Developing the same kind of comparison, the rest of John's Gospcl empha- sizes that Jesus' spiritual “water” is better than any of the kinds of ritual“water” r›ffered by human religion. John the Baptist declares that whereas he baptizes merely with water (which is gon d), Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit (whlch is better, John 1:31-33). Similarly, in Cana Jesus honors a friend's need more highly than traditional Jewish water rituals. Although weddings typically lasted seven days, running out of wine at one's wedding was so humiliating that Jesus’ friend would have been the laughingstock of Cana fot years to come. Sc Jesus has attendants fi11 with water six waterpots that had been reserved for the cer- eiony ‹ f purification (John 2:6). To transform that water into wine profaned the normally holy purpose of the p‹ ts as far as Jewish traditic n was concerned, but Jesus was not concerned about ritual purity or tradition. He had higher priorities than honoring merely ritual uses of water.
Welts of Water (John 4)
In chapter 4, Jesus meets a sinful Samaritan woman. Jesus crosses three barriers to reach this woman, althc ugh she initially does not understand his intention. First, she was a woman, and many Jewish teachers considered it immoral to speak with women in public (even the disciples were surprised— 4:27). That she was a Samaritan made matters worse; many Jewish teachers considered Samaritan women unclean from the time they were babies. Worst of all, Jesus was speaking with a sinner: Everyone would know that a woman forced t‹a come to the well alone must be isolated from other women because of her sinful behavior (at the very least, currently living with a man she was not married tea, 4:18).
The meeting place may have m«de Jesus' kindness seem more ambiguous:
] F3ct3), 1s‹4ac's steward), an) MtoScs all ftJund wiVes at wells, and somC Jewish teachers recognized that wells remained a good place for hnding marriage prospects. It is thus n‹nt surprising that the Samaritan woman initially mis- interprets him: “I'm not married,” she suggests (John 4:17). Jesus' response gets the discussion back on track. She eventually not r›n1y comes to faith but leafs her pc‹›gle to Jesus as well (g:2b—42).
Jacob's well, water h‹ ly to the Samaritans, forms the backdrop for this story. It represents mother site to religious ritual: Ancient pec›p1es often felt that one could meet God particularly in special hefty sites. (If this sounds superstitlc›us tc us today, we shc›uld remember how many nominal Christians
similarly seek t‹, meet God in church on Sunday mornings after they have ignored him during the week.) ]esus is greater than Jacob and greater rhan jacob’s well; he gives the water cif eternal life, the Spirit (4:14). He is thus not only greater than ]ohn’s baptlsm or rltual waterpots but also greater than water considered holy to Samaritans.
Heolirtg Water (Johrt 5: I—9, 9: 1—7)
Jesus is not only superior to the good washing of John (1:31-33), the wash- ing of regular Jewlsh purification (2:6), the water of Jewish proselyte baptism (3:5), and the water of Jacob's well (4:1§). He is also superior to the water of ancient healing shrines, including, perhaps, the pool of Bethesda. Ancients often sought healing at sacred pools. If archaeologists have the right site for the pool, some archaec›1ogica1 evidence suggests that the pool of Bethesda may have functioned as a healing shrine even in later centuries, after Gen- tiles had resettled Jerusalem.
One lame man at the pool had failed for thirty-eight years to find healing
there. ]esus, by contrast, provided him healing instantly (John 5:5—9). John compares and contrasts this man with another whom Jesus healed by a pool in John 9. The man in John 5 became ill in punishment for his sin (5:14), but the man in John 9 was born blind without sinning (9:3). Broth are cured at pools, but the first man essentially betrays Jesus to the authorities (5:10—16), whereas the second man grows in his commitment to Jesus despite being punk ished for it (9:24-39). The two healed men illustrate contrasting responses to Jesus transforming our lives: We can continue to pursue him, or we can turn away from him.
In John 9, the pool is the Pool of Siloam, which had becn used for special rituals during the Feast of Tabernacles just then ending. For the first seven days of the feast, priests would march in procession from the Po‹a1 of Siloam
to the temple. On the eighth day they w°°uld recite ancient prophec °s hat someday rivers r f living water wc›uld flow frt›in the foundation stone of the
temple, bringing life to all the earth (Ezek. 47:1—6; Zech. 14:8).
