#Luke 1:26-38 ASV | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ian-iain · 4 years ago

Text

Who Does Jesus Say Is the Only True God: His Father or the Holy Trinity? Part Two

(Part one is posted below part two.)

Additionally, Jesus makes it clear in other Gospel passages that he is not God:

"Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me."

— John 14:1 ASV

If Jesus is God, wouldn't believing in God be the same thing as believing in him? Clearly, both Jesus and the New Testament saints viewed him as someone other than God:

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, *My God, my God,* why hast thou forsaken me?"

— Mark 15:34 ASV

"Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and *my God* and your God."

— John 20:17 ASV

"Blessed be *the God* and Father *of our Lord Jesus Christ,* who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ."

— Ephesians 1:3 ASV

"That *the God* of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him."

— Ephesians 1:17 ASV

Jesus provides other clues that he is not God:

"Immediately aware that power gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, :Who touched my clothes?" And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, 'Who touched me? '" He looked all around to see who had done it."

— Mark 5:30-32 NRSV

Jesus was not omniscient. He did not know all things. As we see, here, he did not know who it was who had touched him. Or is Mark attempting to deceive his readers into thinking that Jesus didn't know when he actually did? "He looked all around to see who had done it"? Why doesn't Mark say, "He turned and looked directly at her who did it?" Because, even if Jesus had known who it was, he clearly didn't know WHERE she was.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but *the Father only.*"

— Matthew 24:36 ASV

"But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, *but the Father.*"

— Mark 13:32 ASV

Not only does Jesus not know the day or the hour, but notice who else that Jesus seems to say doesn't know: The Holy Spirit. *Only the Father* knows, according to Jesus. Thus, it does not seem likely that either Christ or the Holy Spirit are persons of the Godhead, for God has never lacked any knowledge or wisdom.

Indeed, not only did Jesus not know all things, he was not even all wise (at least not always); nor was he without the need to learn:

"And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

— Luke 2:52 ASV

Jesus advanced in wisdom. Not only wisdom, though. He also advanced in favor with God. If Jesus is God; how could he have advanced in favor with God? Can God actually favor himself more than he does?

"Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

— Hebrews 5:7-10 ASV

And how is it, if Jesus was God, that he learned obedience? How is it that be "became" perfect? If Jesus is God, wouldn't obedience be part of his character? Wouldn't he have been immaculate by nature?

Moreover, rather than asserting that he is equal with the Father, and that his Father's will and his will are entirely identical, Jesus sometimes indicated that his Father has prerogatives that are not his, and that his will was not always precisely the same as the Father's.

"He saith unto them, My cup indeed ye shall drink: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand, is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared of my Father."

— Matthew 20:23 ASV

While Jesus may not have desired anything different from the Father, in this instance (and certainly in many others), here, he acknowledges that he does not have power to do as the woman had asked of him, that only the Father has this authority. Thus, it would appear that his Almightiness isn't quite equall to that of the Father.

"I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

— John 5:30 ASV

Jesus denies the *ability* to do anything on his own. If he is God, then this would seem to have been a lie. Choosing not to use power, in submission to another, is not the same as being unable.

Jesus implied that his will and the Father's was not identical. If his will and the Father's will, at this time, was identical, then it would have been deceitful, at worst, and pointless at best, for Jesus to say "I seek not mine own will"; the mere assertion that he sought the will of the Father would have been more accurate.

"For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

— John 6:38 ASV

Again, if Jesus will was precisely the same as the Father's will, then it would have been more to the point to just say that he had come to do the Father's will.

"And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, *My Father,* if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, *not as I will,* but as thou wilt."

— Matthew 26:39 ASV

"[Jesus was] saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless *not my will,* but thine, be done."

— Luke 22:42 ASV

Clearly, at this point, Jesus' will was to go on living. But, thank God, he submitted to the Father in this matter.

"Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner."

— John 5:19 ASV

"I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

— John 5:30 ASV

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works."

— John 14:10 ASV

Clearly, Jesus does not view himself, here, quite as Almighty," as his Father. If Jesus could not do anything of himself, at that time, then he was not "the almighty" at that time. But, God has always been truly, and in all connections, the Almighty. If Jesus is God, then it would have been closer to the truth for him to have said, "I will not do anything in my own power," rather than to deny that he is God and capable of doing whatsoever he pleases in his own power.

