Monthly Archives: May 2018

“AND HE GAVE *SOME* TO BE…”

This is a rambling sort of a piece. There’s no cure for me. But maybe there’s enough in it that some will feel whatever truth there is in it and maybe that’s all I should expect from what’s here.
They’re older now. They’re tired now! It isn’t just their age! They’ve raised children, they’ve worked hard so many years, they’ve been bereaved, they care for their grandchildren to allow the parents to make their way in life and they turned up to worship God with a faithfulness and consistency in that matter that can only be admired.
Many of them hear constant calls from preachers to better moral response, for more effort to engage in “the work of the Lord” and particularly in relation to the unconverted. After all evangelism is the responsibility of the entire congregation and not just the “evangelist”—who characteristically is more of a “pastor” than an evangelist.
For various reasons we find the word “pastor” unacceptable for one who is an “evangelist”. But many (is “most” too sweeping a statement?) who call themselves or are called “evangelists” are more like “pastors”. We might object to the term but we engage in the practice and (it would appear) without thought or apology. It might also be the case that quite some time ago we substituted the word “minister” for “evangelist” because it gives more room for maneuvering. I mean, if you call someone (or he calls himself) an “evangelist” we still sense that his business is outreach toward “the lost” (is that not true?); it (at least) strongly suggests that he mainly engages in “outreach,” in preaching to “the unforgiven” and “outsiders”. It seems such a focused “title”—“evangelist,” I mean. Call him a “minister” and it sort of suggests, if it doesn’t now plainly mean he “serves” the congregation. That’s what the word “minister” means—is it not? When you put it that way, he’s not exactly an “evangelist”. Unless the word “evangelist” is only another word for “minister” or “teacher” or “pastor”. But, then again, I thought that all kinds of people were “ministers” (that is, servants, people who engaged, one way or another, in “service”. You know, like, say, “a deacon” or a “deaconess”—is that Romans 16:1, where we have the feminine form of “servant/deacon”?) I do see that there was a distinct group named “deacons” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13) which in very early days were often viewed as men being mentored toward becoming shepherds/pastors.
Ah, then, that might ease things. The preacher is just another one of the “ministers”. Is that how we use the word “minister” when we speak of “the local preacher”? Is that what we mean to do when we put his name up on our billboard outside? Is that what we mean when we introduce him to some friend with, “This is our minister”? Do we mean he’s just another one of us that “ministers”?
So, is it wrong to use the term “minister” of the one who preaches to the assembly of believers week after month after year? I think not! After all he serves (ministers to) the assembly in teaching and exhorting. But I do object to our confusing that with the work of an “evangelist”. I don’t doubt that on occasions these salaried ministers speak to the unforgiven, don’t you know, but then I know numerous people who speak the gospel to the as-yet unforgiven and they’re not salaried “ministers” or “evangelists,” “teachers” or “pastors”.
I do understand that areas of service often overlap. Thank God! One who teaches is “ministering”. One who evangelizes is ministering and one who pastors is ministering. ( I know one preacher who repeatedly insisted that Ephesians 4:11 should be rendered ”shepherds” rather than “pastors,” obviously ignorant (even after he was informed) of the fact that the word “pastor” means “shepherd”. His problem wasn’t lexical—it was/is sectarian.)
Romans 12:3-8 makes for enlightening reading—note the distinctions drawn between areas of service, though none of them is in conflict since, putting the best face on it, they are all expressions of the one body expressing the grace of God. Is it significant that he doesn’t mention evangelizing? Probably not. But then again, he might have thought that “evangelists” while they’re certainly God’s gift to the Church and to humanity was more focused to “outsiders” while his intention was to speak to “the family”. Moving from that.
Ephesians 4:7-10 speaks of Christ’s exaltation and His giving gifts to “men” and some of his gifts to “men” are listed in 4:11. I wonder if “men” in 4:8 speaks only of “Church members” or of humans in general. If Christ gave these specialized gifts mentioned to “Church members” for the benefit not only of the Church but for humanity perhaps “men” has that in mind.
No matter on that point also. Still, we’re not to forget that the Church is Christ for the world! What He gifts the Church with is for service to humanity. The gifts Paul mentioned are differentiated as: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. (Assuming for the moment that the ‘Granville Sharp rule’ doesn’t hold here the shepherds and teachers are two groups and not one.)

We’re told that Christ gave “some” to be this, some to be that and others to be something else. We must permit the text to say what it says. Once more, there is no conflict here—all the gifts blend and sometimes overlap to bless the specific congregations and the entire Body of Christ with growth and maturity which, in this section, stresses its being grounded in God’s truth/doctrine that it might be filled with the fullness of God (maybe Ephesians 1:22-23 works well here). If “evangelist” is a particular form of ministry–what is an “evangelist“?

While it’s clear to me that the very existence of the Church of God is a proclamation of and by the exalted Lord who indwells the Church through and as the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s Spirit, the Church is called to speak its truth (as the Lord Jesus did when He was engaged in His earthly phase of ministering). Again, that’s clear to me! Nevertheless, God gave “some” to evangelize. (You might Google Eusebius on the word “evangelist” and/or consult the wider literature on it and see what you think.) An “evangelist” doesn’t call himself. God gifts him and he is urged to be faithful to his calling (2 Timothy1:6; 4:5 and 1 Timothy 4:14). It’s probably important to say that the Timothy literature is more than the job description of an “evangelist” since Timothy functions as a special envoy of Paul at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3; 4:13 and perhaps Titus 1:5 is pertinent here).
My intention in this piece is to be accurate in presenting the biblical witness (write me if it needs corrected or balanced) but mainly I mean to be practical and speak to what I think is a common injustice about which little (that I know of) is being said.