Rivers of Lieing Water (John 7:3 7—39)
On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus stood in the midst t f the assembly in rhe temple and called out a promise of the Spirit tc the se who› were listening (John 7:37—39). But from whom does the Spirit I1‹ w in this Passage / The earliest Greek texts included no punctuation, so schs lars arc clivided over how to punctuate the text. Many ftall‹ w the traditional English
The Spirit and Salvation
reading: “Let whoever is thirsty ccune to me and) drink. Of the ‹one who believes in me, the Bible says, 'From his innermost being rivers of living water will flow”' (John 7:37-38). The xi sv even reads this view into the text: “out
‹ i the believer's heart.”
But in this context, I think the other ancient view, held by many Greek church fathers, c‹ ncerning the punctuation may be more likely: “Whoever thirsts should come to me; let them drink, whoever believes ln me. As the Bible says, 'From his innermost being rivers of living water will flow.”' The difference is that the latter punctuation helps us to see that Jesus himself is the foundation stone of a new temple, the source of living water for the believer. A believer may have a well of water springing up inside (4:14), but Jesus is the source of living water, and this text says that those who believe in him would receive the Spirit, not give it (John 7:39). The priests had just read the texts about living water flowing from God's temple in the end time; we may be Jesus’ temple, but he is the foundation of this new temple. Either way we punctuate the text, this much is clear: Jesus is the source of water.
John informs us that the Spirit could not be given until Jesus was glorified (John 7:39)—that is, until he was “lifted up” on the cross (Jc›hn 12:23—25, 32-33; see also 8:28; 17:1—5). Later in John’s Gospel, he vividly illustrates this giving of the Spirit once Jesus is crucified. Narratives, unlike more prophetic books such as Revelation, do not usually contain much symbol- ism. Among narrative books, however, John is sometimes an exception; for example, in view of Jesus' symbolic use of “night” (9:4; 11:10), it is not sur-
prising that the Gospel mentions “night” in cases of cowardice (3:2) or evil
‹ i3 so)
After Jesus had died on the cross, John describes an event that the other Gospels do not report, because this event has special significance for his read- ers. When a soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear, nut only blond but water flowed ‹but (19:34). Whatever the medical rerasons for the water, John's illus- trations about water elsewhere in his Gospel lead us to see the climax r›f a theme here: The water from Jesus' sidc represents the gift of the S[oirit, finally
‹available after Jesus' death. From the throne of Grad and of the lamb flows
the fountain of the river of life; let the one who wills crime and drink freely
( Ct›lTlp are RCV. 2 2: 1 , 1 7 ) .
This theme ‹ f purification by Jesus’ water of the Spirit, as opptised t‹o merely Ritual water, runs thru uph the entire Gospel. When we read the story of N icocJcinus, then, we should recognize hr w central is the message of3:5: True 1•to»e1ytc baptism, true conversion, is accomplished only by the Spirit. Our self-clisciplinc, emotions, or intellectual persuasit›n did not transform us when
we became believers; G‹ d's Spirir entering us did. We should recognize by faith the decisive work that God accomplished in us “rhe he ur we first believed.”
The Continuing Work o{ the Spirit (John 14—20)
Jesus gives the Spirit like living water to his people, a gift that we embrace at conversion (John 4:13-14; see also 1 Cor. 12:13). But the new birth is the beginning, not the end, of our experience with the Spirit. The Spirit con- tinues to flow like the fresh water of a river (compare John 7:37—38). True partakers of eternal life are those who continue to eat and drink of Christ (John 6:53—71; compare 8:31 with 8:59). Jesus promised that after he went to the Father, the Spirit would continue to empower his disciples both to understand his message (John 14:26; 16:12-15) and to testify about him (John 15:26—16:11). This section of John’s Gospel emphasizes Jesus' continuing presence with us by the Spirit (14:16—23) and our continuing dependence on him for fruitful spiritual life (15:1-7; see further chapters 1 and 2).
Although Luke provides a fuller version of the complete empowerment by the Spirit that happened some time later, John 20:19—23 ties together the earlier mentions of the Spirit as far as ]ohn’s Gospel is concerned. Because John ends his Gospel before Jesus' ascension, he does not include Pentecost. Thus, he emphasizes the ways this promise of the Spirit began to be fulfilled already shortly after the resurrection. He therefore includes an incident that happened shortly after Jesus rose from the dead when Jesus came to impart his Spirit to his disciples, breathing on them as God first breathed the breath of life into Adam (Gen. 2:7; John 20:22; see Job 27:3; Isa. 32:15; Ezek. 37:5-14; John 3:8). Thus, the disciples were “born anew” with new life and were also equipped for mission: “As the Father sent me, I have sent you” (John 20:21).