Jesus asserts that the only things he *can* do are those things that he sees the Father doing, and that he does those things in the pattern of how the Father does them; there is nothing, therefore, that is truly original with the son; while everything the Father does *is* truly original. Moreover, Jesus says that it is actually the Father in him that is doing the Father's works, just as it is God in the believer that works (Philippians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Again, Jesus was not shy about declaring that his Father is greater than him. And, in so doing, as is common when he talks about his God, Jesus says nothing at all about the Holy Spirit in this connection. Does Jesus sound like "the Almighty" in relationship to his Father, when he says:

"My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

— John 10:29 ASV

"Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for *the Father is greater than I.*"

— John 14:28 ASV

If the Father is greater than Jesus, then Jesus can be the Almighty only in the sense that Joseph was almighty in Egypt (Genesis 41:40). But, no one would suggest that Pharaoh and Joseph were essentially the same: a duo in all essential respects. For Pharaoh came from a long line of Phraohs, while Joseph was an untouchable shepherd who was not even an Egyptian.

Again, Jesus is depitcted as praying to his Father. He does not pray to the Holy Spirit. He does not pray to himself. Neither are we told that the Father or the Holy Spirit prayed to Jesus or to each other.

"And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, *My Father,* if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."

— Matthew 26:39 ASV

"So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, *Father,* I thank thee that thou heardest me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me."

— John 11:41-42 ASV

"Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, *Father,* art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me."

— John 17:20-23 ASV

In praying to the Father, Jesus acknowledges that it is his Father who has authority over him. But, if the Father has authority over him, he is not Almighty in relationship to his Father; he can be Almighty only in relationship to the creation over which the Father has granted him all authority. Jesus is resolved to do the Father's will, not to insist upon his own will (and his own will is clearly stated: He did not want to die). He is thankful to the Father for hearing him. And he prays that his followers would be in "us" (he and the Father) in the same way that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. If Jesus is God, will we who are in the Father and the Son be God, too? Indeed, if Jesus can speak of the Father and himself as "us," is it wrong for Trinitarians to speak of their god as "them"?

Clearly the early disciples saw Jesus and God as being two different beings:

"But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God."

— Acts 7:55-56 ASV

Trinitarians are often fond of saying that finite sins against an ifinite God require the death of one who is infinite; that, *even if he were to be sinsless,* a finite person can atone for the sins of only one other person. But, the Scriptures don't actually say such things. In fact, they speak quite to the contrary:

"But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the *one man,* Jesus Christ, abound unto the many."

— Romans 5:15 ASV

"For since by man came death, *by man* came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.

— 1 Corinthians 15:21-25 ASV

"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, *himself man,* Christ Jesus."

— 1 Timothy 2:5 ASV

"And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the *body* of Jesus Christ once for all."

— Hebrews 10:10 NRSV

There is no notion, here, of a God dying for our sins; rather, the only thing that seems to matter in the issue of atonement, justification, forgiveness, and sanctification, is that an unblemished *man* died; that his *body* was sacrificed.

None of this is to deny that it is the Father working in Christ who grants us grace, raises us from the dead, and reconciles us to himself. Nor is it to suggest that Christ is not worthy of our worship (i.e., honor, service, obedience); he is, after all, the exact image of God, the one to whom all authority has been given, whom the Father has *made* King of kings and Lord of lords, the firstborn of creation, the firstborn from the dead, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Almighty.

Jesus is the Almighty representatively; his Father is still greater than him. Many Christians think that his reign as King of kings and Lord of lords will be "forever and ever." But, the Scriptures teaches that, not only is Jesus the Almighty in relationship only to the creation (because someone greater than him gave it to him to be the Almighty over the creation), but that the day will come when Jesus will be subjected to the one who gave it to him to be the Almighty over the creation:

"And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all."

— 1 Corinthians 15:28 ASV

By ”God," the apostle means the Father, and not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because, when all things have been subjected to Christ, and prior to Christ being *subjected* to the Father, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will *already* be all in all. But, that's not enough! The son must present his kingdom to the Father, that He, the only true God, may be all in all.

Going back to the gospels, Matthew clearly seemed to understand that Jesus was not God:

"But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority *unto men.*"

— Matthew 9:8 ASV

Matthew does not say, "But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, because *they saw* that He had given such authority unto men." So, it *may* be that the words, "who had given such authority unto men" are Matthew's comment, in just the same way as "who knoweth the heart" is Peter's comment in the following verse:

"And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us."