I hear salaried preachers (many of them call themselves “evangelists”) repeatedly calling on the members of the congregations (“parts of Christ”—1 Corinthians 6:15) to engage in evangelism. That is, they are to carry the gospel to the non-Christians, the not-yet forgiven, the “outsiders” or the “unchurched”. My suspicion is that if the salaried “evangelists” spent their time evangelizing that more evangelism would be being done than currently is being done. At this point I’m isolating “evangelism” in the way that these ministers that I’m complaining about are doing. They want not only the young school and “professional” working people to engage in “outreach for the lost,” they want the older people to do the same (as if they weren’t already doing it). By “reaching out for the lost” (or some such phrase) they mean overt speaking the gospel to the unforgiven, or more likely, inviting them to the building so the unforgiven can hear the local minister (evangelist?) preach.
So what should we do? Should we say to the congregation, “You can’t expect the minister to do your evangelizing for you.” Or, “You mustn’t sit like a bump on a log just listening.”
These “bumps on a log” are paying the speaker’s salary, they’re feeding him and his family, they’re paying for his education and the education of his children, they paying for the comfortable home for his wife and children, they’re paying for his health insurance and theirs, they’re characteristically setting his retirement fund aside. They do all this to allow this “evangelist” to do what?
Do they pray for him and his family? Do they pray for the church at large and speak to God about the sad, bad world that needs Him so? Did they raise children to God’s glory who are now in the Lord Jesus and thrilled about it? Do they work on their grandchildren in the same way? Do they care for grandchildren so that their own children have a chance to make their honorable way in the world? Do they live honorably and kindly, compassionately and generously with their neighbors and in their brief contact with strangers and so adorn the name of Christ? Do they let His light shine so that people see their good works and glorify God in heaven? In living that way do they make the preacher’s sermons have the ring of truth (presuming he gospels when he speaks)? Do they gospel “away from the building” and assuming that they bring guests does the minister gospel?  Did they and do they by their constant trust in God and keeping a congregation alive give that young man who now stands as a local minister (evangelist?) in his place in the Lord’s Body? These “bumps on a log”—did they and do they do all that and more?
Is any part of that evangelism?
I wonder how many salaried ministers (evangelists?) speak regularly to the unconverted “about their souls”? I wonder how many “unchurched” persons they speak with in, say, six months. Do they go looking for them? Or do they just “work to make friends” with one for six months with nothing more than, “Come to see us at church sometime”? I’m not opposing “salaried” teachers or evangelists. I’m opposed to their being well salaried and forgetting who they’re talking to! God forgive them!
Let’s imagine that the average man or woman works and commutes 10 hours a day five days a week (leaving aside for now family relationships and work at home) and let’s suppose we were fools enough to say that has nothing to do with serving God. Let’s suppose we did that with the salaried minister (evangelist?)—his first 10 hours a day don’t register on the God’s service list so now he has only come up level with the members who are paying his salary. Imagine him then speaking to his congregation and telling them they need to become more involved in the work of the Lord. Especially in the matter of outreach so that the assembly can grow. What if we told these evangelists (?) your first 10 hours a day don’t count, nor do the other hours spent with family? Your doing the “work of the Lord” only counts after the first 10 hours a day. What if we said to the local preacher, “Let’s see you work 10 hours a day and then get involved in outreach after that.”? How would that go over?
So, should we encourage these non-preacher members to shrug off the truth about who we Christians are? Should we discourage their gospeling to the as-yet unforgiven? Heaven forbid! But are they not already engaged in it? Have they not been engaged in it over the years?
Maybe if our salaried teachers (evangelists?) would evangelize or if they’re salaried “teachers” and not evangelists teach us of the wonder of God and who we are in Him, maybe if we were constantly fed with sound doctrine about GOD, His nature, character, purpose and promises even older and tired people, maybe even younger people who spend a minimum of 40 hours a week + traveling to and fro to provide for their families as God has called them to do (1 Timothy 5:8), perhaps working mothers with children that require lots of attention might be able to shrug off or at least resist their weariness and have the energy and boldness to speak about their Blessed Lord & Savior to the as-yet unforgiven the way the salaried ministers (evangelists?) should be doing. Religious lecturing isn’t gospeling.
I think I understand that there’s more to my faithful service to God than paying a preacher a salary. Yes, I think I’ve got straight. But I confess I’m weary of hearing what I hear from so many pulpits. I’m weary too for our people and wonder how they stay alive on what’s dished out to them. The newest theological fashion, the endless explaining of what that verse means and why we must get it right and how others are getting it wrong and the steady—maybe incessant call, “We must do better, we must all work to make this congregation grow.” The Church of God can only continue to live because the Spirit of the Father & the Son dwell within it. Exactly how that works I don’t know but it’s got to be more than what I’m hearing.
Maybe our teachers/exhorters should look at these faith-filled and faithful people, thank God, thank them, speak comfort, peace and vibrant hope to the older ones as they approach the end of their race and then get on with making full proof of their own “outreach” ministry that without the constant support and prayers of the people they address would never have begun much less continue.

(Oh God! Sigh. We thank You for this assuring indisputable truth: that You are the foundation on which Your Church is built and that we don’t carry You but rather that You carry us. In the Lord Jesus and by His Spirit this prayer.)

 

THE HOLY SPIRIT, OLD TESTAMENT & NEW TESTAMENT

Psalm 139:7 ”Where could I go from thy Spirit, where could I flee from thy face?”