“He Will Baptize in the Holy Spirit and Fire” (Matt. 3: 11)
Many Christians today speak of being fire-baptized as if it were pleasant, but rhat is not how John the Baptist meant it. By contrast, everyone agrees rhat baptism in God’s Spirit is positive. How can we be sure of the meaning
‹ f“fire-baptized”/ ln contrast to Mark's abbreviated introduction to his Gospel (treated earlier), Matthew and Luke describe in greater detail John the Bap- tist’s wilderness proclamation about the Spirit. From the c‹ ntext in Matthew, one gathers that he offered this promise of fire baptism to a largely unfriendly crowd.
144 The Spirit and Sa1viitit›n 145
In Jc›hn's lay mc st people tht›ught that {Prophecy was more and that prophets were rarer. Many people believed that the arrival c f true prc›phets in the wilderness prefigured the cc›ming of Gc›d's kingdom. Thus, when John the Baptist began pre phesying in the wilderness about Gc›d's coming kingdtam, people began to stream out to him from acrr›ss the land. Because John was dressed like Elijah of old (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4), many of his followers prob- ably considered him to be a new Elijah. The prophets had, after all, promised that Elijah would return just before the time of the end (Mat. 4:5-6). John's diet also showed that he was serious about his mission (Matt. 3:4). While some other Jewish people also ate locusts, a diet completely restricted to bugs and natural sweetener showed serious commitment.
Of course, John did not have a great deal tif choice about his diet or loca- tion; outspoken prophets are rarely welcome within established society. When true prophets like John the Baptist begin to speak in modern society, we usually chase them out just as our ancient counterparts did. (Imagine how we might react if a prophet overturned the communion table in church on Sunday morning and asked us how we could claim to be disciples of Christ when we are materialistic, or how we could partake c›f Christ's body while attending a deliberately racially segregated church in a racially segregated communiy)
Not only was John unwelcome in much of society, but he even denounced some of his listeners! Observing the crowds (Matthew zeroes in on the reli- gious leaders whoa had crime to check him out), John labels them “offspring of vipers” (Matt. 3:7), an even nastier insult than modem readers might sus- pect. In John's day many people thought that vipers ate their way out of their mc›ther's wombs, thereby killing their mothers. Since ancient people con- sidered parent-murderers the most morally reprobate people possible, calling someone the child of a viper was even worse than calling them a viper. Undoubtcdly, the religious people were n‹ t amused, but John d‹ es not stop with that insult. Religious people then, like most religious people today, felt secure in their salvation. Jewish eople gener‹illy thought they were saved because they were descended fr‹›in Abraham (Matt. 3:9). But John warns them that only genuine repentance will spare them from the coming wrath
(MvuJ:7—8)
Rather than leaving “coming wrath” ambiguous, ]ohn explains t‹ his hear- ers just what kind ‹ f wrath they may expect. He compares them to trees and warns that if they neglect the fruit of repentance, thcy will be cut down and hurled into the hre of judgment (Matt. 3:10). The c‹›ininp one will gather his wheat into› the barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire
(Matt. 3:12). When farmers harvested wheat, they hurled the wheat into the air, al1owlng the wind to blow out the chaff, a light substance that was use- ful only as cheap fuel that burned quickly. John tells his listeners that those who do not repent and produce the behavioral fruit of repentance will be cast into a fire that never ceases to burn: the fire of hell.
This is the context c f John's prophecy concerning baptism in the Holy Spirit. The promised time of the kingdom and the restoration of Israel was coming (Matt. 3:2). God was preparing to gather his servants and to bum up the wicked with fire. In different passages “fire” may symbolize different things, but in this context (as most frequently in the Bible) it symbolizes judgment (Matt. 3:10, 12). Not all John's listeners will repent. Some will be wheat, others will be chaff. Some will be baptized in the Spirit, others will be bap- tized in fire.
Thus, when John announces that the coming one will baptize in both the
Holy Spirit and fire, hearers would recognize that his announcement was not entirely good news. In this context, baptism in fire can only be a negative promise of baptism in judgment for the wicked, whereas baptism in the Spirit is a positive prramise for the righteous. (My students sometimes lament that this means the denomination called the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church is inisnamed. What most fire-baptized churches mean by their name, though, is holiness, something we all afhrm. The question is whether we should base the title on this passage.)
