Covenant of Love

Archive for the ‘Reformed Theology’ Category

While dialoguing with my friend Danny in a recent post, I discovered that John Wesley was not so tolerant of “Calvinism” when it came to George Whitefield. Danny also told me that George, “for his part”, did not generally respond to John in kind. For someone who looks up to and admires John Wesley, I wanted to probe further into the “why” question. Why would John, a man so adamant in support of unity and tolerance within Methodism and the Church of England and whose theology is based squarely on the love of God, equally adamantly oppose his friends Calvinism?

The next day I pulled a book off my shelf which I haven’t had an opportunity to read yet, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, only to discover – to my disappointment – that what Danny told me is absolutely correct. But I also found the historical context of their (often one sided) debate very telling, and I want to propose a hypothesis as to why John (justifiably?) opposed George as he did. Disclaimer: I use the term “seems” often and in a critical fashion because this is the only book I’ve read on the subject and so I am endeavoring to keep that in mind. Any historical fallacies in this analysis are probably my own failure to accurately retell the story I’ve read in the book. And now I begin. Read the rest of this entry »

The scriptures have come under serious attack in recent decades with the writings of Bart Erhman, Waltar Bauer and others. And of course orthodox Christians have stood up and written in defense. But Andreas Kostenberger has taken a unique approach to why we have a New Testament in the first place, and it has everything to do with Covenant Theology! I find this intriguing to say the least. Here is the argument in a nutshell.

The story which the scriptures tell is the story of a creation which has fallen out of God’s perfect order, and of a God who is driven to set things to rights; and Gods chosen method of setting things to rights is through a Covenant he establishes with humans. So the backdrop of the entire redemptive story found in the scriptures is the concept of covenant. Read the rest of this entry »

Frustrated with the tone and ignorance of many in his day against Arminians, John Wesley wrote an article appealing against this fearful ignorance which results in so much slander and name calling. He open his article with,

To say, “This man is an Arminian,” has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, “This is a mad dog.” It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.

Can you relate to this hysteria? I sure can. How many Arminians are fearful to say, “I am an Arminian”? I sure am. From there Wesley sets about clarifying, we could say educating, his readers on the term “Arminian”. Having summarized what Wesley felt to be the key issues and distinctives of Arminianism, he writes this:

Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not understand. And how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means; and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens [Jacob Arminius]. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

I’m just tired of Calvinists – defenders of the Kangaroo Court known as the Synod of Dort – labeling believers of God’s free-grace as “Pelagian” or “Semi-Pelagian” or “Anti-Christian”. Despite constant herolding by those who believe in God’s free-grace that salvation is only by God’s grace and no amount of work on man’s part, not even faith apart from God’s first grace, can man be saved. This is what Arminians believe. And yet in spite of this, their detractors – modern day Puritans – continue to use terms like Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian – systems rightly rejected as heresy on the bases of the belief that man can reach God on his own – as slander – even propaganda – against Arminianism.

What strikes me most about the quote above is this sentence: “Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists…” What Wesley is saying here is that at Calvinists slander Arminians, Arminians have as much right to come back with slander of their own. “… as much right…” Wesley says. But John Wesley, being a pious and holy man who feared the Lord, forbids any Arminians from exercising this right, for he continues in the very next paragraph:

One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? — a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

Right? Yes, Arminians may feel they have as much right as Calvinists to slander. But salvation is not a right; it is not something God owes us. Salvation is a gift of grace. Therefore, says Wesley, it is the responsibility of every Arminian to never slander Calvinism, but to engage with grace. But Wesley, being ever the one desiring to have Christ’s mind formed in him, does not stop there, for the Arminian also has a responsibility to prevent other Arminians from slandering Calvinism! And of course, Wesley encourages Calvinists to do the same (as, for example, Michael Patton does in his article, Calvinists, Lets Calm Down!)

The systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are mutually exclusive. To pretend otherwise reflects ignorance at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst. But we are all of the same body – that is Christ! Let us act accordingly and in gracious dialogue, and perhaps the Lord will show us a better way.

I used a picture of Beza rather than Calvin intentionally.