Most of this is obvious. I’m just collecting all the texts, wishing to leave an impression. The Holy Spirit is in the Bible from start to finish and He now indwells the Body of Christ as the Spirit of God’s Son and by this He constitutes the Church as indeed the extension of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. And “as the body without the spirit is dead” (James 2) so it is with Church which is His Body. I FAILED TO INCLUDE A PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE MAKING OF THE TABERNACLE. I’ll include it in total when I get a chance. SEE NOTE AT THE END OF THIS PIECE.*
I purpose later to offer a very brief survey of texts specifically related to the Spirit’s work with and in the person of the Lord Jesus and His earthly ministry.

Some of what follows I’m still wrestling with and would be happy for response at holywoodjk@aol.com. I mean to return to it. God enabling.

1. The Holy Spirit has always been around, working to create, bless and redeem. His presence and work is not unique to the New Covenant Church or Scriptures. He indwelt, guided and blessed the Old Covenant church also.
2. Who brooded over the formless earth like a hen over her chickens, bringing order and harmony out of the chaotic and uninhabitable and continues to make the earth fruitful? The Holy Spirit! (1) Who strove with rebellious humans for years to turn them back to God and life? (2) The Holy Spirit did!
3. When Abraham trusted God to make his own over-the-hill body and his wife’s dead womb fruitful and bear a child they couldn’t have hoped for, who was involved in the whole process right from the start? (3) The Holy Spirit!
4. Biblical writers sometimes think of “the Exodus” as the actual departure of Israel from Egypt but often they see it as the whole movement of God bringing Israel out of Egypt, through the wilderness and settling them in the land of promise.
5. Who was there delivering Israel from Egyptian captivity and bringing them through the Red sea? The Holy Spirit! Who was there in the midst of them, providing, as they wandered through the wilderness in need of food and rest? And who put up with their rebellion and murmuring, continuing to guide them though they grieved him with their wickedness? The Holy Spirit! (4)
6. Having freed them from the external conditions of slavery, who was it that dwelled in and worked with them, shaping them with life-transforming truths that redeemed them from internal slavery to all forms of corruption, enabling them to walk with their heads held high? The Holy Spirit! (5) Who built the Tabernacle through those people He chose and gifted? The Holy Spirit. (6) And when God’s supreme prophet needed help to spiritually guide the nation of Israel, it was the Spirit of God–the same Spirit that worked with Moses–that began to work in a more marked way with the seventy men chosen as colleagues to Moses, providing national guidance. (7)
7. When Joshua and his peers died, Israel forgot what God had done for them the result was anarchy, civil war, renewed slavery and abuse from other nations. It was the Holy Spirit who came upon certain deliverers, galvanizing the tribes into unity that resulted in freedom and rest. (8)
8. The Holy Spirit was there when the monarchy arrived, working through Saul until he showed himself an enemy of God’s purposes. So the Spirit of God departed from him and came mightily upon David who called the nation to be one people under one God. When he sinned grievously against God, he pleaded that God not take His Holy Spirit from him. (9)
9. It was during the period of the monarchy that the prophets made their appearance in earnest. Prophets who, like Micah were filled “with the Spirit of the Lord” (10) and Azariah who proclaimed assurance to Judah and her king. (11)  Both Nehemiah and Zechariah speak of the entire period before the exile as a time when God dealt with Israel through the Holy Spirit (12) and Peter speaks of “the Spirit of Christ” being “in” them when they foretold of the coming suffering and glorification of the Master and it was the Holy Spirit who moved men to write the Holy Scripture. (13)
10. Prophets saw a coming day of calamity because of Israel’s covenant-breaking behavior but they assured Israel that a time was coming when God would signal the renewal of covenant relationship with Israel by lavishly pouring out the Spirit on men, women, girls and boys, male and female servants, virgins and old men. It would be a day of new beginnings, a day marked out by renewed Spirit activity.(14)
11. It’s important that we remember that the work of the Spirit of God wasn’t confined to acts of dramatic redemption or merely “religious” activities. Psalm 104 combines the extraordinary with the steady, everyday blessing of the entire creation. This includes his providing the gift of “wisdom” which means “thinking like God” and learning to live in and enjoy the world under him. The whole of life is permeated with the activity of the Holy Spirit.(15)
12. Then came the deportation the prophets had foretold and Israel marched into the dark, but even in captivity the Holy Spirit was dwelling, speaking, enabling and promising. Ezekiel was among the captives when the heavens opened and the Spirit of God entered him. (16)  Again and again he speaks conviction and consolation which comes to its peak in 37:1-14 where a nation dead in sin and exile is assured that the Spirit of God would raise them from their graves and give them life. (17) Compare that with Genesis 2 when God breathed the “breath” of life into the lifeless “Adam”. 
13. When many returned to the land, chastened but not completely cured, they found life hard, their enemies eager, their situation precarious and unimpressive. But Haggai (18)  gave them the assurance that the covenant promise God gave to Abraham was still intact so they were not to fear, for not only was God faithful to his past promises, the Spirit of the Lord was “standing” in their midst. Zechariah encouraged Zerubbabel, the governor, to believe that the daunting task of establishing Israel again would be accomplished by the Spirit of the Lord. (19)
14. The literature of the Intertestamental period is littered with references to the Holy Spirit and his work in the lives of believers and elsewhere.(20)  Before the birth of John the Baptist and the Lord Christ himself, an angel assured the aged Zechariah that he would have a son who would be filled with the Spirit of God even from the womb. (21)  Luke 2 says the angel told Mary that in conceiving the Lord the Holy Spirit would come on her, “and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (an allusion to the Old Covenant Shekinah–the “glory” that stood over and in the Tabernacle). And there was the aged Simeon who was told by the Spirit that he would live to see the Lord’s Messiah and being “in the Spirit” he came into the temple, saw the Christ child and praised God for His faithfulness. (
23)
15. If all this is true–that the Holy Spirit was always and everywhere present, what are we to make of John’s statement that even in the closing days of Jesus’ earthly ministry, “the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified”? (24)
