The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

(This is a two part, seven lesson series I will be teaching soon. There are still a bit of finishing touches to be done. Also, I hope to hear from my focus group whom I've formed to look it over and provide feedback and questions. gt)

The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Part 1        

Lesson 1    The LORD God is one

Lesson 2    The deity of Jesus / The indwelling of deity in Jesus

Lesson 3    The manifestation of God

God, the giver of gifts

Part 2

Lesson 4    God, the giver of gifts

Lesson 5    The Father

Lesson 6    The Son

Lesson 7    The Holy Spirit

Read More

Culture and the Forgiveness of Self

Do you ever notice how often culture is given as the quick default explanation. The mere mention of culture means the explanation need not be substantive, only that it is, well, _ culture. You might recognize similar, older variations of this explanation such as, it’s a guy thing, it’s a girl thing, it’s an American thing, it's a (fill in ethnic group identifier) you wouldn’t understand. 'Nuf said. End of story. This response is not intended to strengthen or solidify any explanation. More likely it's just a way to escape the heat. The reference to culture is often the fallback in studies and discussions. It is heard in the study of the scriptures and in the workplace discussions. Often what it reveals is that the individual has little or no knowledge or understanding of the subject. The mention of culture may hold the opposition and the inquisitive minds at arm’s length, but not for long.

Read More

Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)

Adonai and Adoni (Psalm 110:1)

(The link above is the same as the article below under the same title. The article appears in the website of Restoration Fellowship founded by Sir Anthony Buzzard in 1981. I first came across the work of Restoration Fellowship about fifteen years ago and have addressed some of their material. I encourage you to read it before your read my own comments. gt)

those who struggle

The discussion and question concerning deity is old. I am mindful that those who differ between one another concerning their understanding of deity love God. As such the struggle which each one experiences is a true characteristic of those who seek and love God. They follow in the footsteps of Jacob who was renamed Israel meaning one who struggles with God.

Read More

I Corinthians 14:34, the Law

Related articles:

Men and women: prophets and prophetesses
Serving tables: the involvement of the daughters of God in the assembly
Ken Wright on I Corinthians 14
Randy Elliot on I Corinthians 14:34-38

What did Paul mean with his reference to “the law” or “the Law” in I Corinthians 14:34? Numerous and various explanations have emerged in recent years.

explanations

Some have suggested the law in question in I Corinthians 14:34 was a law in the city of Corinth which prohibited women from speaking in an assembly. This explanation seems to run counter to and to be seriously lacking in apostolic authority with the apostle Paul in that it places Paul in a position of resorting to secure law to impose it in the holy assembly of the saints in Christ?

Another explanation is to breakdown the passage between those things which Paul said and those things which the Corinthians said with Paul responding to the latter. The problem with this explanation, as I far as I can tell, is that even as it is embraced this explanation about who said what circumvents and averts the unanswered question of the saints in Christ:

what are we to do with respect to Paul’s instruction for women to keep silent?

In other words it seems to be another academic exercise with the characteristic shortfall in that it neglects the edification the saints in Christ leaving them with nothing more than an amusing and very interesting explanation, no less, from the Greek language. Perhaps a few basic and indisputable points might serve as a starting point for our understanding of the problem. The resolution of the problem in Corinth requires more than merely identifying what Paul said and the Corinthians said.

facts

First, there were women who were speaking out in the assembly.

Second, the women in question had husbands.

Third, the women were to ask their questions to their own husbands.

contradiction or inconsistency

These are straightforward facts. In this respect these facts are similar to the short list which enumerates what Paul said and another short list of what the Corinthians said. These facts present the problem and the resolution to the problem in Corinth, but this does not equate to our understanding of either the problem or the resolution. Even more, there is a reason why it is important to understand what was behind the problem and the resolution in Corinth. There is a need to account for what otherwise remains embedded in the minds of some who see a contradiction or an inconsistency, essentially an error in the scriptures, in Paul’s writings. I allude to the seeming contradiction between the reality in the assembly to which Paul refers to women prophesying, that is, speaking, in the assembly in I Corinthians 11:5 and his instruction concerning the reality in Corinth for women to keep silent in I Corinthians 14:34. So given this fact and keeping in mind that women spoke in the assembly and that the women were not doing anything monumental or catastrophic. The text of I Corinthians 14:34 demands a response on the basis of these facts.