Many commentators I read on Jude either interpret him deterministically or avoid the subject. In fact, when I first read it I too read it deterministically. (Oh how conditioned we are; the WIT translation is in full operation.) But upon closer examination I found synergism to have full expression throughout Jude. So let’s take a second glance:

To those who are called [Jude 1:1]

Interpretation: “Called” and other related terms find their fullest theological expression in Ephesians 1 and must always be understood corporately (“in Christ”), i.e. as to “the Church”, whoever has joined the body of Christ by faith [Ephesians 1:13].

who are… kept by [“for” or “in”] Jesus Christ [Jude 1:1]

Interpretation: Jude confirms the interpretation of corporate calling by making reference to those who are kept “in Christ”. Still, the Greek word for “kept” [τετηρημένοις] means, “to keep watch” or “guard” and in its structure it is a “passive verb”. In other words, those who remain (passive) in his arms will be guarded. Nothing can remove you from the love of God. Apostasy must be deliberate (proactive), you cannot slip out of God’s hands, you must leave willingly (even forcefully).

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago [Jude 1:4]

Interpretation: It was written about and foreshadowed in the stories of the Exodus, of Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, Balaam and Korah. That is, as Paul writes, those stories were given “as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” [1 Corinthians 10:6 or as the author of Hebrews similarly warns in Hebrews 3:16 ff.]. These stories do not tell about anyone in particular, but only that this is the pattern of apostasy which has been common among the people of God from the beginning, and that Jude is declaring was occurring among the church he was writing to.

[They] deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord [Jude 1:4]

Interpretation: A reference to those who have watered down the grace of God and turned it into an opportunity to sin. They deny the Sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus Christ because – obviously – Christ is not reigning as Sovereign Lord in their lives. By their lives they are denying that he is their King.

Keep yourselves in God’s love [Jude 1:21]

Interpretation: This verse was silently passed over in Part 1 and is equally silently passed over in most commentaries because it sounds too much like something Arminius would say. John Wesley says, “Jude 1:21 exactly answers the introduction [Jude 1:1].” This synergistic parallel is very reminiscent of Philippians 2:12-13 and is in line with our interpretation of “kept” above.

[Praise] Him who is able to keep you from falling [Jude 1:24]

Interpretation: God’s ability, God’s Sovereignty is never the issue. He can do whatever he wants and is certainly able to keep you from falling. But he will not force you to remain in him (cf. John 15:10 w/ John 14:23), which in fact is the point of Jude’s whole Epistle. If a deterministic approach to Jude’s Epistle is accepted uncritically then Jude might as well have kept his pen in his desk and saved the paper.

I used a picture of Beza rather than Calvin intentionally.

Anachronistically speaking of course. It’s easy to read Jude and come away with a strongly deterministic message. His little epistle is jam-packed with deterministic words and phrases such as:

To those who are called [Jude 1:1]

Interpretation: Meaning to the preordained elect individuals.

who are… kept by Jesus Christ [Jude 1:1]

Interpretation: Meaning those who are in his hands he will not allow to apostate, i.e. once saved always saved.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago [Jude 1:4]

Interpretation: In contrast to the “called”, these individuals have been passed over for damnation.

[They] deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord [Jude 1:4]

Interpretation: Those bloody Arminian and Pelagian heretics!

[Praise] Him who is able to keep you from falling [Jude 1:24]

Interpretation: once saved always saved.

So was Jude a Calvinist? Yes, it would seem at first glance that he was. Now let’s have a second look.

***To Be Continued***

As is well known to casual readers of Covenant of Love, I am a fan of N.T. Wright and I do not appreciate John Piper very much. (I was a not a fan of John Piper long before these two came to clash.) At the Evangelical Theological Society’s 62nd Annual Meeting, the topic is Justification by Faith and both N.T. Wright and John Piper were invited to be plenary speakers for this event. Taking the position I do, the “dialogue” would have essentially amounted to Wright embarrising John Piper in my opinion. Even fans of Piper usually acknowledge that simply put, him and Wright are in completely separate leagues (Tom being in the Big Leagues and Piper in the Minors).

Still, I am amazed that some bloggers holdout underdog hopes with a great deal of misguided confidence that John Piper is more then up to the task, that he would somehow be able to sweep Wright aside, that it would somehow amount to little more than a walk in the park of Piper. I have no clever response to that, I simply stand in awe that someone could reasonably think such a thing.