16. The “giving” (25)  and “receiving” of the Spirit in this passage hinges on the glorification of Christ and it has specific reference to believers in the Christ. It isn’t necessary to set it against all we’ve just surveyed. John knew very well that the Spirit had always been at work in the people of God and beyond, and that he had been with them throughout the public ministry of Christ, because he expressly said this. (26)  He had never been absent so the “giving” of the Spirit speaks of some specialized sense of His presence.
17. The glorification of Christ involved His glorious life, His atoning death, His resurrection and His glorious ascension to God’s right hand. (27)  Peter said “Exalted to the right hand of God he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.” (28)  This is precisely what Jesus was talking about when He said: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever”– (29)
18. The significance of the giving and receiving of the Spirit in the John 7 passage is generated because it relates to the return of the exalted Christ who had ended the earthly phase of His ministry and had become life-giving Spirit. (30)
19. In Acts 2, what Peter told his listeners was this: they were witnessing a new beginning, a new and special presence of the Holy Spirit who was now—what He could never have been before—the presence of and the representative of the glorified Christ who with His Father had taken up residence in the Messianic believers who constituted the new temple.
(30a). The Spirit could not function in this role earlier, precisely because the Christ in his earthly ministry was operating in the realm of the flesh (that is, under ordinary human limitations and within creaturely limits) and was not a glorified, ascended and universal Christ. For the Spirit to operate in this new way it was necessary for Christ to return to the Father. (31)
21. In the unfolding purpose of God, the Christ could not stay with them unless He first went away from them (through the process of dying, rising, ascension and glorification) and returned to them in the person of the abiding Spirit. (32)  So one of the differences between what went before God’s glorifying Christ and what happened after it, is more about the “new identity” of the Spirit than about degrees of intimacy or the kinds of things the Spirit did. The Spirit had become the presence of the glorified Christ who was no longer to be seen in “fleshly” terms (within mere human or even merely Jewish categories). (33)
22. In the Messianic age the Spirit “of God” while he continues to be the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, he is now identified as the Spirit “of Jesus” or the Spirit “of Christ” or the Spirit “of his Son”. (34)  Once more, this he could not be prior to the exaltation of the Christ, but now the Spirit comes in his name. (35)  So the John 7 passage really says more about Christology than about the Spirit.
23. Additionally, with the arrival of the Christ a new world order has appeared. (36)  The Christ is no longer a merely earthly figure but a “life giving Spirit” (37)  and his people are citizens of heaven, in the world but not of it. (38)  This means not only do they not view Christ in merely human terms, they don’t view themselves or anyone else after the flesh. (39) Their perspective is now “spiritual,” “heavenly,” that is, arising from the Spirit. (40)
24. In Acts 2, the wind and fire, the gift of languages not known to the speakers, the prophetic proclamation and the profusion of miracles connected with Pentecost, is a moment of crisis and new beginning, tangible proofs that these were the days of the Spirit of which the prophets had spoken. (41)
25. So it was not the presence and work of the Spirit that was new that was known throughout Israel’s history and mankind’s experience as part of the created order. But this was profoundly more than “business as usual.” Some of what was new was the setting in which the Spirit was now at work, the relationship He now sustained to the glorified Christ as the new and renewed manifestation of the Living Lord Jesus and His presence now in the newly created People of God. The Spirit is forever doing this kind of work, God breathes into Adam [humanity] the “breath” of life and man becomes a living being, God sends the wind [breath, spirit] into dead Israel in the valley of dry bones and a nation is resurrected. What happens in and through Jesus Christ echoes and brings to fullness all that has gone before and is reflected in the texts alluded to.
26. Close to the end of his earthly ministry, Christ told his people that he would send them another Counselor —one they know—who was already “with” them but would be “in” them. (42)  While it’s true that he later speaks of their whole new experience in terms of being “with” them (43)  it’s still true that he makes a distinction between “with” and “in”. (44)
27.  Jesus was speaking here of the time when the believers would become the new covenanted People and so would become the new temple in which the Christ and his Father would dwell through the Spirit. (45) The Spirit was with and in Israel prior to the covenant at Sinai, but with the Sinai events, Israel became something they had not been before. They became a covenant People or nation unto God who now dwelled in and among them as their (senior) covenant partner.
28. This work of Christ, in sending the Spirit [and coming in and as the Spirit] to anoint and indwell the Church, his Body, is what is meant by the phrase “baptized in the Spirit”. The phrase is from the Baptist (46) who wants the baptized penitents to know that their Christ is greater than he is. At the appropriate time, the Christ would give them the Spirit or, in the words of John, “he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.”
29. Israel of old and many individuals within it had been anointed before the Christ arrived, but with his coming the purposes and results of the anointings were new, that is, peculiarly focused. They would all come under the heading of glorifying Christ and making him Lord of all and Lord in peoples’ lives. The reign of God would rise to its final manifestation in relation to humankind.
30. The anointing of Israel of old with the Spirit, is replaced by the new anointing of a new Israel, who, with Gentiles become the new temple in which God dwells through the Spirit. (47) Those who share the faith of Abraham (rather than a place within the Sinaitic covenant), having been baptized into Christ become Abraham’s heirs. (48)
31. This move replaces the Mosaic covenant (which created two families–Jew and Gentile) with a “new” covenant which, in the Christ, makes of the two, “one new man, so making peace”.49 Israel is not “dumped” but her covenantal relationship with God is restructured and all people of faith become one with them.
32. By sending the Spirit in Jesus’ name and making him available to all who in trusting repentance take on them the name of Christ in baptism, 50  God shows the restructuring work is his. This he does in fulfillment of the words of the prophets, the Baptist and Jesus himself.
33. The Spirit’s anointing of Christ’s people was all they needed for a complete life with God in the Christ. He provided all things necessary for life and godliness and they needed nothing more! This anointing included gifted men and women who functioned within the Body in various ways.51
34. This is what John had in mind when he spoke of the anointing of the Church with the Holy Spirit who guides the church into all truth. 52 No pretended knowledge (via Gnostics or other radicals) is needed to complete them, there are no essentials missing that only the elite have access to. John is not suggesting that each individual has an anointing from the Spirit that makes him/her both infallible and exhaustively taught.
