God's Indwelling Spirit

     In trying to understand and explain the Holy Spirit’s role, we can observe two extremes: (1) those who attribute nearly every emotion and experience to the direct working of God’s Spirit; and (2) those who refuse to even consider the possibility that the Spirit may function beyond His long-completed work of inspiring the Bible. This brief article does not attempt to answer all the difficult questions surrounding this admittedly complex issue. As one studies the biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit, like any other aspect of God, the vastness of the subject can be overwhelming. To what extent is the Spirit currently involved in our lives, and exactly how does He work?
The Spirit and the Word

     There is no question that a crucial function of the Holy Spirit has been the transmission of the divine will from the heavenly throne to man on earth. God’s revelation was delivered by the Spirit to specially chosen individuals (Eph. 3:5; 2 Pet. 1:21) until that message was complete in its written form (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19). The word of God is now the medium through which the Spirit representatively accomplishes His work (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12). But does the Holy Spirit have a role to play beyond the instrumentality of the Bible?
The Gift of the Holy Spirit

     We learn from Acts 2:37-38 that when the Spirit’s message of truth (preached by Peter) convicted the hearts of sinners and instructed them to repent and be baptized, at least two things were to happen as a result of their obedient response: (1) the remission of sins, and (2) receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit.”¹ The questions are, what is the gift of the Holy Spirit and is it still available today?   

     Although the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit is also called “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 10:45 (cf. 11:17), most would agree that the special circumstances of Acts 10 are not typical for all baptized believers.² In fact, for the first five and a half chapters of Acts there is no record of anyone possessing the miraculous power of God’s Spirit except the apostles (2:43; 4:33; 5:12). Grammatically “the gift of the Holy Spirit” can refer to either a gift the Holy Spirit gives (subjective genitive), or the Holy Spirit Himself as the gift (objective genitive), or it could be a combination of these two possibilities.

     The first consideration is a gift that is given by the Spirit. Notice in Acts 2:38-39 the words “gift” and “promise” in connection with the remission of sins at baptism for those who are called. We are called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14) and are partakers of God’s promise in Christ through the gospel (Eph. 3:6). Those who are called “receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). By obeying the gospel we “receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified” (Acts 26:18). The Bible tells us that “eternal life” is both the promise of God (1 John 2:25) and “the gift of God” (John 4:10, 14; Rom. 6:23). Salvation by God’s grace is also called “the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Since salvation is not possible without the remission of sins (1 Cor. 15:17-19), and remission of sins is not available apart from baptism (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 22:16), could it be that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is the promise of eternal life which is received when one’s sins are forgiven at baptism?³

     Another consideration is the Holy Spirit Himself as the gift. The apostles declared that “the Holy Spirit” is given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32), and the Holy Spirit is said to indwell God’s children (1 Cor. 6:19). It is true that both the Father and the Son indwell Christians (1 John 4:12, 15-16; 2 John 9), but they do so representatively “by the Spirit” whom we have been given (1 John 3:24; 4:13). Biblically, grammatically, and practically the subjective/objective genitive options are not mutually exclusive but readily harmonize.⁴ This is further clarified when we consider the expressed purpose of God’s indwelling Spirit.
The Indwelling Spirit

     The Bible teaches that after we have heard and believed the word of truth and have entered Christ, we are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:13-14). We can only be “in” Christ if we have been baptized “into” Him (Gal. 3:27), and then we are said to be “sealed” with the Spirit, who is our “guarantee” or “pledge.” Also note that He is referred to as “the Holy Spirit of promise” (cf. Acts 2:38-39), and is mentioned in the context of “the forgiveness of sins” and obtaining “an inheritance” (Eph. 1:7, 11).

     In the Bible the word “seal” signifies proof or authenticity of ownership (cf. 1 Kgs. 21:8; Est. 8:8; Rom. 4:11). Because we have this seal, the Lord “knows those who are His,” with the accompanying expectation of spiritual purity (2 Tim. 2:19). We are to glorify God in our bodies because we now belong to Him and have His Spirit abiding in us (1 Cor. 6:18-20). To live in sin is to “grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16). Note that the Spirit does not bear witness to our spirit, but with (summartureō), meaning “to testify or bear witness together with another, add testimony.”⁵ In addition to our own spirit, which confirms whether or not we are living in accordance with the Lord’s revealed will, the Holy Spirit Himself searches our heart and bears testimony to God. I might deceive myself but not the Lord. 