But I saw Wright at the Wheaton Conferences. His respectability, his humility, his willingness to engage other perspectives, to think through reasonable critiques of his work by his opponents, and sometimes to consider their suggestions for further dialogue. I think the question of “who would win” or “who would lose” in a debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is, from Wright’s perspective and probably from the perspective of Wrightians, irrelevant.

John Piper has written against Tom Wright (The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright), and Tom has written a response (Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision). I think it would have been beneficial, even crucial, for these two men to have met and to get to know each other’s personalities. Who knows, maybe an unlikely friendship is lurking right around the corner.

Alas we may never know. For reasons which are unclear to me, the ETS announced:

We had previously announced that Pastor John Piper would be one of our plenary speakers at the November meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta addressing the theme of “Justification By Faith.” Unfortunately, Pastor Piper has had to withdraw from his involvement in this meeting in conjunction with an eight-month leave of absence that he will be taking from his ministry assignments. (Here)

The last time I am aware that Piper took a leave of absence from his ministry responsibilities, it was to write a book against N.T. Wright (Future of Justification, p.10). Is it possible that he has chosen to forgo an opportunity to meet the good Bishop so that he might rather write another book against him? Nah, pure conjecture. I wish to attempt to give Piper the benefit of the doubt (however difficult that may be) and believe that he has not backed out of this engagement for fear of the humble Bishop or intimidation of the Bishops godly presence and vast knowledge.

In any case, Piper has been substituted by Thomas R. Schreiner, an expert in Pauline scholarship and (by all accounts) a better match with Tom Wright. Tom and Tom will share a discussion panel and engage each other on the subject of Justification by Faith. It is my hope that this discussion panel and lectures of Tom W and Tom S will be made available via on-line in the same way that the Wheaton Conference lectures were. The ETS meeting will be held in Atlanta GA on November 17-19, 2010. Praying for a good and fruitful engagement!

A troubling passage at first glance for non-five-point Calvinists is Proverbs 16:4. This passage seems to say that the Lord has created some individuals for the explicit purpose of the day of disaster. When I engaged in what developed into a rather ungodly discussion with someone on this subject, and Proverbs 16:4 came up I admit that I stammered somewhat. I think that there is too much at stake to accept the belief that all things are meticulously determined and/or caused by God. I do not believe that God is the “Unmoved Mover” of classical Christian theology. I believe in human free will and responsibility in a non-five-point Calvinist way, no matter how that free will is defined. I believe that the type of free will/responsibility I am affirming is assumed everywhere throughout the scriptures.

But if what I am suggesting is true, how can Proverbs 16:4 teach that God has made/created wicked people for the sole purpose of the day of evil? The quick and un-thoughtful answer is that I am wrong about everything else I just affirmed. But closer examination may reveal that Proverbs 16:4 actually affirms everything I have been saying. First let’s look at this passage in context:

All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit. Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established. The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished. – Proverbs 16:2-5

Verses 2, 3 and 5 each support my claim of responsibility/free will, but then verse 4 seems to go against the rest by suggesting that those who’s “heart is an abomination to the Lord” were created by the Lord for that explicit purpose. Next I want to look at some other scripture passages in contrast to Proverbs 16:4:

The answer to our dilemma is found in the Hebrew word translated about various as “everything for its purpose”, “all things for himself”, and “everything for his own”. None of these translations capture the meaning of the Hebrew (ma’aneh). The literal translation of the word ma’aneh is “give an answer to” or “response”. So the phrase “all things for himself” should read “all things to give an answer to himself” or “all things to give a response to himself”. In other words, everyone is responsible for what they do and will be called into account, even the wicked for the day of distress.

Now I believe this passage makes sense in its context and with the wider context of scripture: verse 2, mans ways seem innocent to him but the Lord weighs the motives; verse 3, choose to commit to the Lord whatever you do (this exhortation would make no sense if he was created wicked for the day of distress because he could not choose to be obedient); verse 4, everyone will give an account to the Lord, even the wicked; verse 5, the proud will not go unpunished. If they are proud, it is not because they were created to remain that way until the day of distress, but because they chose to remain that way and they will be called to give an answer or reason in that day.