I have stated that there is characteristic about the explanations about what Paul said and what the Corinthians said. It is that they fall short and do not present an explanation which edifies the saints as to what they are to do with the content of the passage in I Corinthians 14 and the silence of women.

It seems that as long as the discussion remains deeply fixated and limited to the overarching issue on the silence of women the focus is kept away from the prophesying in accordance with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel on the day of Pentecost that, 'God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY (Acts 2:17). God did not pour out his Spirit on his sons for them to be silent or to be silenced anymore than He poured out His Spirit on His daughters for them to be silent or to be silenced. They are both to prophesy.

some exceptional works
There are some telltale and significant indicators of what these explanations perpetuate about the ministry of our sisters in the royal priesthood of believers, albeit without malice and unwittingly. Nonetheless this is the result of avoiding any conclusions for the saints in Christ. Indeed Ken Wright, [1] who has done an exceptionally great work in spirit and attitude with the text, briskly notes that "women can't prophesy" "you can't prophesy" in the summary of his message. Really? Does the prophecy of Joel have nothing to say on this matter? Randy Elliot [2] has also done an exceptional work in spirit and attitude on the text of I Corinthians 14. The work of these two brothers is praiseworthy and commendable. However, as with Wright's so, too, Elliot's work does not offer a conclusion for the saints in Christ as to what and how, and very importantly, why their response is fully in accord with respect to Paul’s instruction for women to keep silent as well as with the apostle's acknowledgement and encouragement for the saints, including women, to prophesy.

a similarity

There is a similarity in the instruction which Paul gave for women with the instruction which he gave to those with a tongue (verse 27) and those with a prophecy (verse 30). He instructed them all to keep silent and to wait their turn. Paul does not state that the women in question possessed a gift. It appears they were just merely speaking out, but there was no excuse for that and it was not acceptable. They, too, like those with a tongue or a prophecy, were to wait their turn and ask their husbands whatever questions were on their mind.

Whom were the women directing their questions to so that it constituted it a problem in the assembly? There was a problem in Corinth and one which I do not believe has been properly addressed merely by delineating what were the words spoken by Paul and what were the words spoken by the Corinthians. There are two other instances in which Paul was misunderstood, but he never dismisses those misunderstandings by saying he had been misunderstood and leaving it at that. Paul seizes the teachable moment in those instances.

some misunderstandings of Paul
One of those two instances was when the Corinthians misunderstood (I Corinthians 5:9-12) Paul concerning his admonition for them to avoid associating with immoral people. Paul then explains for their edification what he meant.

A second instance also involved the saints at Corinth. They misunderstood what Paul had not done when he first came to them. He did not ask for or receive any assistance from them. This strategy of Paul (II Corinthians 11) to rely on the churches in Macedonia for his support was then seized on by some of his adversaries. They were troubling the minds of the saints in Corinth. They cast Paul in the minds of the saints as meek and weak with a gospel message which was as inferior as Paul himself was inferior to the other apostles. They portrayed Paul as being so ashamed of his gospel message that he could not even bring himself to ask for and receive the customary pittance accorded itinerant messengers.

It is then that Paul enlightened the Corinthians. What was free and without cost to them was made possible through the churches which Paul, as he states, robbed, that is, the gracious support of the Macedonian churches. Interestingly enough and with respect to explanations about who said what see Paul's words in verse 17 as to what he is saying and not saying. Even more notice that Paul does not back down from what had resulted in a misunderstanding. In fact, he asserts that what he has been doing he will do again (II Corinthians 11:12). Paul seized the opportune moment and expounded at length to counter the misunderstanding of the Corinthians of Paul's actions.

