Expository – Biblical Notes

Apologetics, Baptism, Doctrine, Expository, Heaven, Holy Spirit, Inspiration, Nature of Man, Resurrection

The Man Within

Posted on May 17, 2025May 17, 2025 by Mac Deaver

My friend, Glenn Jobe, and I study together a lot over the telephone. We have wrestled together for years over various concepts and passages. We have studied together regarding death and what happens immediately following death. It has been very helpful to me in the light of my late wife’s passing on July 30 of 2021. We continue to study. Much of the thought contained in this article is due to Glenn’s wonderful thinking. Recently, in a telephone conversation with my good friend, Charles Pugh, we were discussing the resurrection. And, he and I (just as Glenn and I) were wrestling with some complicated matters involved in the resurrection and the resurrection body. Following that conversation, I was stirred to study with more focus in trying to solve some of the hard questions that arise regarding what the Bible says about what happens to us at death and what is entailed in the concept of resurrection.

It is good to note that in 2 Cor. 4:16 Paul refers to our “outward man” and our “inward man.” In Eph. 3:16 he again refers to the “inward man.” This article is putting extreme focus on the time at which Christians first are blessed with the “inward man.”

In working on the matter, the thought came to me several weeks ago that we already have the body that is to be raised on the day of the resurrection, and that body is within us now. I called Glenn to ask him if he knew of any passage that would “crush” this idea. We had a good and very profitable conversation. While a question still in our minds was not resolved regarding one passage, it seemed that the idea of our already having the resurrection body is possible. And in further contemplation and with another phone call to Glenn, it does seem to me that the Bible teaches that the Christian’s body that will be raised from the dead is a body that the Christian has presently within his physical body in this life. Furthermore, that body within is the very body that enters Paradise at physical death. That body is certainly not physical (1 Cor. 15:50). What does this mean then? Let us think about this very carefully. And I think that if what I contend for in this article is true, it unravels the complications of the resurrection that have baffled us for years. That is, the explanation provided here does at least two things. First, it preserves the distinction between the physical body and the spiritual body. Second, it shows how that there is continuity of personal identity that continues in a non-physical (spiritual) body following physical death that makes it possible for an actual resurrection to occur according to New Testament teaching.

According to Paul, two bodies are involved in discussion of the resurrection. There is the physical (or, “flesh and blood”) body (1 Cor. 15:50), and there is the “spiritual” (or, non-flesh and blood) body (1 Cor. 15:42-49). He gives a comparison of them.

He calls the physical body the “natural” body (v. 46). This body is “of the earth” (v. 47), and it is the first body that man receives. The second body is the “spiritual” body and is “of heaven.” The first body bears the image of the “earthy.” The second body bears the image of “the heavenly” (v. 47-48). The two bodies stand in stark contrast to one another. Not only do they differ in nature as to realm of formation (earth or heaven), but they differ, consequently, in their natures. The natural body is given to “corruption,” it is “sown in dishonor,” it is “sown in weakness,” it is “sown a natural body.” The second body, however and in great contrast to the first, is “raised in incorruption,” it is “raised in glory,” it is “raised in power,” and “raised a spiritual body” (v. 42-44). Remember, the first body (“first man”) is “of the earth,” and the second body (“second man”) is “of heaven” (v. 47). Thus, the two bodies have natures that fit the two environments: earth and heaven. This entails the conflict of flesh and spirit (Gal. 5:17). And as long as we are alive in this world, we are composed of physical body, soul, and spirit that comes from God (1 Thess. 5:23; Gen. 1:27; 2:7; Heb. 12:9; Mal. 2:14-15). The “soul” seems to be the animation or vitality initiated at the point of contact between flesh and spirit. When the spirit leaves the physical body, the physical body is dead or lifeless (Jas. 2:26). When physical death occurs, Solomon said the body as composed of dust goes back to the earth, and the spirit returns to God (Eccl. 12:7).