35. It is the New Community that’s baptized in the Spirit rather than each independent individual. By virtue of being part of the Community we are indwelled by the Spirit. Salvation and the reception of the Spirit is always personal but they’re not available in isolation–only within the covenanted community.
36. Suppose each human has what survives biological death, something we call “spirit” and which is said to dwell in us–we wouldn’t dream of saying, “Our spirit dwells only in our brain, our liver or heart” as distinct from, say, our foot or hand. No, our spirit dwells in “us,” no particular part of us. Nor would we dream of saying, “Our spirit doesn’t dwell in our toes or ears.” In saying the spirit dwells in “us” we mean “us” as a corporate whole and not independently in each organ as though we were a collections of independent pieces.
37. There is no “individual” indwelling of the Spirit. There are no “individual” Christians, independent units. It’s all right to speak of individual Christians as long as we know they only exist as various parts of a Body. A finger is not the whole body, it is an “individual” part of the body 53 but is an individual “part of the body”. We can only speak of a finger or foot or eye in the context of a corporate body.
38. And the indwelling is not any literal tabernacling of the Holy Spirit in us. The “indwelling” is another way of expressing his willingness to identify with and have holy communion with the covenanted Community, the Church. The indwelling is his gracious willingness to be and move among the people as their God in a peculiar covenantal way. “Indwelling” is not to be construed in a spatial sense but in a relatonal sense. We are said to dwell in God as surely as God is said to dwell in us. (54)
39. Whether the indwelling is “literal” or “figurative” the scriptures teach he indwells us. The good news is he continues to dwell in us and bless us despite our ignorance about the details.
40. Let me summarize:
The Holy Spirit has always been at work, creating, blessing, redeeming, nurturing, guiding, supplying and enlightening.
41. The prophets told of a day when the reign of God would become manifest in the Messiah and that that day would be made clear by the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. That time would be the period of covenant renewal.
42. God’s wondrous purposes became fully into view and imminent with the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth in whose life, death, resurrection and glorification the reign of God took on a greater glory than before.
43. The presence and work of the Spirit continued in some ways to be what it had always been, but it now took on a new significance. He became a witness to the glorification of Christ and to the identity of his covenanted people (the Church–made up of all nations). This meant he was working with a new phase of God’s purpose and it’s that new role that explains much of what is new in the New.
44. The Spirit, who is always the Spirit “of God” is made known as the Spirit “of Christ,” “of Jesus” and “of his Son”. This was not possible before the glorification of Jesus Christ.
45. The Spirit who had dwelt in the Old Covenant people—and visibly signaled that by the presence of the tabernacle and temple—now dwells in the New Covenant people which is made up of Jews and Gentiles who have received the Messiah. But the Son of God is not “one third” of God for GOD in one, indivisible GOD who is “tri-personal”. In the incarnation of the Word the fullness of GOD becomes incarnate. The differentiation is between “persons” in the One GOD. The Holy Spirit and Jesus are one (2 Corinthians 3:17-18) since they are “persons” with the Father and together constitute the ONE indivisible GOD. There is no confusions of “person” but the Father, Son & Spirit are one. (More later on this, perhaps. God enabling).
46. The Christ is said to “baptize in the Holy Spirit” when he sent the Spirit to the new covenanted people in whom he and his Father dwell through the Holy Spirit.
47. This new role of the Spirit might help explain the “sin against the Holy Spirit” of which Christ spoke.(55) For the Jews to reject the earthly Christ was sin but it could later be rectified. To reject the exalted Christ, who is now only and finally experienced through the Holy Spirit, is to sin a sin against Jesus as the Holy Spirit for which there can be no cure. There was/is no other Christ and there is no other way in which Christ as Lord is brought to the world. To despise the Spirit’s witness is to close the door to possible salvation because it is to despise the final manifestation of Jesus the Savior.
48. I know of no reason to say, with the majority of writers, that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New is that Old Covenant saints couldn’t keep the covenant because they didn’t have the Spirit to enable them. The Spirit, then, is supposed to have been sent to enable new covenant saints to keep the new covenant. I think this is a misunderstanding of the nature of both covenants.
49. The notion that the Old Covenant was “Spiritless” is a blunder and the view that ancient saints lagged behind New Covenant saints in faithfulness, that their love for and devotion to God was inferior and shallow is another blunder. Just by itself, the Hebrew writer’s “hall of fame” should put that claim permanently to rest.
50. It’s true that new truths were revealed and a new phase of God’s purposes arrived with the arrival of the New Covenant manifestation of the kingdom (reign) of God. The work and presence of the Spirit took on a special significance but all his enabling of people in Old Covenant times was just as real as any New Covenant enabling. With the arrival of the “fullness of time” that enabling work had a new thrust and development. It was “eschatological” and related to God’s new “end time” people and purposes which were centered in “the last Adam,” Jesus Christ.(56) All that is true, I think, but it has nothing to do with the depth and genuineness of the faith and devotion of ancient saints created and nurtured by the Spirit. At the ethical level, the glory of their lives was as rich as any in the present. Choose out examples from the New and they can be matched, at least, in the Old.
51. It’s not difficult to show formalism, apostasy and immorality in the ancients, but no one in the New Covenant writings condemns these as savagely as prophets in the old. Mere externalism was trashed by the prophets who called on people to have hearts that were circumcised and to give God themselves. Christ himself told us that the whole Old covenant canon could be summed up in the love commands. Paul followed his lead in that. (57)
52. I’m saying that much of the ignorance we attribute to Israelites under the Mosaic covenant is not theirs–it’s ours. I’m saying the Spirit made their lives lovely and sacrificial and God-fearing. I’m saying what is “new” about the work of the Spirit in the new covenantal arrangement has nothing to do with these matters and everything to do with God’s self-revelation in it’s most profound, full and unending climax in Jesus of Nazareth, now exalted and seen in and as the Holy Spirit..