The problem concerning women speaking in the assembly in Corinth was not a catastrophic one. It stemmed from the Corinthians' (males likely?) own ignorance, not necessarily their misunderstanding of Paul's words, and as people are given to doing, it appears they conjured up "the Law" as a good measure of authority for their justification to silence women in the assembly. The problem was hardly anything more than those with a tongue and those with a prophesy clamoring to speak without any regard for the spectacle they were creating in the assembly. It hardly required anything more than to admonish the Corinthians to exercise a modicum of propriety and order as is familiar and customary in civil society. Although the issue concerning the women in question does not seem to involve the use of a gift by the women the solution to the problem of their disorder, like those  with the gifts of tongues and prophesy, was that they direct their questions to their own husbands. Paul's instruction for the women to keep silent was no more a perpetual and in-any-and-all-circumstances-especially-in-the-assembly gag order anymore than those with a tongue or a prophesy were to keep silent and not utter a word in perpetuity.

I anticipate this charge: haven't you (I) done what you say Paul would not do? Haven't you (I) interjected the secular law of propriety and decency on a problem in the holy assembly of the saints in Christ? It is a fair question. I do not believe this charge is true or accurate. The call, as I understand is Paul's solution to the problem, for propriety and order is not a hard, top-down authoritative law for people to adhere in secular society anymore than is the simple civility of exchanging a greeting when meeting someone new. I reiterate that this same response from Paul concerning the silence of the women, as I understand, was the same as his response to those with a tongue or a prophesy. Paul is aware of the ignorance of the Corinthians in their response concerning the women. He does not merely dismiss the elements of their arguments concerning the women. Paul turns those elements of their argument around to enlighten them to a real resolution that is as familiar and customary, as Paul himself concludes verse 40, as propriety and order in civil society as well as in the holy assembly of the saints in Christ.

conclusion
It seems, I believe, plausible and reasonable to at least consider that the one to whom the women were directing their questions was to the one who was addressing the assembly who happened to be _ their husbands. The women, it appears, were taking advantage of their intimate relationship with the speaker and were disrupting the assembly with their questions to the speaker. The fact is there was no question which could not wait for its appropriate time and manner to be asked. Just as Paul points to what could easily be taken by an unbeliever as total madness of the saints in the assembly so, too, it was just  as shameful or improper for the women to be speaking out of order in the assembly. Just as Paul points out to those with the gift of prophecy that the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets so, too, he points out to the women that they were to subject themselves. I realize it is a favorite point concerning women being in subjection, but the subjection of women to their husbands is not the point or matter in discussion here. It is, much as with the prophets, a matter where women were to subject themselves _ to themselves. There was no room or excuse for anyone to claim, either one with a tongue or one with a prophecy or a woman with questions to blurt out without control of themselves.

The apostle Paul had all the authority in himself as given him by the Lord Jesus. Paul did not resort to Moses or the prophets for his authority when he instructed those with a tongue or prophecy, or women, to keep silent. Since the Corinthians had ignorantly and carnally seized on their notion of "the law" as their authority to impose silence on the women, Paul seizes on their mistaken notion, not to impose, but to cite nothing more than "the law" of propriety and order in civil society.

It was not an earth-shaking issue. The women were simply out of order with their questions. It was a matter of a lack of propriety and order. An elder interrupting a preacher in the middle of his message concerning some falsehood in his message would be just as much out of line and lacking propriety and order. There is a time and a way for which the elder can wait to take his turn and address the congregation concerning the falsehood without grandstanding or making a spectacle. If there is a law to cite with respect to our sisters speaking in the assembly it is the written word of the LORD God through his servant the prophet Joel. Then, the apostle Peter cited and quoted the prophet Joel for the authority concerning the outpouring of his Spirit on the sons AND daughters of God and the command and expectation that both are to prophesy. It rare and perhaps unknown to hear those who lead, teach and preach draw the connection between the prophecy of Joel and its fulfillment on Pentecost with the longing desire of Moses as he said to a flabbergasted Joshua, would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit upon them! (Numbers 11:29)

God did not pour out his Spirit on his sons for them to be silent or to be silenced anymore than He poured out His Spirit on His daughters for them to be silent or to be silenced. They are both to prophesy. I expect even the words of the prophet Joel will be stirred up and made subject to similar scrutiny as the apostle Paul's words ostensibly concerning the silence of women, but more likely to perpetuate or let stand the mistaken notion of the silence of the daughters of God.