     The Holy Spirit also serves as a “guarantee” or a “pledge” of our inheritance (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5). That is to say, as long as we have God’s Spirit dwelling within us, we have the assurance of eternal life. Is it possible, then, to lose this guarantee? The Bible warns us not to “grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed ...” (Eph. 4:30). The Lord turned against His erring people in the past when “they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit” (Isa. 63:10). After violating God’s will, David prayed: “do not take Your Holy Spirit from me” (Psa. 51:11). While the Spirit is our seal, testifying to God that we belong to Him, God will not recognize as His those who continue to practice iniquity (2 Tim. 2:16-21). Since it is possible to forfeit salvation by falling back into a sinful life (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20-22), it must therefore be possible to lose salvation’s guarantee.
Summary

Ø  Salvation is possible only when sins are forgiven (1 Cor. 15:17-19).

Ø  The sins of a penitent believer are forgiven at baptism (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Ø  Salvation is therefore granted at baptism (1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 6:3-5).

Ø  Salvation is both a promise and a gift of God (Rom. 6:23; 1 John 2:25).

Ø  The Holy Spirit is both a promise and a gift of God (Eph. 1:13; Acts 5:32).

Ø  The Lord saves those who obey Him (Heb. 5:8-9).

Ø  The Lord gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32).

Ø  The Holy Spirit serves as a guarantee of God’s gift and promise of salvation (Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:5).

Ø  The Holy Spirit, therefore, must be given at the same time salvation is granted, namely at baptism (Acts 2:38; 5:32).

Ø  Since continued faithfulness is necessary to maintain one’s salvation, continued faithfulness must therefore be necessary to retain the indwelling Spirit (1 John 1:7; 2:3-6, 15-17; 3:24).

Other Functions     
     Are there other functions that also may be ascribed to the indwelling Spirit? Romans 8:26 tells us that “the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses.” While this is undoubtedly accomplished through the instrumentality of the word (Rom. 15:4), the passage goes on to explain that the Spirit makes intercession for us when we do not know what we should pray for as we ought (vv. 26-27). Could it be that the indwelling Spirit is how God enables us to withstand and escape seemingly insurmountable temptations? (1 Cor. 10:13). Is this what Paul had in mind when he prayed that God would grant us “to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:16)? The Holy Spirit most certainly does not take away a person’s free will or remove one’s responsibility to evade sin, but even the most devout Christian cannot conquer sin by his own fallible strength (Jer. 10:23; Rom. 7:14-25; 1 Cor. 10:12). Note the cooperative effort when you put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (Rom. 8:13).

     While we surely want to be open to anything the Lord has provided to aid in our spiritual walk, at the same time we ought to be sensible enough not to attribute things to God or to His Spirit for which He is not responsible. Contrary to what many seem to believe, the Holy Spirit is not God’s agent of providence (cf. Heb. 1:14). When people confidently affirm, “I know God did this”⁶ or “the Holy Spirit led me to do that,” how can they be sure? If it has not been revealed in God’s perfect word, how do we know these emotional and subjective “leadings” are not from one’s own subconscious will, or from the subtle influence of others, or even from the devil? Many conflicting doctrines, subsequent divisions, and inappropriate behaviors have been accredited to and ultimately blamed on God and His Spirit. Since each one of us will be held accountable for every careless word spoken (Matt. 12:36), we must be careful not to presumptuously credit God with specific things that cannot be substantiated in His inspired word.
Conclusion