— Acts 15:8

Either way, Matthew agrees that God had *given* such authority to *men.*

Jesus often refered to himself as the Son of God, as well as calling himself the Son of Man. But, while Jesus *never* explicitly refered to himself simply as God, he did refer to himself simply, and in the most unambiguous of terms, as a *man*:

"But now ye seek to kill me, *a man* that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham."

— John 8:40 ASV

That Jesus is a man is something that continued to be affirmed by the early church, and only once do we find a statement nearly as clear that he is "God" (and i will get to that):

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, *a man* approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs *which God did by him* in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know."

— Acts 2:22 ASV

"Inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the *man* whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

— Acts 17:31 ASV

John tells us that the Word was with God; Peter says that God was with Jesus:

"Even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

— Acts 10:38 ASV

Again, you cannot be the thing that is with you; nor can that which is with you be you *except* representatively (e.g., a photo, or a sculpture, or a drawing).

Often, when pointing out illogical theology, Christians will quote passages they don't really understand, in order to silence opposition. The following are two such verses:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

— Isaiah 55:8-9 ASV

"All things are possible with God."

— Matthew 19:26 & Mark 10:27 ASV

I'm sure you know, there are some things God cannot do, and that Jesus cannot be speaking quite literally; for, the Scriptures tell us some things that God cannot do (Job 34:10; Hebrews 6:18; James 1:13). Additionally, God cannot do other things of which the Scriptures are silent (he cannot make a rock so big that he cannot pick it up, he cannot make a square circle, etc.).

Most people who quote Isaiah 55:8-9 fail to consider that God inspired at least 35 people to document many of his thoughts in 66 "books" of the Scriptures, and that those books were imperfectly translated into the Bibles we use.

"Are we to just believe nonsensical statements in Scripture because we read them in a less than perfect translation of one of the 66 books of holy Scripture? In some cases, yes; in others, we're waranted in looking for another way of understanding what is written than the seeming nonsense that a cursory reading might give us. After all, the same writer who tells us that God's thoughts are not our thoughts also told us that God has said:

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah."

Isaiah 1:18

And so, let us use reason, here, and acknowledge that it makes no sense to identify Christ as God if he's with God *except* to understand that he is God the way the Lincoln Monument is Abraham Lincoln. There are no things that are made that make a devine trinity clearly seen:

"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse."

— Romans 1:20

If there is, why did no prophet of the Hebrew Scriptures ever declare it?

Jesus is frequently regarded in the Scriptures as the servant of God, and as one who was sent by God:

"Behold, *my servant* whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles."

— Matthew 12:18 ASV

"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his *Servant* Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him."

— Acts 3:13 ASV

"Unto you first God, having raised up his *Servant,* sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities."

— Acts 3:26 ASV

"For of a truth in this city against thy holy *Servant* Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together."

— Acts 4:27 ASV

"While thy stretchest forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy *Servant* Jesus."

— Acts 4:30 ASV

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that *sent* me."

— Matthew 10:40 ASV

"But he answered and said, I was not *sent* but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

— Matthew 15:24 ASV

"Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that *sent* me."

— Mark 9:37

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised."

— Luke 4:18

"For God *sent* not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him."

— John 3:17

"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that *sent* me, and to accomplish his work."

— John 4:34

A servant is quite different from the Lord of the Servant, and one sent is not as great at the one who sends him, as even Jesus admits:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, a servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him."

— John 13:16 ASV

The primary difference between a servant and the one he serves is that whatever authority a servant has is GIVEN to him BY THE ONE HE SERVES, and is not his by nature. The Lord of that servant has authority over the servant just by virtue of being able to enforce his will over that servant. Likewise, he who commissions another to go and do his will has authority by which to send the man that the man himself does not have.

Even Jesus' very life was given to him by the Father:

"For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself."

— John 5:26 ASV

"Life was not someting Jesus had always posessed. It was given to him. Jesus does not indicate that he has always had life in himself; rather, he says that the Father gave it to him to have life in himserlf. If something is given, there must be a point in time when it is given. Thus, Christ has not always had life within himself. If Christ has been given to have life within himself, he cannot be eternal (although, he is now indestructible), and thus he cannot be God.