Read More

Men and women: prophets and prophetesses

(This article also appears under the title: Principle and Practice, Prophets and Deacons)

Much of the discussion concerning prophets and deacons is often framed by gender and exclusivity. It is assumed that these offices are the sole domain of males and they exclude females. This is much the same as to advocate for the presence and ministry of women in the church, but with a lack of understanding of the scriptures. This is equally true of those who oppose the presence and ministry of these women in the church, but who lack an understanding of the scriptures. Generally, what is purported or touted as understanding is not much more than a couple of verses in isolation and the testimony of various writings of men. The inability of the former and the latter to present a consistent understanding and explanation for the edification of the saints is uncannily similar.

Often, the refusal to accept what is revealed through an examination of the scriptures is deep-rooted. The pressure of the fear of men is nothing new, both in those who advocate and in those who oppose the ministry of sisters in Christ. The exchanges between them of endless single word definitions, an endless barrage of questions and negative assertions create the intended desire. The impression is created that there is an understanding, but often this is not much more than a cover up of a lack of understanding. These are not crimes. These are not sins. However, neither one does much to increase the knowledge, understanding and edification of the saints in Christ in the assembly.

The principle and the practice involving prophets and deacons is revealed in, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It puts to the test the popular understanding Romans 15:4 which the saints have learned to parrot from those who lead, teach and preach. Coincidentally, often it is those who lead, teach and preach who are the ones who feel most threatened by these same principles and practices involving prophets and deacons and the things which they have professed and proclaimed for years during their own ministries. The discussion in this article is brief, but the reader is encouraged to open the links to my blog articles which cover portions of the content in this article more fully.

God never called prophetesses in the Old Testament

Beware of negative statements which may sound imposing, truthful and full of understanding, but which are none of these. God did define, specifically in Numbers 12, what constitutes a prophet as being one to whom God reveals Himself through visions and dreams. Incidentally, take note of how loosely some teachers and preachers refer to Jesus as a prophet, or the prophet.

The test of that mistaken notion of Jesus as a prophet is to ask: when did the Father make His will known to the Son through visions and dreams? Jesus was no more a prophet than Moses with whom God spoke face to face. I can understand Muslims claiming Jesus as a prophet because there's nothing better than to to have a prophet of their own associated with Jesus, but there's a greater expectation of the saints in Christ. The Father never made Himself known to Jesus through visions and dreams anymore than God did with Moses.

Huldah, the prophetess

So, how does one explain the prominent and significant appearance of the prophetess Huldah in II Kings 22? Here is just one of the woefully weak responses from some who oppose the ministry of prophetesses: prophets were solely from the tribe of Levi. There is muted silence when it is noted that King David who was of the tribe of Judah was a prophet. Then, there was Anna, the prophetess of the tribe of Asher who prophesied concerning the eight day old baby Jesus. Suddenly, the presumption of exclusivity is thrown into some serious doubt or a need for closer examination. When God said of a prophet “I will reveal myself to him” He did not intend to limit, as is assumed, the office of prophet according to gender to men only. This may be a good starting point to make good on the debt owed the saints for an understanding and explanation on this obvious variation. Clearly, it is not a contradiction from the principle concerning prophets as declared by God Himself in Numbers 12. Huldah was not sought out by King Josiah because there wasn’t, as another weak reason is often given, a qualified man around. The prophet Jeremiah was a contemporary of Huldah in the city of Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 1:1-3)

The incident in Numbers 11 is not a mere coincidence as it relates to God’s definition of what constitutes a prophet. The definition was spoken, not by Moses or a prophet, but by God Himself. Prior to that definition in chapter 12 God had instructed Moses to bring out the seventy elders of Israel. God does as He said He would do. He puts some of the Spirit that was in Moses and puts Him upon the seventy elders.

A glitch occurred. God was unfazed nor was his power limited by that glitch. Only sixty eight of the seventy came out of the camp. The glitch that happened next was that when God placed some of the Spirit that was in Moses on the sixty eight the other two, Eldad and Medad, who had remained in the camp _ prophesied, too.

This was too much for Joshua, Moses’s right hand man in training. “Moses, my lord, restrain them.” Joshua cried to Moses concerning Eldad and Medad, the two men of the seventy elders who had not gone out of the camp with the other sixty eight elders. Here is another popular mistaken notion debunked. There is a strained and forced insistence by some to create a distinction between women prophesying in the assembly and prophesying outside of the assembly. This is as though God’s power were limited either way, or _ even worse_ as though prophesying by women -or men (like Eldad and Medad) were more acceptable to God if it were done by women out of His presence. When God put some of the Spirit on the sixty eight who were not, so to speak, “in the assembly," those two men received the same measure of the Spirit of God as the other sixty eight. Ponder that closely.