What did John mean by “baptlsm” in the Holy Spirits Undoubtedly, he was thinking of the Old Testament prophecies about God “pouring out” his Spirit like water on his people (Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 39:29; Joel 2:26). Thus, he might have thought r f both prophetic empowerment, as in Joel and possibly Isaiah (Isa. 42:1; 44:8), and purification, as in Ezeklel (Ezek. 36:25-27). The former emphasis is related to what most Pentecostals (and, I believe, the Book c›f Acts) sccm to mean by baptism in the Holy Spirit; the latter is related to what most Baptist and Reformed thinkers (and P‹iul in 1 Cor. 12:13) wean by Spirit baptism. But John's prophecy about the c›utpoured Spirit must at least include conversion, because he explicitly contrasts it with a baptism of judgment for the wicked.
Perhaps more imps rtantly, John viewed baptism in the Spirit, like bap- tism ln fire, as an end time baptism—that is, an event that belonged to the impending end ‹af the age. He predicted a baptism in the Spirit that was as imminent as the kingdom and Gocl’s fiery wrath that he was prr›c1almlng. John clicJ not undcrst‹ind, c›f course, that Jesus w‹ uld have a first and second coming; thus, he had n‹ idea th‹it the kingdom would come ln two stages
Gift and Giver
(n‹ite his confusion in Matt. 11:2-3). But we can look back and understand that the Klng who will someday come to reign has already inaugurated his reign among his followers, although that reign's beginnings seemed as obscure (compared to the future kingdom) as a mustard seed before growing into a huge plant (Mark 4:30-32).
We recognize, though ]ohn may not have, that different aspects of his prophecy were fulfilled at different times. As we noted early in this book, Jesus’ followers have tasted the power of the coming kingdom (Eph. 1:13-14; Heb. 6:5). The King who is yet to come has already come once, hence, has invaded history with his rule. Whereas most people define their identity in terms of their past or their present, the gospel summons believers to define their identity in terms of what we shall be, in terms of what God has called us to be. Empowered by the Spirit, we are to represent the future kingdom in the midst of the present evil age.
Conclusion
When Are We Baptized in the Spirit?
The Bible is clear that the Spirit is involved in conversion. Interpreters divide today not over whether the Spirit is involved in conversion, however, but over the specific meaning of the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Some apply this phrase to what occurs at conversion; others use it to describe an experience after conversion.
Because John the Baptist contrasts baptism in the Holy Spirit with hell- fire, he apparently applies it to all true believers. In John 3:5, where Jesus seems to speak of being born from “water and the Spirit” as a “spiritual” pros- elyte baptism, he seems to describe the new birth as a “baptism in the Holy Spirit.”
There are, however, some passages in Acts in which Christians appear to experience the Spirit's empowerment after their conversion, in ways identical t‹ what s‹ame passages in Acts call being “baptized in the Holy Spirit.” Is it possible that both views are biblical/ Is it possible that baptism in the Spirit refers to the entirety of the Spirit’s wc›rk in our lives, perhaps initiated at conversion but also disc‹avered in aspects of the Spirit’s wcark sometimes demonstrated afterward / To this question we turn in the next chapter.
he Bible has more to say about the baptism in the Holy Spirit than what Christians today often debate. Thus, in the midst of current debates about when and hr›w one is baptized in the Spirit, we often
T
we focused on power for evangelism, the fmit of the Spirit, and other aspects of the Spirit's work before coming to this more controversial issue.
Now, however, we must address this often-debated issue. The Spirit trans-
formed me at my conversion, but I experienced what seemed to be an even more ‹overwhelming encounter with the Spirit two days later, when I bet- ter understoc›d the nature of the cc›mmitment I had made. Which of these experiences was thC “baptism in the Holy Spirit”/ Are we baptized in the Spirit at conversion or afterward / Or does the Bible challenge us to gc›
beyond even these two alternatives /
A Matter of Semantics
If we cc›uld get past some semantic debates in our discusslons about the timlng c f the baptism in the Holy Spirit, we would have more time avail-
14S Gift and Oivcr
When Arc We Biiptized in the Spirit?
149
able for the more practical questions surrounding the Spirir's einpc›wer- ment. Nearly all Christians agree, for example, that all Christians have the Spirit by virtue of being born again. We also agree that we all should regularly experience a Spirit-filled life, walk in the Spirlt, depend on the Spirit's power in our behavior and witness, and be open to experiences from God's Spirit subsequent to conversion. We want to cultivate a deeper daily dependence on God’s Spirit and understand how deeply we need the Spirit for our service to God in this world and for living the Christian life. In practice, we agree on most matters that deeply affect us. In other words, some of the most significant areas of disagreement today may be merely semantic.