 1. Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:29-30
2. Genesis 6:3-5
3. Genesis 17:17; 18:11; Romans 4:19 & Galatians 4:29
4. Isaiah 63:10-14
5. See Nehemiah 9:20; Leviticus 26:12-13; Exodus 29:43-46
6. See Exodus 35:10-11, 30-31
7. Numbers 11:10-30
8. See Judges 3:10; 6:34 and other places
9. 1 Samuel 16:13-14; Psalm 51:11
10. Micah 3:8
11. 2 Chronicles 15:1-8
12. Nehemiah 9:30; Zechariah 7:12
13. 1 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 1.21
14. See Joel 2:28-29; Jeremiah 31:31-34; 33:19-26; Ezekiel 36:26-28; 37:1-14,24,26-27
15. See Psalm 104, especially verse 30
16. Ezekiel 2:2; 3:4
17. See the piece, Wind of the Spirit
18. Haggai 2:5
19. Zechariah 4:6-10
20. See the works of Max Turner, Millar Burrows and others.
21. Luke 1:13-15
22. Luke 2:25-27
23. Luke 1:35
24. John 7:38-39
25. There is no “given” in the Greek text though the translations are no doubt correct in supplying it. See Acts 19:2 for something similar.
26. John 14:17
27. The cross is seen as an aspect of Christ’s glorification. See, for example, John 12:27-28 but Philippians 2:5-11 and 1 Timothy 3:16 would show more can be involved than the atoning death.
28. Acts 2:33
29. John 14:16,26
30. John 14:18,23; 16:7; 1 Corinthians 15:45. Christ retains his humanity, of course–1Timothy 2:5–but it’s a glorified humanity. See 1 Corinthians 15:42-50.
30a. John 14:23; Ephesians 2:19-22
31. John 16:5-7; 17:4-5, and see 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Corinthians 13:4; 1 Peter 3:18 (?)
32. John 14:16, 18,23,26; 16:5-7,16
33. 2 Corinthians 5:16
34. 1 Peter 1:11; Romans 8:9; Acts 16:7; Galatians 4:6
35. John 14:26
36. 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15
37. 1 Corinthians 15:45
38. John 17:14, 16; Philippians 3:30 and Revelation 12:12; 13:6 contrasting “earth dwellers” and “heaven dwellers”
39. 2 Corinthians 5:16
40. This is not to suggest that there was no “spirituality” before the Messianic age, far from it. I’m only saying that within the stages of development of God’s purposes, the Mosaic age, was categorised as the time “of the flesh” where the Messianic age is “of the Spirit”. Prior to the Christian era both Isaac and Ishmael were born in the usual way but it’s said that, “the son born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit”. See Galatians 4:28-29. The terms “flesh” and “spirit” are used in numerous different ways depending on the writer’s intention. And sometimes they are contrasting “realms”. Jesus says God “is spirit” (John 4). He isn’t saying God is “made of” “spirit” (as we are made of “flesh”. He appears to be saying God exists in a “mode of being” that is not earthly, physical but rather (perhaps) “heavenly”. He isn’t “locating” God or defining His essence (what He’s “made of”). 
41. Acts 2:16-18; Joel 2:28-29; Isaiah 44:3; 1 Peter 1:11
42. John 14:17
43. John 14:23
44. While I believe the distinction is intentional here, the point isn’t made just by comparing the prepositions. The Spirit was already “in” them as he was “in” Old Covenant prophets–see 1 Peter 1:11 but I think the passage here speaks of them as the new and indwelt temple soon to be constructed. We don’t learn all this simply by comparing the prepositions.
45. Ephesians 2:21-22
46. Mark 1:7-8
47. Ephesians 2:11-20
48. Galatians 3:26-29
49. Ephesians 2:15-16
50. Acts 2:16-39; John 14:26; Galatians 3:9,14
51. 2 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 4:8,11-16; 1 Corinthians 12
52. 1 John 2:20,27; John 16:13
53. See 1 Corinthians 12:17; Romans 12:4
54. John 14:20
55. Matthew 12:31-32 and parallels
56. This simply means that the Messianic age is the “final” age, the “end time,” the period to which all earlier dispensations led. When scholars speak of the “eschatological” Spirit they don’t mean, of course, it’s a different Spirit, only that the renewed and special sense of his presence now relates to the dispensation known as “the end time”.
57. Matthew 22:34-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14