God never called deaconesses in the New Testament

Beware of negative statements which may sound imposing, truthful and full of understanding, but which are none of these. The first problem which the church faced in the first century was between the Hellenistic Jews and the native Jews concerning the distribution of food to their widows. The apostles called on the congregation to “select from among you seven men” to “serve tables.”

Although one of the most popular texts cited concerning the selection and duties of deacons is First Timothy 3:8-14 the passage in the book of Acts also involves deacons, that is, men who serve in the fulfilling of tasks of the church. There is no contradiction or problem merely because Paul’s letter was written long before Acts.

This is the principle concerning deacons in the New Testament which is similar and not unlike the principle concerning prophets in the Old Testament.

The reaction and rationale to the words of the apostles for the selection of seven men is pretty much the same as to the words of God in Numbers 12 when He said He would speak “to him,” that is, the prophet among the people of Israel. The reaction and rationale is one which includes males and excludes females. The masculine gender noun is seized tenaciously. It is taken to mean that the office of deacon is solely limited to males and to the exclusion of females, right? After all, this is the principle in the New Testament concerning deacons, right?

However, the Old Testament principle concerning prophets demonstrates graphically in the matter of Huldah that it was meant to extend to the inclusion of women as prophetesses. The question needs to be asked if this is so in the New Testament concerning a similar extension that would include women as deaconesses. The answer to that question is just like in the Old Testament. The extension of the principle concerning deacons in the New Testament is evident in Phoebe whom Paul identifies by name and describes her as a deaconesses in Romans 16:1.

Conclusion

God made his declarations in the form of principles and practices for Israel. He was not vague or ambiguous. Despite the focus and bearing down on single words in isolation to extract a clear meaning of what God said that limited focus can be one part of our understanding. The second part of that is to understand what he meant. In the matter concerning women as prophetesses and deaconesses God did not leave us to guess or to wonder. He has given us His word and His meaning together with graphic demonstrations for us to understand. Whether we accept it is a completely different matter.

The truth is that the reactions and attempts of men, and not a small number of women, to rationalize their at-odds and inconsistency between their understanding or lack of understanding of principle and practice is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of the carnal emotions of the heart and whether we will allow ourselves to continue to be deceived by those emotions. This effect of the emotions of the heart were graphically demonstrated and modeled in the jealousy of Joshua when he saw Eldad and Medad prophesying. The same carnal emotions was graphically demonstrated in the apostles when they argued among themselves as to which one of them was the greatest. They revealed their own mistaken notions of exclusivity when they  thought Jesus would beam proudly that they had done their best to prevent a disciple from casting out demons in the name of Jesus because that disciple was not walking with them and Jesus.

What all of these objections and oppositions reveal in common is that they have nothing to do with gender. They all have to do with the notions of prestige, power and positions of males, particularly, and the emotions that come into play with them. Gender is merely the more useful cudgel which seems most effective when muttering something vague about what God never said or God never meant concerning women, our sisters in Christ, as prophetesses and deaconesses. It is far better to speak clearly and out loud and teach the scriptures for the understanding and edification of the saints in the body of Christ, the church.

Read More

Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire

Was the baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire limited to the apostles only? No. Is it a deep, dark and obscure mystery which God did not intend for believers to understand. No. This article will look at the expression baptize you will the Holy Spirit and fire as it appears in the gospels as cited below. I have no interest in labeling or blasting anyone. If the are wrong or mistaken on their understanding it is my hope that they will better and more fully understand. If they are doubtful as to their understanding my hope is for their edification. If they do not know one way or the other my hope is for them to acquire wisdom, knowledge, understanding and confidence that they might fully rejoice in the Lord and the fellowship of the saints. Whatever anyone else might believe, seek to impose on them or cause them to doubt my hope is that they will teach with conviction what they have come to understand for the edification of their brother and sister in Christ.

