘supplies’ means ‘supply fully, richly’. Faith in Jesus attracts the fullness of the Spirit as surely as an electromagnet attracts iron filings.

* * * *
The apostle is clearly attacking the addition of works to faith-in-Jesus. Faith-in-Jesus justifies the sinner and redeems the accused. Faith-in-Jesus confers the status of son of God on the former slave. Faith-in-Jesus brings the Spirit into our lives and enables us to regard the creator with the confidence enjoyed by Jesus—‘Abba, dear Father’. [1]

To add anything to faith-in-Jesus puts God in our debt, destroys his chosen method of having fellowship with us, places us again under the law and its curse, expels the Spirit and reintroduces the flesh. The apostle’s severest warnings are for those who denigrate faith-alone-in-Jesus or who add anything to it.

Love, the uniquely Christian attitude of concern for others, is impossible to the person in the flesh (5:18-21). Rather, the Spirit comes in response to faith-in-Jesus (5:5); faith energizes love (5:6) because the fruit of the Spirit (who is attracted by faith-in-Jesus) is love (5:22).

A spiritual, others-centred life is possible only for the person who lives by faith-in-Jesus. The old Pentecostal who demands tongues speaking in addition to faith-in-Jesus or the neo-pentecostal who prescribes ‘subsequence-consequence’ in addition to faith-in-Jesus may do well to meditate on the implications of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and his denunciation of additions to faith-in-Jesus.

The conversion watershed: 1 Corinthians 6:11

In context the apostle is referring to men whose starkly evil behaviour will exclude them from the kingdom of God—idolators, thieves, drunkards, etc. He continues, dramatically, ‘and such were some of you’. ‘Were’ indicates, first, that such evil was a pattern for some of his readers and, second, that a sharp break in the pattern had occurred. What, we may ask, happened?

You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (6:11).
Washed, sanctified, justified are in the Greek aorist tense which signifies a single or complete event. These events, then, marked the break with the old patterns. The verbs are variously describing initial Christian commitment (perhaps baptism?). ‘Washed’ (from their sins), ‘sanctified’ (set apart for God in holiness), ‘justified’ (forgiven) describe different facets of what it means to become a Christian.

The instruments of these verbs are, firstly, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the name as God’s victory in Jesus over evil (see Acts 10:43), and secondly, the Spirit of our God. Habitual sinners are washed, sanctified, justified by the name of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of God.

The point is that a great single event is being described. It appears to us that in practice many neo-pentecostals put so much emphasis on the alleged baptism that Christian conversion sounds tame indeed. The apostle had a profound respect for the unbreakable power of sin, so that for him effective repentance and a knowledge of God as ‘dear Father’ were the real evidence of the leadership of the Holy Spirit in a man’s life. It is because a less-than-Pauline view of the power of sin prevails today that conversion to Christ is so casually regarded. We believe the New Testament teaches that Christian conversion by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God is the baptism with the Spirit of God prophesied by the Baptist.

The Holy Spirit as arrabon: 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

In context Paul is saying that he is a man of his word because God is true to his word. God’s fidelity is demonstrated in the Son of God who fulfils all God’s promises. More, his fidelity is also demonstrated by his manner of dealing with us now in our relationship with the Son of God.

Now he that stablisheth us with you in Christ, and anointed us, is God; Who also sealed us, and gave us the earnest (arrabon) of the Spirit in our hearts (2 Cor. 1:21-22, RV).
The rather stilted but accurate Revised Version distinguishes between the tenses of the verbs. ‘Stablisheth’ is present tense, indicating God’s ongoing work of imparting certainty in our hearts about Christ. We could paraphrase thus: ‘He who makes us sure about Christ’ (literally ‘Christ-wards’) is God. God continues to impart his certainty because of the decisive event in the past whose many facets include: ‘anointed’, ‘sealed’, given the ‘earnest’ (arrabon) of the Spirit. These three verbs are aorist and point to the decisive event of Christian conversion. Thus we could refer to the text: ‘He who continues to make us certain about Christ, having anointed us, sealed us and given us the first instalment of his Spirit in our hearts, is God.’

‘Anointed’ (= ‘Christed’) in the original is clearly cognate with ‘Christ’. As priests and kings were anointed with oil and ‘the Christ’ anointed with the Holy Spirit, so also are Christians ‘anointed’ (‘Christed’) with the Holy Spirit. What is meant by this? We suggest that the meaning is: ‘God… anointed us as his people.’ He appointed us to be his ‘Christ’. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 the body of believers = the ‘Christ’. We conclude that to be ‘Christed’ = to be baptized into the Christian congregation. The purpose of the ‘anointing’ would then be for the mutual ministry of caring and edification within the body of the local congregation with a view to growing up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ. (See Eph. 4:15; 2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; 1 Cor. 6:13-20.)