* The Holy Spirit chose and gifted various leaders in the building of the Tabernacle. See Exodus 35:30-31 with 36:2. Then read the entire section beginning with 25:1-9 and skipping down to 35:4 to the end and then 36 where Moses has to tell the people to offer no more offerings. See the Spirit of God working in the men and women and stirring their hearts to the work.

 

IT’S SIMPLY TOO LATE NOW TO…

Christ comes from afar, comes to redeem and deliver us from Death and all that that means (John 3:17). He spends His entire life doing that in a life of teaching, giving, forgiving, helping and healing and then consummating it by sharing death with us—He hangs there streaked with sweat, spit and blood and speaks to us from there:
“I know you hear otherwise, but do I LOOK like I want you to grovel and crawl for forgiveness of sins? Have I EVER said a word that suggests that? Trust me, I don’t want that at all. You don’t feel that way toward those you love dearly. Neither do I. Rejoice in Me and that will make it easier to speak of Me when the opportunity is there. Lovers seek to please each other and to be good for each other. I believe in you as I believed in Isaiah and Peter and Paul and Moses and David—sinners every one. I DO believe in you! I DO. Believe in Me.”

When we reflect on His life, death, resurrection and His continued faithfulness now, it’s simply too late to doubt Him. It’s just too late now to do that.

“OUT WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD! THAT’S WHERE IT’S AT!”

It was some years back (maybe ten, something like that) but without effort I can see him as though it was yesterday (“were yesterday” if you prefer). There we were, a people in dire need of being gospeled and there he was with the tone and air of someone very wise and experienced. What he had to say was so well known to him that it wasn’t exactly boring to him but it was too bad that he had to say it one…more…time. Had we gained his eminence and knowledge we should have known what he was informing us about but obviously………
There he stood very casually dressed telling us in that understanding tone that it was all right for us to want to get things “right” when we assemble (you know, our singing and reading and prayers and engaging in the Lord’s Supper—“that kind of thing”) but it’s outside the building that “the rubber meets the road.” He had his soft-covered translation opened at some text and frequently gestured with it as he held it in his fist, rolled up, the way we often hold a rolled up magazine. What we carry to the assembly is only paper and ink. (A devout Hindu Christian in India some years ago gently instructed me on some things I was not to do with my Bible and some places where I should not set it down.) It was well known to our speaker anyway, it’s not having a paper and ink copy of the Holy Scriptures, it’s living them—out where the “rubber meets the road.”
It would be tragic—beyond tragic—if we thought that the sum total of our life with and for God is what happens during our gatherings and our getting all our religious convictions correctly in line. But, dear God, demeaning what happens, what hungry and reverent hearts purpose to happen, what they seek to experience in His nearer presence when they come to Supper with the Lord Jesus and in fellowship with one another in the Lord Jesus in heartfelt obedience—to speak dismissively of all that and more, is crass ignorance of who we are and what our gatherings are about.

Our speaker with his fistful of rolled up NT, his very casual dress and his (not quite) bored tone plainly told us that he knew so well what we obviously didn’t, went on to tell us that we needed to be kind and compassionate, honest, and in general we needed to be virtuous. Even that was spoken to us in a calm lecturing fashion. Having by this time exorcised all the wonder from the rolled up NT he waved from time to time, from the hymns we sang, the prayers the Suppering with and on the living Lord Jesus and the collection that was Jesus-imaging (2 Corinthians 8:9), he patiently moralized until closing when he offered an invitation to respond to “the gospel.”
There was no revealed mystery here, there was no declaration of war in the name of God and His Holy Son against all the rulers of the darkness of this world and their influence in us or around us and on behalf of a suffering and kept-ignorant world; there was no muted astonishment about sins forgiven, no presence of burdened people who needed their hearts lifted or cleansed or assured; there must have been no happy Christians made glad and further inspired.
He needed to put all that and so much more to the side, less important than our moral response away from this sacred (yes!) gathering, and take us out there “where the rubber meets the road.” What ignorance! What injury! When the moral becomes all and the religious becomes nothing. When the moral is spoken of in patient (or earnest) tones and the lovely mystery of the religious is (virtually) dismissed in very casual dress and with the waving and pointing of a fistful of rolled up Scriptures. (See the contrast in John 2:13-17 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and Malachi 3:16.)

They had been looking for Him for some days, asking friends and neighbors, (“Have you seen our son Jesus?”) and when they finally found Him in the temple they told Him, using an active imperfect verb, of their unceasing effort and concern). Bless me; he was a twelve year-old boy, the visit from up north to Jerusalem, the trip with all the excitement, his peers, the laughter, the games on the way, the running, chasing, the stories, the chores, the social joys and the anticipation of seeing the big city and the vast crowds. Wonderful! Life “out where the rubber meets the road” with its pleasures and responsibilities.
All that, without apology, and then He turned in loving religious reverence to the Temple. Just a building, and yet, not “just” a building, but a place dedicated to the telling of “the ancient story of miracle and the mystery of prophecy explained.” A place where the morally fine (and now gathered) people were reminded of their calling, of their peculiar existence as the People of God, and of their service to their God and the human family He loved so much.
“Oh,” He said, when they found Him in the Temple, listening to the teachers and asking them questions, and in response to HIS PARENTS’ distress He said, “I thought you would have known I must be about My Father’s business.” Luke 2:41-49
Poor boy Jesus. No matter, He would understand better when He was older and wiser, that being in the place of worship while it was…“yes, all right,” what really mattered only happened out “where the rubber meets the road.” Sigh.

(Holy Father, help us please. Give us servant ministers who drink deeply from your Holy Scriptures and learn of you and your Holy Son so that we will be enlightened and empowered to be about your business. This prayer in the Lord Jesus.)

 

APPROVED OR TOLERATED?