Now, the concept of resurrection entails the nature of man as composed of both body and spirit. Since man is made in God’s image and his spirit comes from God, then the separation of the physical body from human spirit necessarily implies two different consequences. Even the unsaved man who dies is immortal in that his human spirit is not quenched or snuffed out. He, too, enters eternity and faces judgment (John 5:28-29; Matthew 10:28; Jas. 1:27). There is no Bible description of the spiritual body of the wicked that enters eternity and goes to judgment.

But we do have in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5 elaborate discussion of the situation engulfing the righteous dead as to their spiritual or eternal bodies. Of course, language used is definite but accommodative to help us understand what takes place when we die even though it is difficult for us to get a clear picture of how it all is. But the new body is viewed as new clothing (cf. Rev. 3:4), just as the old (physical) body is (Jude 23). The spiritual body is a dwelling place “not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1). It is new clothing “from heaven” (v. 2). If it were not for this new set of clothes, after death we would be “naked” (v. 2-3) [Compare this point to the “bare” (or naked) grain in 1 Cor. 15:37]. In this first body, we presently “groan,” and therefore long for a new and better one (v. 2; cf. Rom. 8:23, 26). When a person becomes a Christian, he is a new creation or creature living in the earthly body (2 Cor. 5:17).

A person becomes a Christian by faith, repentance, confession of faith and immersion in water and in Holy Spirit (John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13). And while a believing, having confessed, penitent believer is still in the water of baptism, he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5-6). This occurs as the Holy Spirit engulfs or surrounds the human spirit. That is why it is referred to as a baptism (1 Cor. 12:13). The Greek preposition ἐν in that passage should be translated “in” in English. No one was ever baptized “by” the Holy Spirit. Only Jesus is said to do that (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Acts 2:33). Furthermore, it is the same preposition used of John’s baptizing people “in” water per Matt. 3:11 as the element in which they were baptized. If John baptized in the element of water, Jesus then baptizes us in the element of the Holy Spirit. Now, following this baptism in Spirit, the Spirit now enters inside the human spirit (Gal. 4:6). When the immersed person rises from baptismal waters, he is “in Christ” because he is now “in Spirit” (Rom. 8:9). This is why he can be said to be a part of the non-personal spiritual body of Christ on earth, which is the Lord’s church (Col. 1:18). From water baptism (which he leaves) and in Holy Spirit (in which he remains), he rises to walk in a new life (Rom. 6:3-4). Thus, this person is now a spiritually alive person and a new creature. And in addition to the physical life that he had before baptism, he now possesses spiritual life while he remains in his mortal or earthly body (Rom. 8:11).

He is now a new creature, spiritually connected to (being “one” with) the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). So, he can be renewed each day by this spiritual fellowship or “communion” with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 4:16; 13:14). This is how the Spirit leads him (Rom. 8:14), enabling him to produce Holy Spirit fruit (Gal. 5:22-24; cf. Eph. 5:3-14). Being “led by the Spirit” enables him to rightly claim to be a child of God, to hold sin down, and to have continual cleansing of his sins (Rom. 8:14; 1 John 1:7). When a man forfeits the Spirit, he reenters “flesh” or, in other words, his physical body no longer has spiritual life in it (Rom. 8:11). The physical body is once again the sin-dominated body that the person had before he became a Christian (“the body of this death,” Rom. 7:24).

Just as we, in the past, could not yet see that the gift of the Holy Spirit is, in fact, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we could not yet see that the regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit is the initiation or production of the new spiritual body. We have viewed the conversion as the human spirit being regenerated (and rightly so). But we failed to comprehend that this new creation was not of a spirit without a spiritual body. We took it to be the production of a new creature but simply with his old, earthy body awaiting the future time when he would receive his new spiritual body in the resurrection.

