First Impressions: When Paul Met the Two Philips …

There are two principal characters in the NT by the name of Philip: the apostle Philip and the evangelist Philip.¹ The first meeting of Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. Paul the apostle) with each of these men would have been most intriguing. 

At the beginning of the Christian movement Paul, originally from Tarsus of Cilicia on the northeastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and the apostle Philip, from Bethsaida on the northeastern coast of the Sea of Galilee, were both living in Jerusalem (John 1:44; Acts 1:12-13; 7:58; 22:3). It is unlikely, however, they were personally acquainted at the time. 

Whether or not Paul was an official member of the Sanhedrin is debated, though he was certainly associated with this body of adjudicators and a pupil of one of its leading members (Acts 5:34; 22:3; 26:10). Philip and his apostolic colleagues were confronted by these Jewish authorities, arrested, interrogated, beaten, and given strict orders to no longer speak in the name of Jesus, a mandate they could not obey in deference to the greater authority of God (Acts 5:17-42). 

As hostilities continued to escalate in the Jewish capital, seven men were appointed to coordinate the church’s benevolent ministry, one of whom was also named Philip (Acts 6:1-6). He and his coworkers are not specifically called “deacons,” although the noun diakonía (“service,” “ministry”) and verbal diakonéō (“serve”) are used to describe their work (vv. 1-2). The apostles prayed and laid hands on these men, at least two of whom (Stephen and Philip) went on to publicly proclaim the gospel with confirming miraculous signs (v. 8; 8:5-6). Thus Philip is later referred to as “the evangelist” (Acts 21:8).²

When Paul Met Philip the Apostle

As a relatively “young man” (Acts 7:58), Paul participated in a fierce persecution against the Jerusalem church, forcing believers to flee except the apostles (Acts 8:1). Seeing that Ananias in far-away Syria was aware of Paul and his brutal exploits, Philip and his fellow apostles in Jerusalem almost certainly were as well (Acts 9:13, 26). 

About three years after Paul had departed from Jerusalem to extend his vicious campaign, he returned (Gal. 1:18). Even though he had been converted to Christ in the meantime, the local disciples were understandably apprehensive and skeptical (Acts 9:26-27). Since he had been responsible for the maltreatment and deaths of a number of their brethren,³ it would be natural to expect some degree of lingering animosity.

This is the setting where Paul first met the twelve apostles, notwithstanding potential encounters or reports via the Sanhedrin. Compared to the time spent with Peter and the Lord’s brother James (Gal. 1:18-19), Paul’s first meeting with Philip and the other apostles would have been fairly brief.⁴ Was it tense? Awkward? Joyous? We don't know. But thanks to Barnabas’ positive intervention (Acts 9:27), Paul gained the trust and respect of his apostolic brothers.⁵

When Paul Met Philip the Evangelist

Not long after Paul met the apostle Philip, he would have had the opportunity to meet the other Philip. The evangelist Philip and his family were living in the coastal city of Caesarea at the time (Acts 8:40; 21:8-9), having been forced to relocate after Paul had participated in the murder of Philip’s coworker Stephen and then violently drove disciples out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-5; 11:19; 19:20). Now that Paul himself was a Christian, Hellenistic Jews were attempting to kill him, so the brethren escorted him from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Acts 8:29-30). The Acts narrative does not say how long Paul stayed in the port city awaiting his voyage to Tarsus, or what he did or with whom he made contact. 

It is reasonable to suspect that Paul may have encountered the evangelist Philip on this occasion, seeing that Paul customarily visited with fellow Christians whenever he passed through communities where they lived (Acts 9:26-28; 15:3, 36, 41; 16:4-6; 18:22, 23; 20:2-17; 21:3-8, 16-17; 27:3; 28:14-15) and later enjoyed hospitality in Philip’s home (Acts 21:8-10; cf. 18:22). What would this first meeting have been like? Tense? Awkward? Joyous? We don’t know. But we do know, thanks to the backing of the Jerusalem saints, brotherhood triumphed over enmity.

Learning Opportunities

When Paul met Philip and Philip, he would have learned something about Christ-like love. Philip the apostle had been taught by the Lord, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). Jesus further instructed to make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you …” (Matt. 28:19-20). The same directives were then passed on to Philip the evangelist (Acts 2:42-44; 4:31-35; 6:2-5). Years later Paul affirmed that love is not “resentful” (ESV), i.e., it “does not take into account a wrong suffered” (NASB), or “keeps no record of wrongs” (NIV) (1 Cor. 13:5d). Paul had personally experienced “the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:19) when he first met the two Philips.