The Bible doesn’t supply and doesn’t pretend that it supplies every answer to every moral question we can raise. But it reveals God and comes to its greatest height when it reveals God in and as Jesus Christ. It does this in numerous rich ways and having done it the Bible urges us to work on that basis in answer to the question, “How then shall we live?” It provides the groundwork by which we can learn to “think theologically”.

Leviticus 19 tells Israel to leave the edges of their fields for the poor but doesn’t define an “edge”. Nor does it define “the poor” How are they to obey the call if they don’t know what an “edge” is or who “the poor” are? God concludes numerous verses with the motivational phrase, “I am the Lord your God!” But that’s more than motivation. It teaches them how to think of an “edge” or how to think of “the poor.” Not with a measuring line or a dictionary. They will know what an “edge” or “the poor” means when they know who their Lord is and wish to please Him; when they wish to act like Him. He’s the one that “brought you out of the land of Egypt.” Bearing that in mind, when they come to harvesting they’ll not quibble and get as near to the edge of their property as possible and they won’t debate the identity of “the poor” every generation. The issue isn’t settled by lexicons and logic, it’s by one’s experience with God and how that shapes his or her response to the neighbor.

It’s clear that the Bible tolerates things and we are seduced into thinking that that means those things are approved. To think this might not be sheer hardness of heart but it’s certainly ignorance. Pharisees saw “divorce for any cause” as approved by God and Jesus showed it was only tolerated and regulated. He makes it clear in Matthew 19 that they judged it approved because they were hard-hearted and often heartless.

The notion that polygamy was approved in the OT is false—it was tolerated and it was regulated. And slavery is tolerated in both the OT and NT but it’s never approved. (More needs to be said about “slavery” and what the word means in numerous OT texts because it is only a shallow reading of the OT that equates all OT “slavery” with what it has come to mean to us.) Concubinage is tolerated in the OT but never approved.

But since we in the West are not troubled with polygamy and concubinage we can shrug at all that. Now “slavery”—that’s another matter. It wasn’t very long ago that Western nations were using the OT to approve of slavery. (Let me repeat: in the OT, all “slavery” is not slavery.) Not long ago I heard a Bible teacher whose views I judge, borrowing a phrase, are like the older photographs we used to have—they are “underdeveloped and over-exposed”—I heard him tell a crowd that “Paul was wrong about slavery.” Poor soul, he thought Paul approved of it and then said Paul couldn’t conceive of a world without slavery. Someone who could conceive of a creation transformed (Romans 8:18-23) couldn’t think of a world without slavery? (That’s what this professor said and he went on to say worse.)

I want to make it clear that it simply isn’t enough to quote verses in support of our claims and conclude we have a right to practice the same or something similar.

The Pharisees as a group could quote Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and look back on many centuries of history and practice to support their divorcing their wives for what so often were trivial reasons. Jesus condemned their hearts and their behavior as “adulterous”. In essence He told them that that text wouldn’t have been in the Bible if they hadn’t been heartless fools.

They said, “See? We have lined our lives up with Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” and were proud of it; they had some verses to support them. He said, “If you hadn’t been doing wrong that text would never have been needed.” I once had a 20th century Western man argue with me his right to have more than one wife because the OT regulated (rather than outlawed) polygamy. It must have been okay because it was “regulated,” he insisted.

The same thing is done to defend and support “our friend” the booze industry. Because people in the Bible daily drank intoxicating wine and because God is said to give “wine” as a gift to humans it’s immediately assumed that that means He would be pleased with our supporting the booze industry. (I won’t enter the discussion here about the generic nature of the biblical words rendered “wine” and “strong drink” or “beer”. Another time perhaps, though it’s hardly worth the time—so I now judge, though I didn’t always take that view.) But the very idea that naturally fermented wine or beer or “strong drink” (as the Hebrew term is translated in English and you know what “strong drink” means to us) is anything like the wines and beers or spirits the modern booze industry sells—that’s nonsense! And I would suppose if you can drink it, you can share it, if you can share it you can make it and if you can make it you can sell it.

It doesn’t matter to me that tens of thousands of people can support the booze industry and not get overwhelmed. Good for them! If they were all that mattered I suppose the matter wouldn’t ever be worth discussing. But hundreds of millions of people—drinkers and those they affect—are put through torment by what the booze industry sells. There isn’t another “respectable” business under heaven that does the damage to a countless host of our struggling fellow-humans that comes anywhere near the ruin the booze industry generates.

We boycott all kinds of companies (from fur companies to soap to sauce) if we think they’re hurting animals or poor people in “sweat shops” and then we do what? We support and defend the worst plague on earth. And all because they drank intoxicating wine in the Bible and because Jesus made gallons and gallons of it (so we’re told though oinos doesn’t mean intoxicating wine). Well, there’s more to it than that, isn’t there! We prize our “freedom”.

One of these days if we’re “lucky” we’ll come to see that the booze industry is against all we’re for and for all we’re against!

To interpret the Bible in the spirit of the Story as a whole requires more than lexicons, grammars and other exegetical tools. I understand for personal reasons that we don’t always live up to what we know—my life has been littered with failures—and that’s tragic. But our failure to live up to the best we know mustn’t be used to lower the loving response to God that we see and hear in scripture.

God’s heart, His purpose and His love for the human family seen climactically in the Lord Jesus is the best hermeneutical tool available to us (see Ephesians 5:1-2; Romans 15:1-3 and chapter 14 as context). Each Christian will have to work this out within his/her own heart. But surely: “I have the right…” (real or imagined) is not to be and will not be the last word about a host of things to those who live before us reflecting the heart and mind of God better than the rest of us.