Even his right to judge the world and to command obedience was not Christ's by virtue of his nature. Rather, these, too, were given to him by God. If they were given to him, then they were not always his; something given happens in a place and time. Eternity does not give to eternity; it simply is. But this is not the case with our Lord's authority:

"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth."

— Matthew 28:18 ASV

"Moreover, there is a reason that is intimately linked to temporality why God gave this authority to Jesus. It was not because Jesus has always existed as God:

and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man."

— John 5:27 ASV

But, although Jesus is the Almighty, he's not the Almighty in the sense that there is no one mightier than him:

"For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him."

— 1 Corinthians 15:27 ASV

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

— 1 Corinthians 11:3 ASV

"And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all."

— 1 Corinthians 15:28 ASV

Bill, elsewhere you said to me, in connection to this issue, "Jesus said,"I am the first and the last." In Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12, 13, Jehovah says he is the first and the last. Since there can be only one first and one last, Jesus is either a bald faced liar, a deranged lunatic, or he is Jehovah."

Again, you seem to want to argue against the many plain statements of the New Testament that state that God and Christ are two, not one; that they are only one in the sense that Christ prayed for the disciples to be one and desired them to be one with he and his Father.

Jesus is indeed the first and the last among men; the expression does not mean that Jesus is chronologically before all things, and chronologically last of all things; for the righteous will inherit imortality; this is the hope of our faith! Among immortals, there can be no last, chronologically speaking. So, saying that he is First and Last is just another way of saying that he has been given all authority over creation, that he has primacy. But, as Scripture tells us, He is exempted from this authority who gave it to him.

And, yet again, Bill, you wrote: "You seem to be intent on sealing your own doom, and for that my heart is broken. At the same time, I am also heart broken seeing your enmity against the Almighty God and Savior Jesus Christ and your zeal in leading others to Hell with you. (Not believing in Hell makes it no less real)."

I appreciate you concern. But, i just think it's absurd to fear monger based on a failure to believe an arcane doctrine, which many who defend it acknowledge is nowhere directly taught. As for hell; that's another discussion. But, just because you believe in it doesn't make it real, either.

Finally, I don't argue too strongly that the holy spirit is not God, because I believe the Scriptures teach that, in a sense the Spirit is God; but, in the same way that my hand is me. Even if I were blind and deaf, and the only way you could talk to me was to tap messages into my hand, you would not be talking to my hand; you'd be talking to me. If you honored or praised my hand you would be honoring and praising it for *my* sake, not for my hand's sake. But, my hands and feet don't form a pentagon with me; nor does the Holy Spirit form a trinity with the only true God and his son.

#trinity #holy trinity #doctrine of the trinity #trinity doctrine #is jesus god #is jesus god?

0 notes

christianpublishinghouse-blog · 8 years ago

Text

That the Holy Spirit sustained a relation to the apostolic church that it does not sustain to the church of today is clearly evident to the student of the Word of God. The church of the apostolic age had no New Testament as we have today. Hence, the necessity of a more direct and immediate leading than is necessary today. The apostle Paul states the difference between the two when he says: “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” (1 Cor 13:9-10, ESV) This is not a contrast between the imperfections of our day and the perfection of heaven, but between the imperfection of the apostolic church and the perfection of the church of today. That which is perfect has come; a perfect revelation of Christian character, a perfect gospel, a perfect “law of liberty,” a perfect New Testament.

The apostolic church was limited to knowing in part and prophesying in part. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. –1 Corinthians 12:7-11, ESV.

Now, here was manifestly a condition in the first churches that does not exist today. Here are various direct and supernatural workings that are manifestations of spiritual power resulting from a direct gift of the Spirit to members of apostolic churches. Now, there was a purpose to be accomplished by this special gift of the Spirit. In the fourth chapter of Ephesians, the apostle tells us the purpose of this gift. “And he gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as shepherds and teachers, for the equipping of the holy ones or the work of ministry, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:11-13, ESV) This gift of the Spirit accompanied the baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

This brings us to a very interesting question. Was the promise of the “gift of the Holy Spirit,” referred to by Peter on the day of Pentecost, a universal one to all who obey the gospel? Or was it limited to those of the apostolic church who received it that they might manifest it in a supernatural way “to profit along with the rest,” or to the profit of all?