As a mature Christian Paul believed in and taught the importance of forgiveness, from God through Christ (Eph. 1:7; 2:8; Col. 1:14) and toward one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). Jesus had prayed for the forgiveness of his persecutors (Luke 23:34), and Paul, as a persecutor himself (Acts 9:4), had heard one of the Lord’s disciples make the same request (Acts 7:60). Because of his sinful past, Paul felt somewhat inferior to the other apostles and saints (1 Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8). But he experienced divine forgiveness when his sins were washed away at baptism (Acts 22:16) and brotherly forgiveness when he met the two Philips. 

Although Paul felt compelled to share his faith immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), it was necessary for him to go through a period of maturing, training, and preparation (approx. 11 years) before he was ready to be a full-time missionary (Acts 13:2). This included the mentorship of older, experienced Christians like Ananias, Barnabas, Peter, and James. But let’s not overlook the important contribution of the two Philips. Prior to meeting Paul, the apostle Philip had been faithfully serving the Lord as a disciple, discipler, and church leader (Matt. 10:1-25; Acts 2:14; 1 Cor. 15:5-9). The evangelist Philip was also a seasoned veteran of the Lord’s work (Acts 6:3–8:40). These men would have been worthy role models for the one now remembered for his invaluable service as an apostle and evangelist. 

Long before Paul wrote about imitating the affection, humility, selflessness, and suffering of Christ (Phil. 2:1-8), he had already observed these qualities in Philip and Philip. These men, having devoted their lives to preaching and defending the gospel, practiced the message they preached and defended, while exemplifying Christ in their daily walk. 

Conclusion

We learn from Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist how important a first impression can be. As a follower of Christ, what impressions am I making on those who observe my behavior, hear me speak, and/or read my social media posts? How do my words and actions impact those younger in the faith and those outside the church? Do I harbor animosity, or epitomize a loving spirit? Do I forgive as I have been forgiven? Am I more concerned about souls than I am voicing my sociopolitical opinions? Am I contributing to the division of the Lord’s body, or promoting unity? Am I driving potential converts further from the Lord, or drawing them closer? We never get a second chance to make a first impression, and first impressions have long-lasting effects.

I wonder if Paul had the two Philips in mind when he wrote, “… pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:22b-26).

Let us be grateful for brethren like Philip and Philip, who demonstrate how disciples of Jesus are to live in a dark world amidst human imperfection.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ In addition to the apostle Philip (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; John 1:43-48; 6:5-7; 12:21-22; 14:8-9; Acts 1:13) and the evangelist Philip (Acts 6:5; 8:5-40; 21:8-9), we also read of Philip, the half-brother of Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:1, 19).

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the ESV.

     ³ Paul’s violent campaign against the Jewish church targeted both men and women (Acts 8:3; 9:2; 22:4), involving threats, arrests, imprisonment, forced blasphemies, beatings, and death (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2, 13, 21; 22:4-5, 19; 26:9-11).

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 1),” <Link>, and “Part 2,” <Link>. 

     ⁵ Later encounters may have included Acts 11:29-30; 12:25, and certainly Acts 15:2-4; Gal. 2:1-10. See K. L. Moore, “Paul’s Apostleship,” <Link>.

Related Posts: The Apostle Philip 

Image credit: https://www.clipartkey.com/view/wboiix_computer-icons-clip-art-two-people-meeting-icon/

Baptism is a Work!

     A major debate in some religious circles is whether or not baptism is an essential step in the salvation process. One of the arguments against the necessity of baptism is the claim that it is a “work,” and since we are not justified by works, baptism has no part in our justification. But this argument is misleading. The Bible describes a number of different kinds of works, so to lump them all together in the same category is to distort the biblical facts.

     Is baptism a work of the devil (1 John 3:8)? Is baptism a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21)? Is baptism a work of the Jewish Law (Rom. 3:27; Gal. 2:16)? Is baptism a work of human merit (Eph. 2:9) or ingenuity (Acts 7:41)? Is baptism a good work (2 Tim. 3:17), or a work of faith (1 Thess. 1:3) or of God (John 6:28)?

     Seeing that baptism is a divine directive (Matt. 28:19; Acts 10:33, 48), it is not something humans have devised in an attempt to save themselves. In fact, the penitent believer who obeys the command of baptism is not working at all but is passive while someone else does the baptizing. This is not to say, however, that baptism is not a work. The question is, what kind of work? Is it a work of man, or a work of God? Paul writes in Colossians 2:12, “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (NKJV, emp. added).