I would like to point out in passing that this is a reason why I do not accept random proof-texting as a valid way to intellectually engage in a debate.

If what I said in the last post is correct, can it be that by the doctrine of sola fide we have created a false dichotomy between “faith and works” in regards to Justification? Here is Galatians 2:15-16:

We ourselves are Jews by birth, and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by doing what the law requires, but rather by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. We, too, have believed in the Messiah Jesus so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by doing what the law requires, for no human being will be justified by doing what the law requires. – Galatians 2:15-16 ISV

For starters, the phrase “law requires” is not the same as “good works”. There are a lot of people in the world today who think that they are “good” enough to “get into heaven”. But Paul is not writing to them, he is writing to “we who are Jews by birth”. For a Jew, the “law” was a reference to the covenant charter of Israel – specifically Deuteronomy 28. If they remained obedient to the law (i.e. God) they would remain in the covenant (vs. 1-14), but if they rejected the law they would be removed from the covenant (vs. 15ff.). So his readers would have understood his statement as: No person can be justified by obeying the Torah – remember the Exile? – but there is One who has been faithful to the covenant of God, and by his faithfulness (or obedience – Philippians 2:8) we are justified!

Notice the key point which Paul is making here: no one is justified by their obedience but we are justified by Christ’s obedience. Now notice the key point which Paul is not making here: he is not saying that one is justified by faith and not by works. This is one of those important implications in this debate which is bubbling under many Reformers skins.

The closer we get to comprehending this distinction the closer we come to happily embracing other often neglected passages about justification:

You observe that a person is justified through actions and not through faith alone. – James 2:24 (Luther had a good mind to reject James all together because of sola fide)

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. – Romans 2:13

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. – Matthew 12:37 (a passage about bearing fruit in your life in keeping with repentance)

We are saved by grace through faith – there is nothing we can do to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9), and when this happens we join the body of Christ and are therefore justified! All of this is possible because of Christ’s faithfulness to God on the cross (Philippians 2:5-11).

I am aware of three general options or ways in which “born again” is taught among various traditions.

1. The Spirit is given before one believes. The Spirit is given and He Regenerates or makes someone born again so that they can believe and start their Christian walk.

2. The Spirit is given at the moment one believes and repents. There is only one reception of the Spirit.

3. The Spirit is given at the moment one believes and repents, but later one may receive a Spirit baptism – there are two distinct receptions of the Holy Spirit.

My own tradition hails from option three, but what I have been proposing  (a fourth option) is a modified combination of the second and third options (I see the first option as having no Biblical support and is mostly deduced to support a theological presupposition).

Like the first option, there is only one reception of the Holy Spirit in the born again process, but like the second option, that reception happens sometime after one believes, repents and usually after water baptism as well. (For the evidence to back this up read Part 1 and Part 2 in this series.)

I Am Born Again (My Own Testimonial)

Belief and Repentance: I was eleven when I watched the Jesus film put out by Billy Graham (1990). At the end of the film the narrator led me into the “Sinners Prayer” (a tool invented by evangelists, but used by God) which I prayed with all my heart believing the gospel I had just witnessed.

Water Baptism: When I was about twelve or thirteen (within two years of when I first believed) I got up in front of some one thousand people, and with a quivering high-pitch voice I publically confessed my allegiance to Christ only moments before the ministers buried me in a pool of water – death by immersion. This was promptly followed by a new resurrected life (in enactment) rising out from the watery grave.

Spirit Baptism: About one year later when I was fourteen I had a spiritual experience which has never been matched and which dramatically changed my life! At the altar of a small church, surrounded by a dozen other teenagers at a youth gathering, I got on my knees and began to pray. What happened at the time I can only describe as having been overwhelmed by God, a flooding sensation which boiled up the greatest joy I have ever known.

Not everyone’s experience will be identical to my, but my experience has confirmed what I have discovered the scriptures actually teach about the born again process. The Spirit is given to those who obey (Acts 5:32).