The testimony of John the baptist

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11)

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8)

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Luke 3:16)

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33)

The testimony of Peter

You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16)

The testimony of Jesus

Can you drink the cup I will drink, or be baptized with the baptism I will undergo? (Mark 10:38)

I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! (Luke 12:50)

You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5)

terms

The term immersion in almost any sense that it is used is associated with the idea of totality. At least in daily practice it is the closest one can come to cutting off all ties and association with what one is familiar and to go it alone, or as the popular term says, to go native. Among Christians the term immersion is familiar with its anglicized form of the term as baptism. The reality is that words, just like things visible or things not visible, are subject to a range of different understandings, not all of which can be right, not all of them can be wrong, but one of them must be right.

When it comes to the expression baptism of the Holy Spirit this is unexceptionally true. Clearly, there are the instances involving the close proximity of baptism and the receiving of instantaneous gifts. These would include, for example, the gift of tongues. Although it is easy to interject and mix baptisms (a topic for another study) these are not the same. I hope this becomes evident by the end of this article. 

no insight

Jesus, the Son of God, ate, talked and walked among men. The disciples, who would later go forward as apostles, saw him with their eyes and touched him with their hands. Nonetheless, there were numerous times when what the people, including the disciples, saw and heard was not sufficient for them. They wanted more. Even his disciples who experienced a hands-on reality with the feeding of the 5,000 (Mark 6:52) never perceived the miracle. Mark notes that they did not gain any insight from that miracle.

Yet, Jesus was steadfast to declare and assert that the words and the works are what he had, both as proof of the Father being in Him and Jesus being in the Father, and as the proof of his deity.

If this was not sufficient or adequate to fulfill the expectations of his listeners and other doubters it is not surprising to hear the same today of those who hear, but either do not understand or reject the testimony of the scriptures, as been insufficient for them.

The Holy Spirit, after He was sent into the world by the Father[1] and the Sons[2] according to the promise of the Father, was not visible or palpable to the human senses. So, it is not surprising and perhaps more so than Jesus that the Holy Spirit was and continues to be the subject of demands for more visible, palpable and sensual proof in order for them to believe the presence of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit in them and their brothers and sisters in the Lord. It is not surprising then that the Holy Spirit who is not visible and palpable becomes like clay to be freely shaped and formed according to the individual's notions with all sincerity and as he or she believes. This represents their guidance, the believer’s own internal emotions and feelings into which no one can enter, except maybe and in due time, the understanding that comes from the written word of the Lord as given by the Holy Spirit. However, even understanding of the word of God without insight is like the disciples' direct experience with a miracle. They would later demand of Jesus, Lord, just show us the Father and it is enough for us.[3]

being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire

The expressions along with their scripture citations above represent the testimony of John the baptist and the apostle Peter. These are with respect to and their use of the expression of the two key terms together of Holy Spirit and baptism. Notably, Matthew and Luke are the only ones to include the term fire in the expression. Ironically, the testimony of Jesus is that He himself of whom John testified would baptize the disciples with the Holy Spirit and fire, does not use the expression of fire as it appears in the gospel accounts by Matthew and Luke. This is not an error. It is not an inconsistency. The very life of Jesus is a fulfilling, fitting testimony of the missing term of fire. I have often noted that there is good reason to be leery when one's understanding and teaching is centered and is isolated on a single passage or a single word.

The Holy Spirit, as pronounced, declared and revealed by God, is the epitome of the word of God. It, that is, the word, is the means of communication between God and mankind. Hence, the Holy Spirit did not originate when He was sent into the world. Yet, even when that word manifested Himself in the flesh [4] the efforts to dismiss that word as nothing more than a mere man abounded endlessly as being insufficient. Surely, there must be more to God. The word is pushed aside. Surely, there must be something more than ink and paper, as the word is often denigrated, as though the LORD God required something more like a chisel and hammer than when He spoke creation into existence. There is no end in sight, I believe, as to how far and how long the word as spoken by the LORD God and as written by his servants as being insufficient. Quite simply the place, value and significance of words when it comes to understanding the expression baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire are as much as cast into the fire.