     Baptism is a work of God. When one is baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38), it is God who does the forgiving. When a believer is baptized and is saved (Mark 16:16), God is the one who does the saving. In baptism I do not save myself. To teach otherwise is to discount the necessity of believing in Jesus, since this also is a work of God (John 6:28-29). Claiming that one is justified by faith alone without baptism or any other obedient action is contrary to the word of God: “You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24).

     Why argue with the Bible? Just do what it says.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts:

Related articles: Josh Ketchum's Is Baptism Unnecessary?

Image credit: https://fthmb.tqn.com/Roc2kE81-On-YbVu5odoxSvPxK0=/2124x1413/filters:fill(auto,1)/Baptism-GettyImages-77866343-568d534c3df78ccc155f1e89.jpg

The Baptism of John

“The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?” (Luke 20:4 NKJV). 

     John was known as ho baptistēs (the “baptist” or “baptizer”) (Matt. 3:1).¹ The English word “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek noun baptisma (verb baptizō), which biblically means to plunge, submerge, or immerse in water (cf. Mark 1:5, 8-10; John 3:23). All candidates of John’s baptism already had faith in God and were then called upon to believe on Christ Jesus for whom John was preparing the way (John 1:15, 23; Acts 19:4).

     Those immersed by John came “confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:6), and the baptism he preached was “a baptism of repentance” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; cf. Matt. 3:2, 11). Biblically defined, repentance involves (a) godly sorrow, (b) turning from sin, (c) turning to God, and (d) an observable reformation of life (Matt. 3:8; Luke 1:17; 3:8; cf. Acts 3:19, 26; 26:18-20; 2 Cor. 7:9-10). While multitudes submitted to the baptism John preached, many did not (Matt. 3:7; 21:25, 32; Luke 7:30b). To reject John’s message and the baptism it included was to reject “the will of God” (Luke 7:30a; cf. 20:4). 

     John’s baptism was “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; cf. Luke 1:77; 3:3).² So how did this work, seeing that there is no remission without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22), the blood of animals could not take away sins (Heb. 10:4), and Jesus’ blood had not yet been shed? When the Lord was crucified, forgiveness was made available to everyone through his blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:28; 10:12), including all who were faithful to God before Christ’s death (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:15; Gal. 4:4-5). John’s disciples, as penitent baptized believers, were thus forgiven in view of the Lord’s atoning sacrifice. 

     This “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” administered by John and then by Jesus and his disciples (John 3:5, 22-26; 4:1-2), laid the groundwork for the establishment of Christ’s church. Note that John’s ministry was intended “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17). On the Day of Pentecost after the Lord’s resurrection and ascension, penitent believers whose sins were remitted at baptism “were added to them” (Acts 2:41). To whom were they added? They would have been added to the faithful disciples of Jesus who had already undergone a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (cf. Acts 1:13-15).³ 

     Following the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, John’s baptism gave way to baptism in the likeness of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5; cf. Eph. 2:1-6; 4:5). John the baptizer had fulfilled his purpose of preparing the way for the Lord (cf. Luke 1:16-17, 76), and Jesus had completed his work of atonement. Now it was time for the next phase of God’s scheme of redemption to be initiated through the Spirit-guided apostles (John 15:25-26; 16:12-13). Baptizing penitent believers for the remission of sins was now an essential step in the disciple-making process (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-38). 

     Over two decades after the Pentecost event, an Alexandrian Jew named Apollos was still teaching the baptism of John in the Asian city of Ephesus until he was shown the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-26). When Paul arrived on the scene, he found twelve disciples who had been immersed “into John’s baptism,” and he immersed them again (Acts 19:1-7), apparently because they had received the limited instruction of John’s baptism (by Apollos?) when it was no longer in effect. 

     The baptisms before the cross were preparatory for God’s approaching kingdom (Matt. 3:1-6; John 3:1–4:2), and Christ’s death on the cross was the transitional point between the old covenant of the Jews and his own new covenant system (Col. 2:14; Heb. 9:15-17). Because John effectively prepared the way for the Lord in “all the region around the Jordan” (Luke 3:3; cf. John 1:28; 3:23, 26),⁴ the teaching and influence of Jesus readily extended further into Galilee, as far north as Syria, as far south as Idumea, and eastward beyond the Jordan in Decapolis and Perea (Matt. 4:23-25; Mark 3:7-8). From here the gospel of the kingdom would then be taken “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:3, 8). “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See also Matt. 11:11, 12; 14:2, 8; 16:14; 17:13; Mark 6:24, 25; 8:28; Luke 7:20, 28, 33; 9:19; cf. F. Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2.