Sometime back, I wrote an article claiming that the new spiritual body is provided immediately following death. That article, “A Tale of Two Bodies,” was published here in 2021. What I affirmed in it was progress, doctrinally speaking, in that it showed that the resurrection body is not given at the time of the resurrection but before it. And while this was an advance in the way to think about resurrection, now, looking back, I see that there is more to be said, and that, actually, the resurrection body is given a Christian earlier than the point for which I argued in that previous article. The more complete understanding of what Paul is saying in 2 Cor. 5 entails the idea—it now seems to me—that the new spiritual body that we receive is not received following death at all. Rather, it is received when we are converted to Christ! The regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit actually constitutes the new spiritual body, the body that enters Hades if and when we die, and the body that will be either raised from Hades or changed at the last day (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Cor. 5:1-2).

Now notice, Paul is not saying in 2 Cor. 5 that Christians on earth will be given in the future a body from God or a “habitation” from heaven. He is saying that when we die (our earthly body being “dissolved”), we already have in place this other spiritual body in which we leave this earth at death! In other words, he is saying that one does not need to worry about being “unclothed” at death (in putting off this physical body) because his human spirit is already housed in his new body. He already has his new set of clothes. When we die, we are already dressed for our entry into glory and into the presence of God (cf. Rev. 22:4).

And when Paul says that we long for the day when we will be “clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven,” he is saying that we long for the day when we will no longer be burdened as we are now in this physical body. Having put it off, we will experience the revealing or manifestation of our spiritual body that we have had since our conversion. We will see Christ in glory as he is when we die (cf. Phil. 1:23). When Christ at his coming is manifested to faithful Christians living on earth, they will be like him for their spiritual body manifestation at that time will be observable by him and to them as well (1 John 3:2). This is the “revealing of the sons of God” of which Paul spoke in Rom. 8:19. It is “the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). The redemption of the body occurs at death; the resurrection of the body occurs at the last day. The redemption of the body concerns the saved; the resurrection of the body concerns all men.

Notice that in 2 Cor. 5 Paul affirms that God made it possible for Christians to have their new spiritual bodies by means of the Holy Spirit. God is the One who made it possible for us to have the new clothes or the new spiritual body by giving us the Holy Spirit, who is the earnest of our inheritance (v. 5; cf. Eph. 1:13-14). This is the Spirit that made it possible for us to have spiritual life in our “mortal bodies” (Rom. 8:11). So, when our mortal body (“earthly house”) is “dissolved,” our new house is revealed. It is not then given to us. Rather, having been given us at our conversion, we continue to have it so that the spiritual life that we had in the mortal body continues to exist without the mortal body. How? The spiritual life is in our new heavenly body. This new body is “from heaven” (2 Cor. 5:2).

As stated earlier, Paul distinguishes between the “outward man” and the “inward man” (2 Cor. 4:16-18). The “outward man” (physical man) is presently “decaying.” The “inward man” (spiritual man) is being “renewed day by day.” In this life, we can see the “outward man,” but we cannot with physical eyes see “the inward man.” However, Paul shows in this passage that we must see the “inward man.” It is one of those invisible things (v. 18) that we must by faith see (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7). Notice, Paul says that when this decaying outward man “be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1). “Be dissolved” is an aorist tense verb, but “we have” is present tense. Paul is telling us that at the point when we Christians put off the “outward man,” we keep on having this “building from God” or this “inward man.” We already have it! It is “in the heavens” in the sense that this is the domain of all of our spiritual blessings. Paul said that all of our spiritual blessings are “in the heavenlies” (Eph. 1:3).