the testimony of amazement

The testimony from Luke about those who witnessed the incident on Pentecost is telling and significant. They were amazed. The testimony of their amazement was not about the visible tongues as of fire which rested on the apostles. The testimony of their amazement was that Jews and proselytes who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost from far away lands each one of them was hearing them speak in their own language. What was visible with tongues as of fire was no less evident in the hearts and conviction of the apostles. What the apostles experienced was precisely as Jesus said to them concerning the Spirit of truth: 

. . . whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. [5]

the prophecy of Jesus on being baptized with the Holy Spirit

Jesus prophesied in the present tense to the disciples that the Holy Spirit "abides with you." [6] Equally significant is that Jesus prophesied, on the same occasion, in the future tense to the disciples that the Holy Spirit "will be in you" for the understanding of the disciples even if that they did not fully understand his words in the moment. Even when they did not realize what they were asking Jesus declared that they would most certainly be baptized with the same baptism as he. [7]The future for them to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire was as near as fifty three days away on the day of Pentecost.

This was, as unspectacular and insufficient and as deep, dark and obscure as it may seem, the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It was when they received power. Significantly, the first manifestation of that power was the message of the gospel which they proclaimed with boldness. Just as significantly, it is how every disciples reveals to the world his commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior by submitting to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

the prophecy of Jesus on being baptized with fire

Jesus, as I noted earlier, never used the term fire in his prophecy. However there was to be no mistake or uncertainty that the same suffering which Jesus endured was what awaited the disciples and every believer who follows after Jesus. The fire of suffering is the test of the faith of the disciple and by which he or she is refined as fine gold. This baptism by with fire is neither, as some teach, the infliction of punishment on the unrighteous anymore than it is the punishment of the follower and disciple of Jesus.

Does this seem way too much so as to not take up your cross and follow Jesus? Then, do not deceive yourself. Jesus said, You cannot be my disciple. [8]

conclusion

The baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire is a prophecy proclaimed by John the baptist about Jesus. The apostle Peter proclaimed it as he remembered the expression which he ascribes it to Jesus. The Lord Jesus proclaimed it of himself, but also of his disciples. Jesus made it manifest, real and graphic for the disciples to behold and understand without any doubt what it means and what is involved in the reality of the expression, baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire of the apostles is not a deep, dark and obscure mystery. The baptism with the Holy Spirit is what every disciple receives when they respond in obedience to Jesus as Lord and Savior. What Jesus made clear to his disciples was that although the Spirit was WITH them that Holy Spirit would be IN them. This is that moment when the message of the kingdom of heaven as revealed through the Holy Spirit ceases to be some cool and interesting stuff. It is when one understands the message and submits to it for what it is, the word of God.

The internalization of the message of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the Holy Spirit himself, is what then opens up the disciple to be the, like the apostles, as a spectacle to the world. This is the fire, with varying degree and frequency, with which the disciple is proved and refined like fine gold.

This is the fire of the suffering of Jesus as He was tested which the disciples as witnesses. Jesus, although he was a Son He was not spared in order that he learned obedience [9]. A key reason for the suffering of Jesus which the disciples beheld was that they would gain insight. This is no less and without exception than is expected of all disciples. It is that we might discern, for instance, the working of miracles by the power of God. Perhaps this is not sufficient for you? Take courage in what you read, understand and accept in the written testimony on being baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire and do not lay it aside as being insufficient and search in vain for a suitable substitute.

Read More

Real Time with the Father

But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." [1]

Therefore Jesus and was saying to them, "Truly truly I say to you, Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. [2]

The above passages (John 5:17, 19) are favorites. Particularly, the passage of John 5:19 is often cited by some believers to deny the deity of Jesus. It is, according to them, an admission of the human ineptitude of the Son who can do nothing of Himself. There is an even greater travesty, namely, that other believers are squeamish about the passage. They avoid it in the fear that it might affirm the denial of the deity of Jesus which they rightly, but sheepishly and timidly, proclaim about Jesus. That is not something to which they are prepared to reply. This fear may be what gave rise to the popular, but mistaken, compromised teaching of Jesus as “one hundred percent man” and “one hundred percent God” as well as talk about the “God part of Jesus” and the “human part of Jesus.”This, interestingly enough or bizarrely enough depending on your perspective, is actually the confluence, the merging, of belief and unbelief concerning the deity of Jesus.

Read More