     While it is important to note that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the word of God, at the same time the Spirit and the word are inseparable. Without the Holy Spirit we would not have God’s word (Eph. 3:3-5; 6:17), and without God’s word we would have neither knowledge of nor the possibility of receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2; Eph. 1:13). The word of God is “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) which effectively works in those who submit to it (1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12). The Spirit-inspired word teaches us how to become children of God, and once we have obeyed and been saved by it (Jas. 1:18, 21; 1 Pet. 1:22-23), we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit to testify to God that we belong to Him as the redeemed in Christ and to guarantee our salvation as long as we abide by His teachings (Acts 2:38; 5:32; Rom. 8:16; Eph. 1:13-14). How do I know that I have God’s Spirit living within me? The Bible tells me so.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² There are at least three different manifestations of the Spirit in the New Testament. (1) The baptismal (full) manifestation was received by Christ (Acts 10:38), and to some degree by the apostles (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4) and Cornelius’ household (Acts 10:44-47); it was direct and temporary. The purpose was to confirm Jesus’ identity and message (see Tempted as We Are), to equip the apostles to carry on the Lord’s ministry, and to verify God’s acceptance of Gentiles (see Holy Spirit Baptism). (2) The secondary manifestation was received through the laying on of apostles’ hands (Acts 8:14-17; 19:6; Rom. 1:7-11; 2 Tim. 1:6) and was indirect and temporary. The purpose was to provide a means for God’s revelation and its confirmation in the absence of the complete New Testament (see Questions 2). (3) The ordinary (non-miraculous) manifestation is received by all who obey the gospel (Acts 5:32; 1 Cor. 3:16-17) and is abiding. The purpose is to establish a new relationship as the redeemed belonging to God (see Questions 1).

     ³ This could extend further to include all other spiritual blessings available in Christ as well (Acts 3:19; Eph. 1:3).

     ⁴ At the end of the day, whether or not I believe it or fully comprehend it or can adequately explain it -- it is what it is, and the reality of what the Lord does is not jeopardized or thwarted by my personal ignorance and limitations. Irrespective of the specific details of “how,” we can be assured that God is present and working in our lives (e.g. Eph. 3:16-17), which is all we need to know. 
     ⁵ Harold K. Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 382.
     ⁶ We can know that God providentially works in our lives (Rom. 8:28), but we cannot always be certain about the specifics (cf. Esther 4:14; Philemon 15). For an outsider's perspective on this, see Libby Anne's "The Most Unconvincing Evidence for God Ever," <Link>.

Related Posts: Perseverance of the Saints, Why Believe in the Holy Spirit?, Are You Listening to the Holy Spirit?

Related articles: Wes McAdams' Understanding the Spirit's Role

Image credit: http://cmsimg.news-leader.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=DO&Date=20130919&Category=LIFE&ArtNo=309190047&Ref=V1&MaxW=300&Border=0&Joyce-McMurtrey-Juliana-Goodwin-Ozarks-Life 

Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 2 of 2)

     Luke makes a clear distinction between the brothers of Jesus and the apostles of Jesus (Acts 1:13-14). Who, then, was the James whom Paul seems to include among the apostles and identifies as the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19)? Before this question can be answered, at least three more questions need to be considered: (1) Is adelphos (“brother”) used here in its literal sense, or is a more general usage intended? (2) What is meant by the term apostoloi (“apostles”) in this context? (3) Does ei mê (“except”) necessarily include James among the apostles?

     1.  If adelphos is used here in a more general sense, it is possible that the Lord’s “cousin” is intended and thus Paul may be referring to the apostle James, son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The word adelphos, according to H. K. Moulton, may be used in the broader sense of “near kinsman or relative” (Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 6). There was a Mary (not Jesus’ mother) who was the wife of Cleopas and mother of James and Jose[s/ph] (Matt. 27:56; John 19:25). If “Cleopas” is the Graecized form of the name “Alphaeus,” as some suggest, it is possible that James, son of Mary and Cleopas, is the same as the apostle James, son of Alphaeus. Furthermore, the wording of John 19:25 may suggest that Mary, the wife of Cleopas, was the sister of Jesus’ mother, which would then make Jesus and the apostle James first cousins.

     This view, however, is considerably weakened by the number of unprovable suppositions upon which it is based, plus other information that argues strongly against it. First of all, there is no evidence in the New Testament that the word adelphos (“brother”) is used in a broad sense to include near relations. Paul was familiar with the word “cousin” (anepsios), as we see in Col. 4:10, and could have used that word in Gal. 1:19 if that is what he intended. While the Hebrew ach (“brother”) is used loosely in isolated cases to designate male relatives of various degrees (cf. Gen. 13:8; 14:14; etc.) and is translated into Greek as adelphos, the New Testament usage does not appear to be as general (cf. BAGD 16). Even in the Old Testament, the context makes it clear whenever the word “brother” is used in any but its normal sense, which we do not find in Gal. 1:19. The word adelphos simply means “a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother)” (J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon 10).    