The born again process should be quick. Those who wait a long time to get into the water are making a grave mistake. Do not delay. When you mission, do so in such a way as to teach what I have been suggesting: become a follower of Christ. This involves belief in the gospel which will be accompanied by repentance, followed by Baptism as quickly as possible (Acts 8:35-38). In short order, and because you have been obedient to God, the Lord will fill you with his Spirit (Acts 5:38, Acts 2:32), and then you will be Born Again (John 3:3-5)!

Amen.

Thank you for coming back after my last post. (If you have not read Part 1 then I suggest you go back and do so because it lays the ground work for what follows.) One of the four or five key features of Evangelicalism is the belief of a born again experience, and so it can be frightening or offensive if anyone hints at the possibility that perhaps we have not spoken correctly when we use this terminology. Immediately after my post (Are You Born Again Part 1) was published someone went ahead and unsubscribed to Covenant of Love. This is sad because it reflects an attitude which is more common then it ought to be for Christians.

My purpose for writing on the born again experience is more for pastoral then theological reasons. It is because “born again” is so fundamental to the Evangelical tradition that I believe we need to get it right. Not that I am suggesting that I have it all right in these posts, I am only hoping to open the door for further conversation on “born again,” so that in talking and thinking through this with fresh eyes and ears we may come closer to the ancient truths of it found in the scriptures.

In the last post I made an effort to show that the born again experience is not a one-time instantaneous event. Where it has become common to tell someone that when they say the “Sinner’s Prayer”, the Spirit will come and live inside of them and they will be born again. We should not be telling people this because it is not accurate. But this fact should not cast doubt on anyone’s salvation. God knows what he is doing even if we too often do not (as I will illustrate in the next post).

So the “born again” experience – otherwise termed in theological jargon as “regeneration” – is a progressive event which is only fully accomplished after one undergoes water and spirit baptism. But there are two excursions I’d like to take. Two passages in the scriptures which are often referenced in support of a one-time born again experience accompanied by the instantaneous infilling of the Spirit (or, as some traditions tell it, the Spirit comes before one even believes!).

Excursion 1: Romans 8:9 b

I actually like the NIV. I don’t think it is the most accurate translation out there and prefer the NRSV lately, but I have found translation problems with every translation I have come across. There are no perfect translations. Here is an example where the massive influence of the NIV (the number one selling English translation for the better part of three decades according to Zondervan and other sources) has led to mass misunderstanding of a key doctrine due to a bias in translating this key passage.

Remember how I showed that the receiving of the Spirit usually comes after water baptism and always comes after belief and repentance (John 7:39; Acts 19:2)? The translators of Romans 8:9 on the NIV team operated under the theological belief that when one believes one receives the Spirit at that moment (or one receives the Spirit in order for them to believe as some traditions have it!) – thus the born again experience is instantaneous. Therefore in translating the phrase, “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ is not of him”; they have exchanged the phrase “of him” to “of Christ”. This reflects their bias: if one does not have the Spirit one must not be a Christian at all. Besides the obvious, that the Greek words it “of him” not “of Christ”, there are three problems with this:

1. Grammically, the “him” must refer back to the person who is the subject of the sentence, in this case the “Spirit of Christ”. The “him” is referring to the third person in the Trinity – the Holy Spirit; not to the second person, Christ himself.

2. Contextually, the whole passage is not asking the question, “Are you a Christian?” Romans 8:1 has already answered that question unequivocally. The question being asked here is, “Are you walking in the power of the Spirit?”

3. Theologically, while having the Spirit is an intricate part of the born again process, one becomes a child of God (i.e. a Christian) at the moment of spiritual conception even though the Spirit is given later. (Don’t we argue this very point when we stand against abortion in our society? At conception the child is living, though not fully born yet.) At what point did the disciples become “Christian”? On Pentecost when they first received the Spirit or when they began to follow Christ? I would argue that they became “Christians” when they left their nets and followed Christ, and this reflects the early believers preferred terminology: “the Way” (Acts 9:2).

So Romans 8:9 does not support the idea that if one does not have the Spirit he must automatically not be a Christian. Rather it is asking, “Are you fully born again and walking in the Spirit?” Paul is suggesting that we have a bunch of Christians out there who have been conceived by the Spirit but have remained in the birth canal, and that is why they are not living victorious lives as they should.