Now, think about this. Jesus had told Nicodemus, “Except one be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3-5). Water is of the earth, just as our first body is (1 Cor. 15:42-46). The birth from above is spiritual and concerns our human spirit (Rom. 6:17). Question: Can a man be born without a body? Answer: No. And Jesus called our transition from the world of sin to spiritual life a “birth.” Paul contrasted our outward man with our inward man. It has been very easy for us to miss the point that the inward man is actually a “complete” man. That is, we never concluded that the inward man had a body since we know that we are still in this first body. However, we have simply missed what we were being told. It is not the case that our human spirit (if we are Christians) is inside one body only (the earthly). He is within two bodies—the physical and, since conversion, the spiritual. Our inward man is a man. It is the same man that is in this earthly body which we can see. But our spirit is now also inside a new body which we as yet cannot see. It is one of those invisible things of which Paul speaks (2 Cor. 4:16-18). Paul encourages us to keep on looking at those things that keep on not being seen. But eventually, when the old, first body is laid aside, the new body will be seen. It is the new man that is being renewed day by day now (2 Cor. 4:16; Rom. 12:1-2). The spiritual body within is getting stronger day by day as our physical body gets weaker and weaker. And consider this point: The church is the non-personal and yet spiritual body of Christ. Christ’s personal glorified body is in heaven at the right hand of God (1 John 3:2; Acts 7:56). This is why I refer to our being the “non-personal” spiritual body of Christ. But also, note that if the church is actually now the spiritual body of Christ (Col. 1:18), then that is so by virtue of the fact that as Christians our spiritual bodies compose it! Our physical bodies cannot possibly be the spiritual body of Christ. Would anyone contend that the Lord’s spiritual body on earth is composed of earthly bodies? Would anyone on earth like to contend that the Lord’s spiritual body on earth is composed of human spirits who have as yet no spiritual body? How can they have no spiritual body and yet be the spiritual body of Christ?

At our new birth, we were given a new body from heaven (from above). This is our “building from God, a house” that God produced, an “eternal” body, “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1). But how is it “in the heavens,” if we have it now? It is like saying that we are not in the world because we are not of the world. We are certainly in the world in one sense (1 Cor. 5:9-10). But we are not of the world in another sense (John 17:16). Our new body is not of this world. John had written, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Christians have been born of God. They have been born from above. They are new creatures whose spiritual bodies are from heaven where their citizenship is.

Consider Phil. 3:20-21 carefully. (1) Our “citizenship is in heavens” (plural). (2) We are now currently waiting for the return of the Lord. (3) The Lord will “fashion anew the body of our humiliation,” (4) “that it may be conformed to the body of his glory,” and (5) this is accomplished according to the same power and authority by which he is able “to subject all things unto himself.” Paul is, of course, alive on earth in his earthly body at the time of this writing (before physical death has occurred; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13-18). In context, Paul had already referred to some of the Lord’s enemies who “mind earthly things” (Phil. 3:19). If what we said about 1 John 3:2 is correct, and if our contention is that our spiritual body was created at our conversion, how do we square those points with Phil. 3:21, where we are told that Jesus shall “fashion anew the body of our humiliation”?

In Greek, the word “shall fashion” (or change) means to remodel or transfigure (Harper, p. 267). Now, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), and since we already have and are “our inward man” (2 Cor. 4:16), and since the first body is to be “dissolved,” how can the Lord “fashion anew the body of our humiliation”? In 2 Cor. 5:1 the word for “dissolved” means “to dissolve, to destroy, demolish, overthrow, throw down…” (Harper, p. 218). If there is to be both a remodeling or changing of the body and at the same time a dissolving (destroying, overthrowing) of the body, how can these things be?

I suggest that changing (or remodeling or fashioning anew) our body is simply a reference to the releasing of the new spiritual body from its attachment to the physical one. Flesh and blood are not remodeled. They are dissolved or destroyed. The Lord’s fashioning anew the body of our humiliation means that he he will release the spiritual body from the physical body when he returns. Its new form will be by virtue of its disconnection from the physical body in which it now resides. Remember, Paul is writing from the viewpoint of the those living on earth. He is not writing from the viewpoint of faithful Christians whose spiritual bodies have already been released from their earthly bodies. So, he is discussing the release of a spiritual body from a physical body and not the creation of a spiritual body at the Lord’s coming. This refashioning would be the equivalent of “the revealing of the sons of God” in Rom. 8:19.

Furthermore, let us remember that what Paul says regarding the Lord’s fashioning again the body of our humiliation (Phil. 3:21) has the background of his comments earlier made with regard to the Lord’s incarnation. Speaking of Christ Jesus, Paul wrote that he “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:7-8). He said that Jesus gave up “the form of God” (v. 6-7). So, he gave up the divine form (not the divine essence or substance) and took on human form. Jesus retained his eternal identity (John 1:1-2, 14) when he became the son of Mary (Luke 1:35).