‘Sealed’ speaks of an external mark on a document denoting completion of a transaction and change of ownership. ‘Sealed’ well describes the watershed between the old and new life. We will discuss this further.

‘Earnest’ [2] (arrabon) refers to a deposit given as a security or pledge of full settlement. We pay a deposit on a homesite to secure it for ourselves and as a guarantee that we will settle in full when the legal procedures have been fulfilled. The full and final payment is the redemption of our bodies when Christ returns and the Spirit raises us up (Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:11). The arrabon makes the neo-pentecostal doctrine of post-conversion out-pouring of the Spirit impossible. Arrabon excludes the possibility of a doctrinally significant interim Spirit event. This is not to say that the Spirit is inactive in our lives in the time between the arrabon and the end. Throughout that time the Spirit is rebuking us, encouraging us, reviving us, and sanctifying us. However the New Testament offers no programme for these interim activities of the Spirit.

We do not doubt that many neo-pentecostals have enjoyed a genuine post-conversion experience of the Holy Spirit, perhaps accompanied by glossolalia. Perhaps it has been an experience of revival or reassurance. Christians all through history have enjoyed various post-conversion experiences. The difficulty is that in the last two decades it has become customary in neo-pentecostal circles to identify such experiences as ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’.

We rejoice to hear the testimony to the Spirit’s work in Christian brethren though we regret that the New Testament title ‘the baptism with the Holy Spirit’ is applied to an experience after conversion. By giving this title to their experience the neo-pentecostals in effect (and usually in practice) demand that every Christian undergo their particular experience, since this title has the weighty sanction of the word of God. We appeal to the neo-pentecostal: ‘Do not deny your experience, but please call it something else.’ So long as the neo-pentecostal calls a post-conversion experience ‘the baptism’ God’s people will continue to be divided on this issue.

Grieve not… be filled with the Spirit: Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30; 5:18 ff.

In the first of these references in Ephesians (1:13-14) we are reminded of Paul’s emphasis in Galatians 3:1-5 as well as 2 Corinthians 1:21-22.

Christ: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession… (Eph. 1:13-14, RV).
The three verbs italicised are in the aorist tense, the first two are participles and the third is an indicative. This construction usually stresses that the action of the participle is prior to that of the indicative. Does this verse then support ‘subsequence’ as the AV perhaps suggests and as neo-pentecostal writers maintain? [3] Dunn in a recent monograph has written, ‘The aorist participle does in fact usually express antecedent action, but it is the context not the grammatical form which determines this. And the context here indicates that we should take the two verbs as two sides of the one event: it was when they believed that God sealed them with the Spirit. As in Galatians 3:2, man’s step of faith is met by God’s gift of the Spirit.’ [4]

We have already discussed the thought of the Holy Spirit as ‘seal’ and ‘earnest’. He becomes ours when we hear and believe in Jesus through the gospel. The former thought expresses new ownership while the latter expresses our urgent expectation of final redemption. The apostle nowhere describes an interim Spirit-event programmed by God for every Christian, even though a person’s daily experience of the Spirit is authentic. Nothing else than the redemption of our bodies is set before us as the object of our hope after conversion. The two mountain peaks are conversion and final redemption. With the former behind us noting is to obscure the latter as the object of our hope.

The second and third reference in Ephesians contain present imperatives about the Holy Spirit. Such references inform us what our interim attitudes to the Holy Spirit should be. God has sealed us with the Spirit. We now belong to him. (See also 1 Cor. 6:19-20.) The two texts contain the imperatives.

Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption (4:30, RV).
Stay filled with the Spirit (5:18, own translation). [5]
Both present imperatives introduce ethical sections. Taken together, a pattern of Christian behaviour emerges which befits the person who now belongs to God. The Spirit who has sealed us, whom we are not to grieve, and by whom we are to be controlled, is the Holy Spirit.

It is a matter for regret that so few churchgoing people live by the words of the apostle. We sadden the Spirit and rob God of his glory by failing to fulfil these simple but challenging words. Every part of our life, every human relationship, is touched on by Paul in these latter chapters of Ephesians.