     ² Why did Jesus undergo John’s baptism (Mark 1:9-11)? Jesus was not baptized for the remission of sins, since he had no sin (Heb. 4:15). Jesus was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), i.e. it was the right thing for him to do. He set an example for his followers, none of whom could legitimately say, “I reject baptism because Jesus wasn’t baptized.” Jesus’ baptism was not necessarily for his own benefit but apparently for the benefit of those around him.

     ³ Baptism as a requisite of entering God’s kingdom was observed prior to the Day of Pentecost (Matt. 21:31-32; Luke 3:3; 16:16; John 3:5, 22-23) and continued thereafter (Acts 8:12).

     ⁴ “Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:4; cf. Matt. 3:5-6). This statement appears to be hyperbolic, seeing that not everyone in the region submitted to John’s baptism (cf. Luke 7:30), but his influence was widespread among a variety of people, including tax collectors and soldiers (Luke 3:12, 14; 7:29).

Related Posts: Are You Sure the Thief on the Cross Wasn't Baptized?

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb1lyZT90fPsfSaFXTjP5vUTByk20_2GYke81SKa16O6wlqxYiEL1NsnrEFNurkc277BzJjUZfBHVdjs2HICec2R7ObA5HP2NgqLAavY41LFZskFvzO8fD5-IPEjpuLjaT2xrdqz9Y3K-l/s1600/the+baptism+of+Jesus.jpg

Are You Sure the Thief on the Cross Wasn’t Baptized?

     The two criminals who were crucified on either side of Jesus initially participated in reviling him (Matthew 27:44). In the course of time, however, one of them had a change of heart. He believed in and reverenced God and recognized that he and his corrupt associate deserved punishment and that Jesus was entirely innocent (Luke 23:40-41). According to the majority of manuscripts the contrite felon addressed Jesus as “Lord” (v. 42a), although due to textual variation a number of English versions have omitted the expression (ASV, ESV, etc.). Nevertheless, simply calling Jesus Lord, of itself, is insufficient (Matthew 7:21).

     The request the man goes on to make is intriguing: “remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42b).¹ How did he know about the Lord’s kingdom? Of all the words spoken by Jesus from the cross, there is no record of the kingdom having been mentioned. So when and by whom had the offender learned about it, and what prompted Christ to confirm his place in Paradise (v. 43)? By investigating the biblical record more thoroughly (particularly the third chapters of Matthew, Mark, and John), the groundwork is laid for unraveling this apparent mystery.

HELPFUL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

     “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!’² …. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:1-2, 5-6). Extremely large numbers were baptized as a result of John’s preaching, and certain religious leaders are the only known exceptions (v. 7; 21:25; Luke 7:30).

     Then we read in Matthew 4:17, “From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’.” While Jesus taught the same message, the impact was even greater and more far-reaching. “And Jesus went about all Galilee … preaching the gospel of the kingdom …. Then His fame went throughout all Syria …. Great multitudes followed Him–from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan [viz. Perea]” (vv. 23-25). And there’s more.

     “But Jesus withdrew with His disciples to the sea. And a great multitude from Galilee followed Him, and from Judea and Jerusalem and Idumea and beyond the Jordan; and those from Tyre and Sidon [viz. the region of Phoenicia in southern Syria], a great multitude …” (Mark 3:7-8). The doctrine of the Lord’s kingdom had spread as far north as Syria, as far east as Decapolis and Perea, as far south as Idumea, and all the territories in between – an area of approximately 18,000 square miles (29,000+ sq. km). And there’s more.

     In John 3 we read of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. Like many of the Lord’s early disciples, Nicodemus was blinded to heavenly truths because of his earthly focus. He was confusing spiritual birth with physical birth, so Jesus explains: “Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (v. 5). God has always expected both internal and external responses from those who seek his favor, involving (a) submissive hearts, and (b) obedience to the divine will.³ If to be born of the spirit is the internal aspect of conversion,⁴ what does it mean to be born of water? Let’s keep reading.

     While Jesus goes on to emphasize both inward and outward expressions of faith (vv. 16, 21),⁵ consider what happens next. “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized” (v. 22). Why did Jesus baptize? Because unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. “Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salem, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized…. And they came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified–behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!” (vv. 23-26).