This is not the only example of Christians dividing over words or phrases rather than the issues behind such language, even on matters that involve the Spirit. For example, some noncharismatics have reproved charismat- ics for using terms such as reeehfion and inspiration for something other than Scripture, yet they agree that God's Spirit can lead our daily lives, which is what most charismatics mean by the terms. Undoubtedly, it is helpful to distinguish our experience c f the Spirit's guidance from the Bible, which is the measuring stick for all other claims to hear God. Yet we should next condemn others for using terms in ways that our c›wn Bible translations c4o. As in the example above, we all agree that the Bible is the standard for evaluating claims that the Spirit is leading us; the Bible is the ultimate writ- ten “revelation.” Yet whereas some limit the term rerehtion to the Bible alone, the biblical term translated “revelation” is not limited to Scripture. It can refer to a Damascus road—type encounter with Christ (Gal. 1:12, 16) or to information revealed in prophecy ( 1 Cor. 14:26, 30; cr›mpare perhaps
Gal. 2:2 with Acts 11:28-30).
Likewise, many Christians apply the term sancti(cation to the biblical concept of maturing in Christ. But while maturing in Christ is a biblical not ion, surveying a c‹xacordance shows that the New Testament almost never uses the term we translate “sanctification” to describe that idea. If we scan New Testament references to sanctification, we will discover that most texts refer to being set apart for God at cc›nversion. However, other texts do indicate that we should learn to live as God called us to live at ccur cc nversion (some calling us to “be h‹ily,” the adjective that relates to the verb snncti{y). Dr› we really need to ight about the particular terms we use tr› descrlbe it /
We r›ften assu inc (Particular working c4efin it irons of terms that are not shared by everyone else. By adopting some fairly neutral terms and phrases
such as “conversion” and “being filled with the Spirit,” we could deal with the main issues with much less conflict. Consequently, when I teach pub- licly, 1 usually bypass the semantic issue and emphasize the practical mat- ter of seeking God's power to do his work. After all, the Bible forbids us to argue over semantics (2 Tim. 2:14).
This practical solution does not, however, solve what the Bible means
by phrases such as “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Can different interpreta- tions of that expression possibly be semantic differences too / I will propose that they are—although the biblical pool of evidence on the phrase is small enough that I must also admit that other proposals are also feasible.
Different Views on the “When” (Question
The controversy about when baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs in a believer's life has been around for some time and shows no sign of abating. Indeed, although some speak as if only Pentecostals hold to a definite work of the Spirit after ccanversion, the idea was common for well over a century before the birth of the modern Pentecostal movement.
John Wesley and many of his followers became convinced that the Bible
taught a second work of grace in a believer’s life after conversion, in which the Spirit brought a believer to a higher level of inward purity.1 Richard
Baxter and other Puritan and Reformed sealers also envisioned a subse- quent work. Pursuit of this deeper experience of holiness became a com- mon feature in North American revivals of the mid to late nineteenth cen- tury. Some came to employ the title “baptism in the Holy Spirit” for the subsequent empowerment. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
tury, some Reformed ministers, such as R. A. Torrey, superintendent of
Moody Bible Institute, Baptists such as A. J. Gordon and ‹others also eipha- sized the baptism in the Spirit as a sccr›nd work of grace, as did Andrew Murray and F. B. Meyer. Indeed, serine of history's most effcctive evange- lists, including Charles Finney, Dwight Moody, and Torrey, viewed baptism ln the Holy Spirit as an empowerment for service that was subsequent to
conversion.'
The first Pentecostals thought they had found a third experience ln the Spirit (subsequent to both conversion and this second experience of sanc- tification), although tether Pentec‹ stats (today probably the majority) con- cluded that their experience was a second and final cone, the baptism in the Holy Spirit. While no one should fault another Christian for seeking God's
50
h‹›1iness more passi‹ nately, many either Christians doubt that the specific expression “baptism in the Holy Spirit” applies to such a postcc›nversion experience of God's Spirit. Many believe it applies only to conversion itself. Tc day's most effective evangelistic movements appear on eirher side of the debate; most Southern Baptists, for example, identify “baptism in the Spirit” with conversion, whereas most Pentecostals identify it with a sub- sequent empowerment. 1 recount this contrast to point out, before pro- ceeding, that God has abundantly used and continues to use Christians with different views on the matter. In light of God’s blessing on Christians with different views, it appears that actually being empowered by the Holy Spirit matters more than what we think about how the Spirit empowers us. That is not to suggest that the subject does not matter or that you should skip the rest of this chapter. Rather, such an awareness puts rhe larger ques-
tion in perspective.