Neo-pentecostals believe in the conservation doctrine of sanctification and Christian holiness. They claim that the ‘baptism’ is for power to witness. [6] In other words they sever power for witness from godly behaviour. And yet in all the Pauline corpus the apostle never enjoins power for witness. His emphasis is on godly behaviour, to the brother in Christ and to the outsider. The believer is indeed to seek the salvation of the unbeliever but his speech is to be accompanied by a godly life. (See 1 Cor. 10:27; 11:1; 1 Pet. 2:11-12; 3:1-6.)

It would be unfair to single out the neo-pentecostal for omitting this emphasis. Zealous fundamentalists generally appear to have little understanding of the relationship in the New Testament between ethics and evangelism. But it is the neo-pentecostals who have made a theological principle out of severing the two.

Become what you are: Colossians

Paul wrote to the Colossians because false teachers had undermined the uniqueness of Jesus, placing him among an angelic hierarchy. He was merely part of the ‘fulness’ or collection of aeons which comprised the deity above. Further, they had instructed men on the necessity to submit to ordinances about abstaining from the elements of life, especially food and drink. The apostle counters this teaching by insisting that Christ is before all things and that all things consist in him. All the fulness dwells in him (see 1:15-19). Moreover, through his death and resurrection, men are completely reconciled to God. Paul stretches human language to the limits to convey on the one hand the unique pre-eminence of Christ, and on the other our own absolute salvation and safety in him. (See, e.g., 3:3-4; 2:13-15.)

Paul combines these related absolutes in one text:

For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him are ye made full… (2:9-10, RV).
At this point we must note a feature of the New Testament. On one hand we are reckoned as ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ in Christ. Yet our lives still have the marks of the old nature and we are forced to live out our days in ‘this present evil age’.

The apostles address us as still sinful yet possessing the Holy Spirit. We are exhorted to ‘become what we are’, in the sense of what God holds us to be, namely ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’. The motive on which such exhortations are based is that God regards us as already complete. We are never called upon to be good in order to obtain; it is because of what we already possess from God that the claims of godliness are pressed on our consciences.

Thus it is the task of the minister to

… warn every man and teach every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ (1:28, slightly altered).
The neo-pentecostals betray little awareness of this Biblical ‘become what you already are’. Paul’s purpose for men after conversion is maturity, to which he makes ethical exhortations. The purpose of the neo-pentecostals for men after conversion is the ‘baptism’.

According to their doctrine the baptism is the instrument of a man’s fullness; they thus miss the significance of Colossians 2:9-10. In practice the baptism becomes the source not only of power for witnessing, but also deeper relationships with God, love of the scriptures, etc. The fullness is located apart from Jesus, and subsequent to our experience in him. The way to fulness or the baptism is inevitably ‘steps’ or ‘conditions’. In our opinion, despite disclaimers to the contrary, neo-pentecostal Christology falls short of that of the New Testament, since they find Jesus insufficient for their power needs. Inevitably therefore the ‘ought’ or ‘ethics’ of their system belong to those expressly repudiated by the apostle (2:20-23).

The Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ: 1 Corinthians 12

We hold that the phrase ‘the body of Christ’ reflects the dynamic idea of meeting together. Some usages of the phrase refer to his people described as already in the heavenlies. As such their meeting is continuous. The majority of usages refer to the assemblies of believers here and now. As such their meetings are intermittent. The key ideas appear to be meeting together in Jesus’ name, and the exercising of gifts within an organic group animated by the same Spirit. Such a group is variously described as ‘temple’, ‘bride’ and ‘lump’. Paul customarily addresses such an assembly as a church (Greek: ekklesia). He only once uses the term to describe something other than a local church (‘I persecuted the church of God’, repeated three times: 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil. 3:6) and here it is quite possible he is referring to the church in heaven with Jesus, since Jesus asked Paul on the road to Damascus, ‘Why do you persecute me?’

The whole idea is dynamic. It is people together caring for one another, belonging to one another, serving one another, edifying one another. To belong to a church is not to belong to an institution but to be a member of a body, to be part of a living dynamic whole, which belongs to Christ. Paul goes so far as to say that the body of Christ, the local congregation, is Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

The Holy Spirit alone makes it possible to confess ‘Jesus is Lord’, so great was the previous grip of idolatry (12:2-3). The same Spirit also imparts the various gifts from the Lord Jesus to believers in fellowship for the good of all (12:4-11). One and the same Spirit baptizes men into one body, the Christ, even though their gifts are diverse (12:12-13). Conversion/confession, endowment, incorporation—all are from the Lord through (or by) the Holy Spirit.