Our new body that is conformed to the glorified body of Christ is the new form of the body of humiliation (the physical body). Jesus “humbled himself” in leaving divine form for human form (Phil. 2:8). He humbled himself in being formed as a man. The Lord’s physical body was the body of his humiliation as ours is to us. And notice that the transformation that obtains in our body of humiliation being conformed to the body of his glory is “according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:21).

Compare this to what Paul says in Col. 2:11-12. When we were baptized into Christ, Paul says that such constituted “the putting off of the body of the flesh.” Now, that is not the physical body that was put off; it was the body of sin or sin-dominated body. Paul said he was still in the physical body (Gal. 2:20). He is referring to the sin-dominated body or “the body of this death” (Rom. 7:24). And putting off the body of flesh, “having been buried with him [i.e. Christ] in baptism” (Col. 2:12), Paul says that we “were also raised with him through the faith [i.e. the gospel] in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (v. 12). So, there is a “working” or divine operation that raises us up in our spiritual resurrection from spiritual death at the time of our conversion. That is our “first resurrection” (cf. Rev. 20:6). Regarding our second resurrection, God’s “working” changes us or conforms us to the Lord’s glorified body (Phil. 3:21). This is the fashioning anew of the body of our humiliation. Now, how is it if “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” that God can “fashion anew the body of our humiliation”? If the physical body goes back to dust, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it, then the fashioning anew refers to the release of the spiritual body within from the physical body without. The new form or fashion of the spiritual body is without its attachment to the physical one. Our glorified body is disconnected from the body of our humiliation. Presently our glorified or spiritual body remains within the body of our humiliation.

Consider some points Paul makes on death, burial, and resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:

1. Our physical bodies are not going to be raised from the dead because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (v. 50; cf. Gen. 3:19). The body goes back to the earth (Eccl.12:7), and the earth will finally be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10-12).

2. At the resurrection the righteous dead (those who will inherit the kingdom of God) will be “raised incorruptible,” and the righteous then-living ones will “be changed” (v. 51-52).

3. “Death is swallowed up in victory” (v. 54) as our spirit is released from its first set of clothes (the flesh and blood body characterized by its corruption and mortality; cf. Jas. 2:26).

4. Victory is obtained before resurrection and at the point of one’s death (v. 54).

5. Eternal clothing (or the new body) is already in place at the time of one’s death (v. 52-54).

6. The buried body is likened to the seed that a farmer plants (v. 36).

7. The seed has to die in order that and before its body comes forth (v. 36).

8. The seed is not the same as the body that it becomes (v. 37).

9. God prepares each body that each kind of seed becomes (v. 37-38).

10. There are various kinds of flesh (v. 39), two basic kinds of bodies (v. 40), and various kinds of glory (v. 41).

11. Paul then declares that the resurrection involves what he has just declared (v. 42). (1) A man must die in order that a body might come forth from the grave; (2) the man’s physical body (as seed) that is planted is not to be confused with the body that comes forth; (3) the body that comes forth, like all bodies, is designed by God (v. 37-38); (4) the identification of “fleshes” and “bodies” and “glories” (v. 39-41) indicates that the resurrection entails the full nature of man (both the physical body and the spiritual).

Remember, Paul is discussing the resurrection of the saved (v. 20-23). It is not a discussion of the resurrection of the lost, although certainly some points made would apply to all men. But the concepts of “incorruption,” “glory,” “power,” “spiritual body” refer to saved people only (v. 42-44). While all men who die will be raised (John 5:28-29), only the righteous are raised in incorruption, glory, power, and in a spiritual (or heavenly) body. The spiritual body is the “heavenly” body (v. 46-49). Remember, when we were baptized into Christ, we were born from above (John 3:3-5). We received that spiritual or heavenly body that is the one and only one of our two bodies (physical and spiritual) that will come forth from the grave.