Different Starting Points
Most evangelical Christians today think of baptism in the Spirit in one c I two ways: Either Christians receive the Splrit completely at conver- sion (the typical Reformed position), or Christians receive a special empowerment after conversion (the usual Holiness and Pentecostal posi- tion). Those who emphasize the Bible's theological statements (such as Paul’s comments) rather than narrative examples (such as stories in Acts) usually identify baptism in the Spirit with conversion to faith in Christ. Those who emphasize Acts over against Paul usually believe that bap- tism in the Spirit can occur after conversion.
Each traditlon builds its case on Bible texts—just different ones. I will argue that both traditions may have correctly interpreted their favored texts—that both groups of interpreters are in fact largely right about what they affir in. It appears that the New Testament teaches both views— bccause different texts appear to employ the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” in different ways. The fact that the phrase “baptism in the Spirit” could emphasize a different aspect of the Spirit's work in different bibli- cal passages is not difficult to raffirm once we recognize that these differ- ent emphases are all part of the work of the same Spirit. Before someone ls tempted to think that such an approach is toe› convcnicnt t‹ be cor- rect, I will offer reasc›ns why I think this is the fairest way to read the bib- lical texts on the ir own terms.
When Are We Baptized in the Spirit?
In view of John the Baptist's use of the phrase (contrasted with fiery judgment), he probably assumed that the Spirit's work involved a num- ber of aspects, including salvation and any subsequent empowerments. When Jesus tells Nicodemus to be born from “the water of the Spirit,” he is calling Nicodemus to undergo a “spiritual” proselyte baptism, i.e., a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Similarly, whenever New Testament writers write about believers receiving the Spirit, they invariably speak of the Spirit coming at the time of conversion (for example, Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:2). Christ's work is complete (Col. 2:6—23) and we cannot add to what God has provided for us in conversion (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 3:2-5). We made this case in slightly more detail in the previous chapter.
Yet full access to God's transforming power at conversion need not imply that each of us has appropriated all that power in our daily lives. I suspect most of us will admit that in practice we may later yield more of our lives to the direction of God's S›pirit. In narratives in the Book of Acts, examples indicate that believers embraced some aspects of the Spirit in an experience after their conversion (2:4; 8:15—16; 9:17; 19:4-6, treated below).
Meanwhile, other passages rarely cited by either side in the debate
show us that the work of the Spirit not only means more than conver- sion but also more than any single subsequent experience. Acts indicates that believers may receive empowerments subsequent to their “second experience” (4:8, 31; 13:9). Paul likewise speaks of living a Spirit-filled life (Eph. 5:18), walking by the same Spirit one has already received (Gal. 5:16—23)—passages that surely deserve more emphasis in the way most of us live.
These passages suggest that the whole sphere of the Spirit's work
becomes available at conversion, but believers may experience some aspects of the Spirit's work tinly subsequent to conversion. Once we lay the traditional semantic debates aside, this New Testament picture makes gc›c›d sense in most of our personal lives. One may compare other teach- ings in the New Testament about regularly appropriating Christ's finished work. For example, Paul teaches that believers become dead tc sin at con- version, yet few of us dispute that we must learn to appropriate that real- ity in our daily lives, (Terrible as this may be, mc st Christians 1 know have sinned since their c‹anversic›n.) Those interpreters who emphasize our cc›mpleteness in Christ and the sufficiency of splritual resources pro- vlded us ln salvati‹an are correct: When the Spirit enters our lives, Goal makes us new and gives us complete access to the Spirit's resources. At
C ift and Giver
the same t lme, it is also biblical to emphasize that we neecJ to draw on that empowerment in practice and that all Christians, no matter how full of God's Spirit, can grow to seek God more deeply.
Before we survey New Testament reaching about baptism in the Holy Spirit, we should survey the background of the way Jesus' contemporaries thought about God’s Spirit. Because they emphasized certain elements of what the Old Testament said about the Spirir, the first Christians could take for granted some ideas about the Spirit without always explaining them. Once we understand some ideas that the New Testament writers took for granted, we will be ready to delve into New Testament perspec- tives on the baptism in the Spirit.’
What Did the Phrase “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”
Mean to First-Century Hearers?
The phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” self-evidently includes two pri- mary elements: “baptize” and “Holy Spirit.” “Baptize” is the easier of the two elements to summarize: Jewish people baptized Gentiles who wished to con- cert to Judaism by having them immerse themselves in water. The image of baptism thus connoted two ideas to ancient Jewish hearers: conversion and immersion. Those who identify baptism in the Spirit with conversion may support their case from the first idea; those who identify it with a second wc›rk in which the Spirit overwhelms the believer (immersed in the Spirit) may appeal to the latter.
The second element of the phrase is the “Holy Spirit,” which Jesus' Jew- ish contemporaries saw as God's way to purify his people or (far more often) tr empower them to prophesy. The former image may support the idea that baptiste in the Spirit ‹accurs at conversion; the latter, that it reflects a sub- sement experience of empowerment. Hence, the phrase by itself is not pre- CÎSC enough to solve the chronolc gy ctuestion above.
Nevertheless, what first-century hearers knew about the Holy Spirit helps explain how Jesus' ftrst disciples wc›uld have understood his pr‹5mise, the chronology question aside. The Bible tells us that the prophets of ancient Israel experienced the Spirit (1 Sam. 19:20—23; Ezek. 3:12; 1 Peter 1:10-11; 2 Peter 1:21); many of them must have wished that all their people wc›uld Experience the Spirit m‹ re fully (Num. 11:29). By the early seventh cen-
tury u.‹:., Isaiah began to announce that Ge cl was going t‹i make his Splr it noire wu]ely avallable. After judglng his people, Gc›d would save and restore
When Are We l3aptized in the Spiritl
them and pour out his Spir it on them like water c›n dry ground (Isa. 44:3; compare 42:1; 59:21). During the exile in Babylonia, the prophet Ezekiel made the same announcement: God would wash his people with the pure water of his Spirit (Ezek. 36:26—27), revive them by his Spirit (37:14), and pour out his Spirit on them (39:29). The prophet Joel announced that God would pour out his Spirit on his people—again using the image of the Spirit as water—and they would prophesy like the prophets of old (Jr›el 2:28—29). But a few centuries before ]esus, many Jewlsh people decided that this full restoration of the Spirit and prophets belonged entirely to the distant future. They came to believe that prophets had ceased in their own time (although they allowed that prophecy occasionally continued) and that the Spirit was usually no longer available to individuals. A few groups, such as the Essenes, who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, believed that the Spirit remained active among them, but most Jewish people believed the Spirit had been quenched to a large extent in the present era. They longed for the future era when God would restore his people and pour out his Spirit. Although all Jewish people were familiar with Old Testament teachings on the Spirit, different Jewish groups emphasized different aspects of the Spirit. The two most frequent emphases were the Spirit of purification and (more commonly) the Spirit of prophecy. Some interpreters, especially the Essenes, recited Ezekiel's promise that God would purify his people from sin (Ezek. 36:?6-27; see also 18:31 i 37:14). Nearly all Jews (including, to a lesser extent, the Essenes) associated the Spirit with prophecy, an even more common emphasis in the Old Testament (Num. 11:25-29; 2 sam. 23:2; 2 Chron. 15:1—7; 18:23; Micah 3:8). Jewish thinkers on the whole rarely commented on some ideas that became common in the New Testa- ment—such as continual moral empowerment or God's presence within the individual believer. But Jewish readers of the New Testament would have readily rec‹ gnized early Christian emphases on the Spirit r›f purifica- tion (be ing “born of water and the Spirit”) and prophecy (the Spirit enabling Christians to prophesy or engage in other forms of strongly Spir it-
led speech).
Many New Testament passages assume that readers understand the asso- ciation ‹af the Spirit with prophecy (Matt. 22:43; Luke 1:17; 2:2?; 4: lb;
Acts 11:28; 21:4; 1 Cor. 7:40; 12:3; 1 7“hess. 5:19; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 Peter 1:1 l ;
1 John 4:1-6; Rev 1:10; 2:7; 3:6; 4:2; 14:13; 17:3; 19:10; i 1 10; 22:17: com
pare 2 Thess. 2:2). These ass‹ ciations include empc werment t€› s[aeak for God in evangelism (Matt. 10:20; Acts 1:8; 6:10; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 16:7; 2 Cor. 3:3-8; Eph. 6:17), revelation of the true understanding of the gospel
Gift and Giver
When Are We Baptized in the Spirit?