We are baptized with the Spirit into Christ, ‘Christ’ being understood as the body of Christ present and local as well as future and heavenly (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; 1 Cor. 6:13-20). For what purpose does the Lord baptize us thus with the Spirit into one body, [7] ‘the Christ’? His purpose is that we are to belong to one another, despite deep socio-racial difference (‘Jews or Greeks, slaves or free’); and that we are to minister to one another as in a body despite the diversity and non-interchangeability of gifts.

It seems to us that it is the neglect of this teaching about the Holy Spirit which explains how otherwise orthodox Bible-teaching churches manage to remain so loveless and so conspicuously lacking in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We do not discover any teaching here about a subsequent baptism by the Holy Spirit to provide gifts for the body of Christ. Rather, as people are taught about belonging to a body and participation in its life of mutual upbuilding, they discover in reality the truth of 1 Corinthians 12.

Conservative evangelicals have, in our opinion, been far too clergy-orientated. We thoroughly endorse their emphasis on the importance of teaching and evangelism by properly equipped ministers, but we regret that the plain meaning of scripture about life in the body has been so neglected. Institutionalized and orthodox Christians may have a great deal to learn from the corporate nature of the neo-pentecostal meetings and their joy and vitality together.

It is interesting to observe, however, that there are ordinary congregations where the significance of the church has been studied and where caring, sharing, joyful communities have emerged. Christians have acted on the resources God has given them; they have not needed to seek a new experience to grant them this.

---

1. Some neo-pentecostal writers, e.g., Stafford Young, What is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit?, pp. 7-8, attempt to find ‘subsequence’ in Galatians 3:14:
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
We note the following points:

(a) His assertion that the ‘we’ = Christians as opposed to Gentiles disregards the fact that the Galatian Christian readers were Gentiles. The whole point of 2:16-4:6 is that Gentiles are sons of Abraham through faith-in-Jesus apart from circumcision. Paul’s ‘we’ merely stresses that the Gentile Christians were, by faith-in-Jesus, as fully Christian as a Jewish Christian like himself. Thus in 4:3 he, a Jew, can so identify himself with Gentiles (who are now Christians) as to include himself in their ‘former idolatry’.
(b) The second ‘that’ does not introduce a second concept quite removed in time from the first. The second ‘that’ is explanatory. It acts as a bridge or an ‘=’ sign. It is important to read the whole argument, 2:16-4:6, where the message is that faith-in-Jesus brings justification (which Abraham and his true sons enjoy). Justification makes men sons of God. God gives his Spirit to his sons.
2. RSV: guarantee. Modern Greek uses this word of engagement for marriage. See further G. Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1967, Vol. 1, p. 475.
3. E.g., Stafford Young, What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?, pp. 7-8.
4. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SCM Press Ltd., London, 1970), p. 159. Dunn gives two pages of evidence as to the context of Ephesians 1 and he refers to the definitive Burton, Moods and Tenses (p. 61), as an authority for the priority of context over grammar.
5. The present tense of 5:18 precludes the possibility of a ‘second’ experience. The text is calling for continual submission to the leadership of the Holy Spirit as expressed by the elements of behaviour which follow. Hence these are daily experiences.
6. In practice they claim much more for the baptism.
7. Some neo-pentecostal authors (e.g., J. Baker, Baptized into one Spirit, p. 17, and S. Young, What is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? p. 3) translate 1 Corinthians 12:13 as ‘in one Spirit we were all baptized with respect to one body’, thus allowing the neo-pentecostal doctrine of a subsequent experience of the Spirit ‘for the benefit of the body’. It is true that the Greek preposition eis can mean ‘into’ or ‘with respect to’. Context must decide how eis is to be understood. (See C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of the New Testament (CUP, London, 1963), p. 69.)

Paul’s argument is that God desires unity for the Christian congregation despite the diversity of its membership. To this end he binds the body metaphor to his readers. The context does not support the view of Baker or Young that we are baptized with the Spirit with respect to the body and the exercise of gifts within it. Rather, we were baptized with the Spirit into a body with respect to its unity (see v. 12). In this view we follow every major English translation of the Bible (AV, RV, RSV, NEB, Phillips, TEV, Knox, etc., but not the Jerusalem Bible which is indeterminative). Another neo-pentecostal, J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking (Fountain Trust, London, 1970), p. 12, following the translators’ consensus also takes eis as meaning ‘into’. Baker and Young are out on a limb.

talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

SEARCH