There are some who claim that “the gift of the Spirit” is one that belongs to all who obey the gospel to- day. In addition, that it is independent of the instrumentality of the gospel, and is the peculiar heritage of those who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins; that it performs a work in them other than is performed by the Spirit operating through the truth. There are others who claim that the “gift of the Spirit” was a supernatural power and was conferred on persons to qualify them to do the work or works peculiar to the age of miracles that were obtained in the apostolic church. The only way to settle this is by appealing to (1) the consciousness of individuals, (2) to the Word of God.

Before appealing to either of these tribunals, there are a few facts that we must consider. (1) This is the only passage in the New Testament that connects “the gift of the Spirit” with obedience to the gospel in the preaching of the apostles. (Acts 2:37-40) We have remission of sins so connected on various occasions (see Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18, etc., etc.), but nowhere else is this “gift of the Spirit” promised. If it is to be as universal as “remission of sins,” ought it not to have the same prominence in apostolic preaching? This is a major factor in settling the matter. (2) In the only instance in which it is promised it is inexorably connected with baptism for the remission of sins. It is promised to no others, and all others are ruled out by the explicit terms of the promise.

With these facts before us, let us now appeal to the consciousness of the individual. If we consider numbers, it is safe to say that many of those who today claim “the gift of the Spirit” has never been baptized for the remission of sins. They have never performed the conditions upon which the gift was bestowed. Are they competent to testify? Of the remaining few, there is not one who can give any definite reason why he is conscious of the personal indwelling of the Spirit within him. To demonstrate my statement, I appeal to the consciousness of my readers. Are you aware of any influence within you except a holy joy that comes from obedience to the will of God? If you are not, what evidence have you that the Spirit personally dwells in you? So much for the argument from consciousness.

In the paragraph below, this author would argue that it is highly likely that Sweeney is mistaken. This does not take away from the point he is making in this entire chapter. After his paragraph, this author will do a small excursion on what he has said and offer some insight, as well as perspective. – Edward D Andrews.

Now let us appeal to the inspired Word of God. When the apostle Peter promised “the gift of the Spirit,” he followed it with the words, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Ac 2:39, EV) He distinctly states that the gift of the Spirit is in fulfillment of “the promise.” Now, is there in the Scripture any promise of a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a result of obedience? Let us search the words of the Master. In Luke 11:13 our Lord says, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (ESV) This passage may be disposed of by saying that in the original it is a holy spirit and does not refer to the Holy Spirit at all. It represents God’s willingness to give a holy disposition.

Excursion “Holy Spirit” and Luke 11:13

In the New Testament, we have the phrase “holy spirit” (Gr., pneuma hagion) eighty-seven times. Without belaboring the subject, we must consider the fact that those who lived in the New Testament era were more used to speaking of “spirits” than we are today. Do not get me wrong, the general population does speak of “spiritual” things to a degree. Many readers likely have heard or used such expressions as “being spirited” or “the human spirit.” Of those eighty-seven times, the phrase “holy spirit” is used forty-two times with the definite article,[1] which is rendered “the Holy Spirit” and forty-five times without the definite article (anarthrous),[2] which can be rendered a number of ways. One might automatically assume that if there is no definite article (“the”) in the forty-five times, it should be translated “a holy spirit.” This is not really the case because there are Greek grammar rules, which would make the phrase “holy spirit still definite.” For example, if there is no definite article with a noun that follows a preposition, it can still be definite. (Smyth 1916, Section 1128) The anarthrous phrase “holy spirit” occurs within a prepositional phrase twenty-one times.[3] Thus, Smyth’s Greek Grammar rule means that we cannot see these uses of “holy spirit” as being indefinite, but rather a definite, i.e., the Holy Spirit. Another grammatical construction that may cause the definite article to be dropped in Greek is the characteristic of the verb in the verbal phrase. The expression “filled with Holy Spirit” is found fourteen times in the New Testament without the definite article,[4] which does not mean it is to be taken as indefinite. The verb ��fill” has objects in the genitive form, which does not need the definite article to establish definiteness, like other forms, i.e., nominative and accusative.