Before listing several formal arguments, let me comment on 1 Cor. 6:13-20. In our second book on the Holy Spirit, Except One Be Born From Above, I explained the passage (p. 229-237), showing how Paul’s discussion of the Christian’s body actually entailed an identification of three different bodies: (1) the Holy Spirit-filled body, (2) one’s own body, and (3) the body of sin (p. 233). When a Christian, walking in the light (1 John 1:7), still commits a momentary act of sin, he sins without “the body of sin” or the sin-dominated body. But Paul says that when a Christian commits fornication, he sins against his own body (“the Holy Spirit-filled body”). And I wrote, “The Christian in the commission of fornication has created a situation such that the Holy Spirit has been driven out of his body…The Holy Spirit cannot indwell an unholy heart or remain in an unholy body (cf. 2 Cor. 7:1)” (p. 234).

In the past when I have been asked what happens to the personal presence of the Holy Spirit when a Christian apostatizes from the faith, I would answer that he leaves the body. Why is this? Because the Holy Spirit’s presence in the physical body of the saint is proof of the saint’s future inheritance in glory (Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:5). This personal presence makes the saint’s physical body a “temple” of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20). So, if the Christian apostatizes from the faith, he forfeits the personal presence of the Holy Spirit in his body, whose presence constitutes the Christian’s “earnest” of his inheritance.

In Gal. 4:19, we find a most informative truth in Paul’s description of the apostates in the churches of Galatia. Some brethren had been led away from the purity of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-10). Some Jews had falsely instructed them that they had to submit to circumcision in order to be faithful to Christ. In other words, they were being told that Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes before they could obey the gospel. Some of them fell for the falsehood, and Paul said of these, “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” These were apostate brethren. They had stopped obeying the truth (5:7). He reminded them that if they were “led by the Spirit,” they were not under the law of Moses (5:18). This reminds us of Rom. 8:14, where Paul wrote, “For as many as are led by Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Now, in Gal. 4:19 Paul says, “I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.” Marshall’s The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament translates the Greek word ὠδίνω to mean “I travail in birth.” Harper’s Analytical Greek Lexicon gives this definition of ὠδίνω: “to be in travail (Gal. 4:27; Rev. 12:2); met. To travail with, to make effort to bring forth (Gal. 4:19)” (p. 282). For the Greek word μορφωθῇ translated “is formed,” Harper gives the meaning as “to give shape to, mould, fashion, (Gal. 4:19)” (p. 273). Thus, Paul is figuratively expressing the idea that he is in spiritual labor until Christ is formed or moulded or shaped in them once again!

Now remember, the formation of a Christian’s spiritual body happens originally when that having confessed, penitent believer is baptized into Christ (John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Cor. 12:13). The formation of a convert’s spiritual body takes place when he becomes a Christian. That first formation entails (1) the surrounding of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit himself when the Holy Spirit enters his physical body. This is the immersion of a human spirit in the Holy Spirit, at which point the human spirit is regenerated (that is, given spiritual life—1 Cor. 12:13; Titus 3:5-6; Rom. 6:3-4). This the precise point when one is added to the church (i.e. becomes a part of the spiritual body of Christ). The formation of a person’s spiritual body also entails (2) the movement of the Holy Spirit to within the heart of the forgiven and now regenerated person who is, in fact, a Christian (Gal. 4:6). The process of baptism in Spirit plus indwelling (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Tim. 1:14) constitutes the “formation” of the Christian’s spiritual body! Don’t confuse the human spirit with Holy Spirit. All humans have a human spirit (Gal. 1:26-27; 1 Thess. 5:23). Only Christians have been regenerated by and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32; 2 Tim. 1:14).

So, when Paul says that he is in spiritual travail until Christ be formed in the Galatian saints, since Christ is personally at the right hand of the Father (Acts. 2:33; 7:55), he can only be “formed” in them again by his Spirit whose form had been forfeited when they fell from grace. That spiritual form (or body) can be reinstated if they heed Paul’s instructions. Amazing!