     Furthermore, the idea that James was the cousin of Jesus depends on the assumption that three rather than four women are mentioned in John 19:25. If it is concluded that Mary is the sister of the Lord’s mother, the problem is the unlikelihood that two sisters would have the same name! Since Salome was also present on this occasion (Mark 15:40), could she not be the sister of Jesus’ mother (making the sons of Zebedee [James and John] the Lord’s cousins)? Another difficulty is the uncertainty that the names Cleopas and Alphaeus are identical, and even if these appellations are derived from the same source, there is no evidence that they belonged to the same person. Finally, if James and his brothers were merely the Lord’s cousins, it is hard to account for the fact that they were regularly in the company of Jesus’ mother (Matt. 12:46-47; 13:55; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12) rather than their own mother, who was still living at the time (Mark 15:40-41). When Paul speaks of the Lord’s “brother,” he is apparently referring to James, the literal half-brother of Jesus.

     2. The next question is how the word apostolos (“apostle”) is used by Paul in Gal. 1:19. If it is used in a generic sense, then it is possible for James to be called an “apostle” without being included among the twelve. In the New Testament the word apostolos generally refers to one who is sent and thus can be used in the sense of a delegate, envoy, or messenger (BAGD 99). Epaphroditus, having been sent by the Philippi church, was their apostolos or “messenger” (Phil. 2:25). Brethren who were sent to distribute relief aid were called apostoloi (“messengers”) of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23). Barnabas and Saul are called apostoloi (“apostles”) after being sent out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:3; 14:4, 14). Jesus Christ, having been sent by the Father (John 17:3), is described as the apostolos (“apostle”) and high priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1).

     While it is plausible that James is referred to as an apostolos in the broad sense, it is not likely. For one thing, James does not appear to have been sent out anywhere, but remained in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12), although it seems he did “take along” a believing wife (1 Cor. 9:5) and may have gone out to the areas surrounding Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:14, 25; 9:28). But Paul appears to be consistent with his use of the word apostolos in his epistle to the Galatians (1:1, 17, 19; 2:8), the most obvious sense of which is not generic. Therefore apostolos in this passage evidently means “apostle” in its official, customarily understood sense.

     3. The final consideration is the meaning of ei mê in Galatians 1:19. The combination of ei (if) and mê (not) is used in a negative statement to mean “except” or “but.” In Galatians 1:19 the footnote of the ASV suggests “but only” as an alternate translation, and Hugo McCord renders this verse: “I saw no other apostle, but I did see James (the Lord’s brother).” If this is what Paul had in mind, then James is not included among the apostles and the problem is solved.

     Bear in mind that the easy answers are not always the right answers, but the integrity of scripture is not impugned when alleged discrepancies are more carefully investigated. It is reasonably clear that when the accounts of Paul and Luke are interwoven, the harmony of events may be summarized as follows. Paul went to Jerusalem about three years after his conversion. He was briefly introduced to the apostles, but spent most of his time with Peter and preached to unbelievers in Judea. He did not get to know the other apostles during this visit, but he did become acquainted with James, the Lord’s brother. Luke and Paul highlight different aspects of the same historical events, but they complement rather than contradict each other.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Harmonizing Luke & Paul Part 1, The Epistle of Jacob, James of Alphaeus

Related articles: Barry Newton's Did Paul Agree with Luke?

Image credit: Franz Mayer’s St. Luke and St. Paul, <http://www.oakbrookesser.com/images/restoration/trinity/th_lukeandpaul.jpg>.

Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 1 of 2)

     The activities of Paul after his conversion at Damascus are briefly detailed in Galatians 1:15-24. The problem is, Paul’s version of events is different from the historical information provided by Luke, and the two accounts are difficult to harmonize. Apparent discrepancies include the following:

First, Luke gives the impression that Paul went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion (Acts 9:26), but Paul says there was at least a three-year interval (Gal. 1:18).

Second, Luke reports that Paul “was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out” (Acts 9:28)¹ and preached “in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea” (Acts 26:20), whereas Paul claims that he “was unknown by face to the churches of Judea ...” (Gal. 1:22).

Third, Luke mentions that Paul met “the apostles,” implying that he met all of them (Acts 9:27), yet Paul affirms that he saw only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19).

Finally, Paul seems to include James “the Lord’s brother” among the apostles (Gal. 1:19), while Luke does not (Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).