Therefore, we have eighty-five occurrences of the phrase “holy spirit,” with forty-five of which that does not have the definite article. However, there are thirty-two occurrences where the grammatical or syntactical construction allows the anarthrous phrase “holy spirit” to be definite. Of the thirteen occurrences of the phrase “holy spirit” without the definite article, we can remove another six times because the phrase is in the genitive for dative form, which does not need an article in order to be definite. They are Romans 15:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 6:4; and 1 Peter 1:12. Almost all translations render these as definite, namely, “the Holy Spirit. (ASV, ESV, RSV, NASB, HCSB, LEB, and so on)

This leaves seven occurrences of the phrase “holy spirit” without the definite article, where no grammar or syntax can be used to see them as definite. Our Luke 11:13 in the above is one of them.[5] It reads, “If you, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father from heaven give (pneuma [spirit] hagion [holy])[6] to those who ask him?” There is no definite article and “holy” is not in a genitive or dative form, nor is there any grammar and syntax rules that would allow “holy spirit” to be taken definitely. If Luke specifically meant “the Holy Spirit,” he would have had to use the definite article in this phrase. Does this mean that he was not talking about the Holy Spirit here in Luke 11:13 but rather “a holy disposition” as Sweeney argues? This author believes that Sweeney is mistaken but that his attention to this verse is correct. I believe it is a reference to the Holy Spirit. If we sincerely ask God for Holy Spirit, if it is according to his will and purposes, he will not withhold this gift. The question, then, is, in what sense do we receive this gift of “holy spirit” as a guide? Is it like the apostles who were inspired, moved along by Holy Spirit in their penning the Word of God, or by our taking in the inspired by Holy Spirit, inerrant Word of God? I believe it is the latter, which means it is still in harmony with everything said in this book.

End of Excursion

Matthew explains it in the words “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matt. 7:11, ESV) In John 7:38-39 we have recorded another promise: “‘Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” This is evidently a supernatural gift, as he represents the recipient of it as a fountain from which flows rivers of living water. This is obviously not true of us to-day. Our Savior also dates the bestowal as following his glorification, or on the day of Pentecost. In Mark 16:16-18: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” These five things that accompanied the believers are all supernatural. Of the three promises of Jesus, which are all that are recorded in the New Testament, only two refer to the Holy Spirit, and both of these to its supernatural manifestation. This author says that it does not matter the argument Sweeney is offering for Mark 16:16-18, as is evidenced in the articles Is Speaking in Tongues Evidence of True Christianity? and Is Snake Handling Biblical?, Mark 16:9-20 are an interpolation into the Bible, which was added by some unknown writer in the second century, meaning they are not part of the original.

If we go back to the Savior to the Old Testament, we find a distinct promise of the gift of the Spirit: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” (Joel 2:28, 29) This promise is the one quoted by Peter to explain the manifestations on the day of Pentecost to the people drawn together by that wonderful event. From it, he delivers by the Spirit a sermon on the claims of our Lord. He shows that they had taken the Lord by wicked hands and had crucified and slain him; that God had raised him from the dead and had exalted him to his right hand; had given him the promise of the Holy Spirit; that what they saw and heard was the fulfillment of Joel’s promise. This promise was not simply to the apostles, for we read in the preceding chapter that the apostles, and the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brethren to the number of one hundred and twenty all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication. “And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:2-4, ESV) This shows that the gift of the Spirit came upon all the followers Jesus left behind him.

When the apostle’s discourse convicted the multitude, they “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’” What promise! Evidently, the promise of God, “I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh.” (Joel 2:28) There is no other promise in the mind of Peter and his hearers, and I know of no other promise the reader can have in mind. This position is amply supported by after-developments. “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’” (Acts 10:44-47). This was in fulfillment of the promise to not only the Jews but also the Gentiles, whom the Jews regarded as “far off.”

Paul, speaking to Gentiles, says, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:13) In this incident “the gift of the Holy Spirit” and “receiving the Spirit” are the same. And when Peter was taken to task for baptizing the Gentiles, he defends himself on the ground that God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, “the like gift as he did also unto us.” In the above instances, Pentecost and the house of Cornelius, the gift of the Spirit was the result of the baptism of the Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit was an outpouring or falling of the Spirit upon the Jews at Pentecost and the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, to signify his acceptance of both Jew and Gentile into the kingdom of Christ. Paul undoubtedly refers to this when he says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:13, NASB) The baptism of the Spirit ceased when its object, the making of one body out of Jews and Gentiles, was accomplished, but “the gift of the Spirit” did not cease. It was conferred by the laying on of the hands of the apostles through all their lives. A few illustrations may be mentioned from the Scriptures.