Let’s conclude with a few arguments:

Argument One

1. If (1) our new birth entails being born of water and Spirit, and if (2) our new birth entails being born from above, and if (3) water is from below and Spirit is from above, and if (4) our human spirit was regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and if (5) we became a new man or a new creature by means of this birth of water and Spirit, and if (6) the concept of being born entails having a body, then we received a new spiritual body when we were born again and became a new man.

2. (1) Our new birth entails being born of water and Spirit (John 3:3-5), and (2) our new birth entails being born from above (John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:13), and (3) water is from below and Spirit is from above (observation; Col. 3:1-4), and (4) our human spirit was regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), and (5) we became a new man or a new creature by means of this birth of water and Spirit (Titus 3:5-6; Rom. 6:1-4), and (6) the concept of being born entails having a body (Gen. 2:7, 23; John 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:47-49).

3. Then, we received a new spiritual body when we were born again and became a new man.

Argument Two

1. If the new birth is comparable to and superior to the old birth, and if the old birth essentially entailed the fundamental concept of a body, then the new birth essentially entails the concept of a body.

2. The new birth is comparable to and superior to the old birth (John 1:13; 3:3-5), and the old birth essentially entailed the fundamental concept of a body (1 Cor. 15:42-49).

3. Then, the new birth essentially entails the concept of a body.

Argument Three

1. If those who are born again or born from above already have a spiritual body within, and if the physical body will go back to dust at death, then it is the spiritual body that enters Hades at death to be raised on the day of the resurrection.

2. Those who are born again or born from above already have a spiritual body within (see Argument Two), and the physical body will go back to dust at death (Gen. 3:19; Eccl. 12:7).

3. Then, it is the spiritual body that enters Hades at death to be raised on the day of the resurrection.

Argument Four

1. If (1) the church’s condition as the spiritual body of Christ on earth is analogous to the condition of a Christian’s spiritual body following physical death, and if (2) that analogy is based on the church’s relationship to (being in) the Spirit now, and if (3) that relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit entails the fact that the Christian is a part of a new creation, then the church’s spiritual body following physical death is a body created by the Holy Spirit.

2. (1) The church’s condition as the spiritual body of Christ on earth is analogous to the condition of a Christian’s spiritual body following physical death (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:44-49), and (2) that analogy is based on the church’s relationship to (being in) the Spirit now (Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 5:4-5), and (3) that relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit entails the fact that the Christian is a part of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

3. Then, the church’s spiritual body following physical death is a body created by the Holy Spirit.

Argument Five

1. If (1) a Christian’s spiritual body is a body created by the Holy Spirit, and if (2) it remains our body following our physical death, then we have our spiritual body before we die a physical death.

2. (1) A Christian’s spiritual body is a body created by the Holy Spirit (see Argument Four; and John 3:3-5), and (2) it remains our body following our physical death (1 Cor. 15:42-49).

3. Then, we have our spiritual body before we die a physical death.

Argument Six

1. If (1) what is sown is what is raised in 1 Cor. 15, and if (2) what is sown is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, then the body remains an individual’s body though it changed from natural to spiritual.

2. (1) What is sown is what is raised in 1 Cor. 15 (15:42-49), and (2) what is sown is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-44).

3. Then, the body remains an individual’s body though it changed from natural to spiritual.

Argument Seven

1. If (1) an individual Christian’s body remains his own body but is changed from a natural body to a spiritual body, and if (2) his spiritual body is not a flesh and blood body, and if (3) his natural body puts on a spiritual body, then his spiritual body was within his natural body before he died a physical death.

2. (1) An individual Christian’s body remains his own body but is changed from a natural body to a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-49), and (2) his spiritual body is not a flesh and blood body (1 Cor. 15:50-58), and (3) his natural body puts on a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:53-56).

3. Then, his spiritual body was within his natural body before he died a physical death.

Argument Eight

1. If (1) the natural body (physical body) has spiritual life in it on earth by means of the Holy Spirit’s presence in it, and if (2) the natural body is the mortal body, and if (3) the spiritual body is the immortal body, and if (4) the natural body will not be raised but the spiritual body will be raised, then the natural body has spiritual life within it by means of a spiritual body within it.