     Moving on to John chapter 4, we read the following: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples) …” (vv. 1-2). When the masses responded to Jesus’ preaching about the kingdom, his disciples did the baptizing. Further, the Lord sent out the twelve and later at least seventy more of his loyal followers to disseminate the same message (Matthew 9:35–10:7; Luke 10:1-11). John the Baptist had taught about the kingdom and baptized multitudes in Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan. Jesus and his followers baptized even more throughout a much greater geographical area (see above).

BAPTIZED OR NOT?

     Now back to the dying convict who requested of Jesus, “remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). It is no mystery that he knew about the Lord’s kingdom. How could he have not known?! The question is, had he or had he not been baptized in conjunction with this knowledge? Although absolute proof is beyond our grasp, which scenario is more likely?

     Many, who have bought into the abridged doctrine of salvation by faith alone (apart from obedience), often appeal to the example of “the thief on the cross” in an attempt to refute the necessity of baptism. But is it legitimate to assume and then boldly assert that this malefactor was never baptized, and somehow this sets a precedent for modern-day conversions?

     Here is what we know from the scriptures. The man had knowledge of the Lord’s kingdom. This is not surprising, seeing that for more than three years the message of the kingdom had saturated the entire region. And this message included instruction about repentance and baptism. Myriads had been baptized by John, while Jesus and his disciples baptized even more. It is neither impossible nor improbable that the man whom the Lord welcomed into Paradise had in fact been baptized. But don't miss this next point.

     Jesus affirmed that there is no access to God’s kingdom without being born of water and the spirit (John 3:5), and he subsequently enjoined repentance and baptism on all who received his teaching (John 3:22–4:2). He then granted entrance into this kingdom to a man who had apparently received that message (Luke 23:42-43). Either Jesus made an exception, or this man had met the necessary conditions. Could this be an example of restoration rather than conversion? (compare Acts 8:9-24)

WHAT IF …?

     Admittedly there is no explicit reference to this criminal having been baptized. Still, he was living under the old covenant of the Jews, and Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Christ’s new covenant was not inaugurated before he died (Hebrews 9:15). Then following the events at Golgotha, baptism is likened to the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-6; 1 Peter 3:21). Under the new covenant of Christ, baptism is the defining point at which penitent believers become disciples (Matthew 28:18-20), have their sins forgiven (Acts 2:37-38), receive salvation (Mark 16:16), and are granted entrance into God’s kingdom (Colossians 1:13-14; 2:12; cf. John 3:5).

     No one on earth today is in the physical presence of Jesus, or is living under the old Jewish covenant, or is exempt from the requirements of Christ’s new covenant. Therefore, appealing to the example of “the thief on the cross” in an effort to dismiss the requisite of baptism is presumptuous and reckless, and it demonstrates an ignorance of (or disregard for?) the overall context of scripture.

     “‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen” (Matthew 28:19-20).

--Kevin L. Moore      

    

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the NKJV, with added emphasis in bold type and added words in [square brackets].

     ² Note that “the kingdom of heaven” is the same as “the kingdom of God” (cf. Matthew 19:23-24). See The Kingdom of God Part 1.

     ³ See Exodus 25:2; 35:5, 21, 29; Deuteronomy 4:29-30; 5:29; 6:4-9; 8:2; 10:2; 11:13; 26:16; 30:2, 10, 14; Joshua 22:5; 1 Samuel 12:20, 24; 1 Kings 2:4; 8:23, 61; 9:4; 14:8; 2 Kings 20:3; 23:3, 25; 2 Chronicles 29:31; 31:21; 34:31; Ezra 7:10; Psalm 34:15-18; 86:11, 12; 111:1; 119:2, 7, 10, 34, 69, 112; Isaiah 26:9; 38:3; 51:7; 66:2; Jeremiah 17:10; Luke 8:15; John 4:23-24; Romans 1:9; 6:17; 7:6, 22; 12:11; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Ephesians 4:21-24; 5:19; 6:6; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 1:22-23; cf. Psalm 78:8; Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8-9; Hebrews 3:7-19.

     ⁴ The Greek word pneuma can have reference to either the human spirit or the Holy Spirit, and English translators have to make judgment calls as to whether the lower case “s” or the upper case “S” is used. See Soul and Spirit. There are other occurrences in John where pneuma clearly refers to man’s inner spirit (4:23-24; 11:33; 13:21). Compare also Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 1:22-23; 3:20-21.
     ⁵ See A Closer Look at John 3:16. 

Related Posts: Dispelling Popular Myths, Baptism of John, Questions About Baptism Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: http://www.hartian.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Three-Crosses-on-Kreuzberg-Mountain-Bavaria-Germany.jpg