     The first two difficulties are reasonably simple to resolve. Luke’s purpose in writing the book of Acts was not to give an intricately detailed description of the early church’s activities. In fact, he covers approximately 32 years of history in only 28 chapters. His brief historical overview is easily filled in with information recorded elsewhere in the New Testament. The statement, “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem …” (Acts 9:26), does not indicate whether this was immediately after his initial stay in Damascus or after a few years. No time period is specified, therefore no discrepancy exists between the respective accounts of Luke and Paul.

     Next, how could Paul have preached “in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea” (Acts 26:20) and yet be “unknown by face to the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22)? First of all, Jerusalem is often distinguished from the rest of Judea (Luke 5:17; 6:17; Acts 1:8; 2:14; 8:1; 26:20). Secondly, Paul was preaching to non-Christians in Judea, not to the churches (Acts 9:29; 22:18; 26:17-23). Again, Luke’s version of events is easily harmonized with Paul’s.

     A more challenging dilemma is Luke’s intimation that Paul met all the apostles (Acts 9:27), while Paul claims that he saw only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). The word translated “to see” (NKJV) in verse 18 is historeô, which actually means to visit for the purpose of getting to know someone (BAGD 383). The NASB renders this word, “to become acquainted with.” Paul did more than just casually observe Peter. He spent time with and got to know him.

     When Paul writes that he did not “see” the other apostles (Gal. 1:19), the word he uses here is eidon. Like historeô, the term eidon has a broader range of meanings than simply to view with one’s eyes. It can also carry the idea of experiencing something or visiting with someone (cf. Luke 8:20; 17:22; 1 Thess. 2:17; 3:10). For Paul, “seeing” (eidon) the brethren in Corinth meant spending time with them (1 Cor. 16:3-7). It is also used in the sense of getting to know someone (cf. Luke 9:9; 23:8; John 12:21; Acts 28:20). Paul wanted to “see” (eidon) the saints in Rome, which involved much more than just looking at them (Rom. 1:10-15). Paul seems to be saying in Gal. 1:18-19, considering that eidon is so closely connected with historeô, that he simply did not get acquainted with the other apostles. Apparently he was briefly introduced to them (Acts 9:27), but he only spent considerable time with and got to know Peter and James.  Thus, the accounts of Paul and Luke are not inconsistent.

     The final and more difficult challenge is determining which James is referred to in this passage and whether or not he was actually included among the apostles. There is more than one person identified as “James” in the New Testament. One is John’s brother, the son of Zebedee and Salome (Matt. 4:21; 27:56; cf. Mark 15:40), killed by Herod Agrippa I in the year 44 (Acts 12:2). But it is highly unlikely that he is the one considered by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Another of the twelve apostles was also called James, namely the son of Alphaeus and Mary (Matt. 27:56; 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is probably the one also known as “James the Less” (Mark 15:40). Could this have been the James identified by Paul in Galatians 1:19 as the Lord’s brother?

     Jesus was not an only child, and he did have a brother named James. Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, her firstborn son (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7). If Jesus had been her only child, he would have been described as her huion monogenê (“only son”) rather than her huion prôtotokon (“firstborn son”). There is a strong implication here that Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Moreover, the Gospels reveal that Jesus had at least four half-brothers and at least two or more half-sisters, and the brothers were named James, Jose[s/ph], Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

     It is interesting that among the apostles were those who also wore the names James, Simon, and Judas (Luke 6:15-16), and attempts have been made to identify them as the Lord’s brothers. One argument against this conclusion is the distinction made between the apostles and the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:13-14). But this objection is not conclusive since the same apparent distinction is also made regarding the apostle Peter (1 Cor. 9:5; cf. Mark 16:7). However, that the half-brothers of Jesus were not counted among the original apostles is evident from the fact that even after the twelve had been chosen (John 6:67), the Lord’s brothers did not believe in him as the Christ (John 7:5).² The next article will consider this further.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.
     ² Neither is there sufficient data to support the hypothesis that Joseph and Alphaeus were brothers and James was the product of a Levirate marriage between Joseph and Alphaeus' widow. 

Related Posts: Harmonizing Luke & Paul Part 2, James and the Law of Moses, The Epistle of Jacob, What did Paul do in Arabia?

Image credit: Rembrandt’s “Two Old Men Disputing,” <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Rembrandt_van_Rijn_185.jpg>.