The Samaritans. When a bloody persecution arose at Jerusalem, following the death of Stephen, the disciples were scattered and went everywhere preaching the Word. Philip went to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. “But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12, ESV) “for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 8:16, ESV) If the gift of the Spirit is to all baptized believers, why did not the Samaritans receive it? Philip was not an apostle and did not have the power to confer “the gift of the Spirit” by the imposition of hands, and, in order that they might receive this “gift,” it was necessary that two apostles, Peter and John, should go to Samaria and lay hands on them, that they might receive the Spirit. Here is a clear case of baptized believers receiving the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands.

Disciples at Ephesus. In Acts 19 Paul met certain disciples that had received the baptism of John. He showed them that John did not preach a full gospel, which embraced a belief in Christ. “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.” (19:5-6, ESV) This is another clear case of the Spirit being given by the imposition of hands.

Timothy. In 2 Timothy 1:6 Paul tells Timothy: “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” This is a third instance of the gift of the Spirit by the imposition of hands, and they form just three more instances than can be found of the Spirit taking his personal “abode in men because they have believed and been baptized.”

That the Spirit was imparted to many Christians in a similar way is clear. Paul tells the brothers at Rome, “For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you.” (Rom. 1:11, ESV) It was not necessary that he see these brethren to the end that he might proclaim the gospel unto them; but it was necessary that he see them that he might lay hands on them and impart the gift of the Spirit.

We are now enabled to reach two conclusions of importance: First, the “gift of the Spirit” was a supernatural gift for the purpose of enabling the “believers” in apostolic days to work the “signs” which Christ said should accompany them that believe, and ceased when the signs ceased. Second, many of the exhortations of the New Testament writers were to a church whose members were filled with the supernatural power of the Spirit, and should be interpreted in the light of that fact. We give a few examples that fall under this head, “and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Rom. 1:4). “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Rom. 8:9, ESV) “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” (Rom. 8:23, ESV) “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 9:1, NASB) “I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf.” (Rom. 15:30, ESV) “e who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.” (2 Cor. 5:5, ESV) “Ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:13, 14). “For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.” (Eph. 2:18, ESV) “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” (Eph. 5:18, ESV) “So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy.” (Phil. 2:1, ESV) “Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thess. 4:8, ESV) “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” (2 Tim. 1:7, ESV) “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” (Tit. 3:5, ESV) “While God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” (Heb. 2:4, ESV) “Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, ‘He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us’?” (Jas. 4:5, ESV) “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” (1 John 2:20, ESV). “And as for you, the anointing which you received from him remains in you, and you do not have need that anyone teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you reside in him.” (1 John 2:27, LEB). “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” – 1 John 4:13, ESV

All the above Scriptures become clear if we understand them to apply to a people through whom God was manifesting his presence by supernatural demonstrations, but many of them lack meaning when applied to people of God who no longer exhibit these supernatural powers.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

[1] For example, Matthew 12:32; Mark3:29; 12:36; Luke 2:6; 3:22; 10:21; John 14:26; and Acts 1:16 to mention just a few.

[2] First, anarthrous means without the article; second, it should be noted that in English, we have both a definite article “the” and an indefinite article “a” and “an.” In biblical Greek, known as Koine (i.e., common) Greek there is only a definite article. Thus, if they want to make something definite, they place their definite article before it. Generally speaking, if the article is missing, whatever is being spoken of is indefinite but this is not always the case. Grammar and syntax can make something definite even without the definite article.

[3] Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:2, 5; 11:16; 13:4; 16:6; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:16; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:14; Jude 1:20; and 2 Peter 1:21.

[4] Luke 1:5, 35, 41, 67; 4:1; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 34; :65; 7:55; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9; and 13:52.

[5] The other six occurrences are Acts 8:15, 17-19; Acts 10:38; 19:2; Luke 2:25; and John 20:22.

[6] In Greek, the order of words is not important because the endings at the end of a word will tell the reader whether it is a verb, a noun, and adjective and so on. Moreover, these endings will let the reader know if it is plural, singular, or neuter; whether the verb is indicative, subjunctive, or a participle, present, future, aorist, first, second, or third person, among many other details.

The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic Church That the Holy Spirit sustained a relation to the apostolic church that it does not sustain to the church of today is clearly evident to the student of the Word of God.

#Apostle Paul #Born Again #Holy Spirit #Indwelling of the Holy Spirit #The Apostle Peter #The Apostles

0 notes