155
( 1 Cor. 2:10-14; Eph. 1:17; ):5), and apostolic miracles (Rom. 1 5:19; per- haps 1 Cor. 2:4). Other texts assume that we understand the import of the Spirit in giving life and in transformation (John 3:5-8; 1 Ccur. 6:11; Gal. 4:29; 5:17—18, 22—23; 6:8; Jude 19). These two emphases to some extent represent the basic ideas abc›ut the Spirit over which many modern Chris- tians have divided: the Spirit's role ln conversion and the Spirit's role in empowering believers for speaking moved by the Spirit (tongues, prophecy, witness, etc.).
One, Two, or More Works of Grace?
As noted earlier, many Christians in the Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pen- tecostal traditions have argued for a second work of grace that frequently occurs after conversion. In such circles, the work is sometimes called “sanc- tification” or “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Some groups also› distinguish between sanctification and baptism in the Holy Spirit, thus providing three works of grace. With some notable exceptions (such as many Puritan writ- ers), the Reformed tradition normally argues that one receives everything at conversion.
As we have also noted, both traditions are largely correct in what they affirm. Most Christians, in fact, agree on the basic issues: The Spirit trans- forms us at conversion, but God can subsequently fill Christians with the Spirit in special ways and for special tasks. The disagreement over termi- nology stems primarily from the different ways the New Testament writers themselves speak about the Spirit. Because of the variety in the Spirit's work, Paul may refer to one aspect of the Spirit's work by the phrase “receiv- ing the Spirit,” while Luke may use the same phrase to refer t‹a a different ask ect. These writers do not contradict each tether; G‹ d led them to eipha- size d ifferent issues.*
Paul’s Theology of the Spirit
Paul is clear that one receives all ‹ f Christ's provision at conversion. Those who try to add t‹ the hnished work of Christ, whether they be cir- cumcizers in Galatia or mystics ln Cole see, underminc the gospel itself. At CtJnversitJn we were "se‹31ed" in ChriSt for the day €3f redelnptttJn (Eph. 4:30); those who do not have the Spirit are simply not Chrlstians (Room. 8:9).
S‹ me (Christians who dlspute this conclusion have tried to argue that “sealing” with the Spirit in Ephesians 1:13 occurs after believing the gospel, for the verb tense used here usually implies subsequence. The problem with this argument ls that it fracuses on a grammatical pattern rather than on context and the writer's style; exceptions to this typical grammatical pat- tern are abundant. Only a few verses later, where Paul uses the same con- struction, it cannot imply subse‹juence because if it did, it would mean that G‹ d exerted his mighty power in Christ after resurrecting him, rather than by resurrecting him (Eph. 1:19—20; compare Rom. 1:4). More importantly, the text indicates that this seal of the Spirit is a down payment guarantee- ing our future inheritance at the redemption of our bodies (Eph. 1:13—14). If this sealing is subsequent to conversion, then conversion is inadequate to guarantee us a place in God’s kingdom! We were sealed by the Spirit “for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).
Paul is no less clear in other texts about receiving the Spirit. Whatever Luke means when he speaks of disciples “receiving the Spirit” (see below), Paul clearly means conversion. The Galatians want to earn their spiritual experience by coming up to the cultural standards of law-keeping Jewish- Christian missionaries. Thus, Paul emphasizes that they “received the Spirit” by faith, not by obeying the law (Gal. 3:2; compare 1 Cor. 2:12). The Spirit always comes as a gift rather than as something we earn (Rom. 5:5). Even in Ephesians 5:18, the command to be “filled with the Spirit” is passive, which might suggest receptivity to divine action. If the beginning of their life in the Spirit (conversion) was a gift, how could the Galatian Christians possibly hope to complete their Christian life by legalistic works (Gal. 3:3)? In 1 Corinthians, Paul divides humanity into two groups: those who have the Spirit (“spiritual”) and those who do not (“Ileshly,” or “natural”; 2:10—16). Of course the finished work of Christ does not force us to live according to the Spirit. Even though the C‹arinthian Christians were Spirit- people by virtue of their c‹ nverslon (1 Cor, 6:11 ), by dividing and com- peting spiritually they were acting like the world. Paul uses twc› Greek expressions—one meaning “flesh like,” the other meaning “as if you were Ileshly” ( 1 Ccur. 3:1-3). Sometimes we don't act like the Spirit rules us, but
Paul still balks at calling genuine Christians completely “(leshly.”
(Note By Blogger: Due to the length of the book which this content is from I have broken it up into a short series of blog posts.)
No comments:
Post a Comment