Excursion 2: John 20:22

This passage is difficult to understand for almost any tradition, and no one seems to agree as to what is going on in this passage for reason which will become clear in a moment. For now, let me offer my thoughts on this text.

Before Pentecost and even before Jesus is ascended to the right hand of the Father, the text reads:

“When he (i.e. Jesus) had said this, he breathed on them (i.e. the disciples) and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” – NRSV

Before we delve into this passage we must keep a few things in mind. 1) Earlier in John’s gospel, the Evangelist writes:

“Now he (i.e. Jesus) said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).

The primary point to keep in mind is that the Spirit would not be given until Jesus was fully “glorified”; in the text of John 20:22, Jesus was between the Resurrection and Ascension in which his glorification was incomplete, he was not yet ascended to the right hand of the Father. (A secondary point is that the Spirit will be given to people who already believe: “believers in him were to receive”. I add this note for the benefit of those who think that the Spirit must be given first in order for people to believe).

2) John seems to go out of his way, probably for theological reasons, to emphasis that Thomas, one of the eleven, was not present at this particular appearance where Jesus evidently “breathed” and instructed his disciples to “receive the Holy Spirit”. As this text is often used to support the belief that the disciples received the Spirit in them and later (at Pentecost) they received the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (a second and different reception) – did Thomas only receive the latter and not the former? The same question could be posed for Matthias who later joins the twelve (Acts 1:26)? If there is a “receiving” of the Spirit for the born again experience, and then – as Pentecostals say – a second receiving of the Holy Spirit at the Spirit Baptism, then Thomas and Matthias only receive the latter and not the former – while both are required. This makes no sense.

3) Verse 22 is tied up with verse 21: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”. Jesus then breathes on them and instructs them to receive the Holy Spirit. Evidently, after they receive the Holy Spirit they are supposed to “go”. And after this event when they are supposedly empowered from on high (keeping verse 21 and 22 connected – the commission and the receiving of the Spirit) where do they “go”? They go fishing (John 21:3)! After that they go to the upper room (Acts 1:13). Then they go to the Temple (Luke 24:53). Like a holy-huddle they stick together and make no move to fulfill the commission of verse 21. Why are they not “go(ing) therefore and mak(ing) disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) after Jesus breathes on them as they were instructed, given that they were commissioned to go and in the same breathe they received the Holy Spirit?

Put all of these puzzling pieces together and one conclusion shines forth like crystal: In John 20:22 the disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit any more then they went out to fulfill the great commission as summarized in verse 21! Both the “going” of John 20:21 and the “receiving” of John 20:22 are actually FULFILLED in Acts 2:1-4 ff. The event in John 20:21-22 is best paralleled – in my opinion – with Acts 1:8:

“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you: and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Or as John put it in John 20:21-22: receive the Spirit and then fulfill the great commission, and this is what you can expect – then he blows on them indicating it will be like the breath from God when it happens (paraphrased).

Summary:

John 20:21-22 is a parabolic act by which Jesus essentially enacts Acts 2. But while Jesus enacts Acts 2, this passage in John 20:21-22 best parallels the truth of Acts 1:8. In chart format it looks like this:

Neither of these passages became actualized until after Acts 2. As Jesus so often does in the Gospels; here again in John 20:21-22 he is teaching them ahead of time about what they can expect next.

Romans 8:9 is a passage which asks, “Are you fully born again and living by the power of the Spirit or walking in the Spirit?” It is not asking, “Are you a Christian?” Romans 8:1 already answers that question unequivocally: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. You are saved (Ephesians 2:8-9), but (to use the title of this series) are you born again? Or are you trapped in the spiritual birth canal? Are you walking in the Spirit?

One final thought. Acts 5:32 teaches that God has given the Holy Spirit “to those who obey him.” Some traditions try to teach that the Holy Spirit is given first so that people can obey. They say the Holy Spirit comes before faith and indeed he comes so that one can have faith and obey. As nice as that sounds, the scriptures teach the exact opposite: “We are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:32)

First those who believe (Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”) Next those who repent and after that those who are baptized in keeping with repentance and finally those who receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’.”)

At that point, what Jesus tells Nicodemus about Regeneration (John 3:3-5) will have run its course, and you will be born again!

***To Be Continued***