2. (1) The natural body (physical body) has spiritual life in it on earth by means of the Holy Spirit’s presence in it (Rom. 8:9-11; 6:1-11), and (2) the natural body is the mortal body (1 Cor. 15:44; 2 Cor. 5:1-5), and (3) the spiritual body is the immortal body (1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1-8), and (4) the natural body will not be raised but the spiritual body will be raised (1 Cor. 15:50, 42-49).

3. Then, the natural body has spiritual life within it by means of a spiritual body within it.

A Concluding Thought

Not only does the previous argumentation show that the Christian’s resurrection body is provided to him when he becomes a Christian, but it also provides a unique form of new apologetic argumentation for the inspiration of Scripture and, thus, for the existence of God. The myriad of details involved in the history of man, as told in Scripture, is such that from man’s first appearance on earth to his final destiny, his history reveals the necessity of the divine inspiration of the Book that records that history!

No one but God himself could have told the story of human experience (with all the essential features of it), revealing the necessity of divine redemption in such a complete and coherent way as to provide such a profound account of the nature, the condition, the purpose, and the need of man from time to eternity.

Argument on Inspiration

1. If the Bible provides an account of the totality of human experience (from time to eternity) which is impossible to be the written production of mere man or of any combination of men, then the Bible is the word of God.

2. The Bible provides an account of the totality of human experience (from time to eternity) which is impossible to be the written production of mere man or of any combination of men. [Note: The proof of this second premise is the story of Scripture beginning with man’s first appearance on earth and concluding with his resurrection and/or transformation into his final phase.]

3. Then, the Bible is the word of God.

Doctrine, Expository, Holy Spirit, Miracles

Luke’s Unique Writing Technique

Posted on January 28, 2025 by Mac Deaver

Recently while teaching from Acts 17 in Bible class, I pointed out that Luke in Acts 17:13 employs a certain writing technique in expressing a particular thought. Usually, the New Testament is quite precise in its wording. However, in the midst of much precision, we find several times in a few passages some designed ambiguity. In Acts we find displayed a certain kind of writing that requires the reader to analyze a passage carefully to distinguish between definite concepts presented that are mixed together in one expression. So the reader must identify the different concepts and then separate them in his own thinking. Otherwise the meaning of the passage will be missed. For the reader to get the meaning necessitates that he come to the realization of this designed ambiguity (admixture of definite concepts) in the one expression. As we consider this writing technique in several verses, we will see that at times it is very simple to understand what the verse is telling us without much mental exertion. But we will finally come to a text where the truthful information is more difficult to get at (and which has troubled some of us Bible students for years).

Let us consider some cases (in order, except for the one that has given us the most difficulty). We begin with two samples that are quite simple in Acts 13:44-46. Paul and Silas are in Antioch of Pisidia. After having taught in the Jewish synagogue, Luke informs us that a week later Paul and Silas are met by “almost the whole city” and that almost the whole city “was gathered together to hear the word of God” (v. 44). Now, the whole city didn’t know whether or not what Paul and Silas were preaching was, in fact, the word of God. However, Luke knows. And by inspiration Luke informs us that what almost the whole city came to hear (without knowing yet what it actually was) was, in fact, the word of God. So the passage is combining two thoughts. First, what Paul and Silas were preaching was the word of God. Second, what almost the whole city came to hear was what they were preaching. So, in verse 44, we find these two concepts presented without differentiation. Now, having preached the word of God to “almost the whole city,” what happens? The Jews rejected the message and blasphemed (v. 45). Then we read, “And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (v. 46). Notice that what they thrust from them was the word of God. Their rejection was actual and intentional. They thrust it from them because they thought it was NOT the word of God! They were rejecting what they didn’t believe to be true. Too, they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life by rejecting the message that, in fact, was the word of God. They did not knowingly judge themselves unworthy. They ignorantly judged themselves to be unworthy. In other words, their self-condemnatory judgment was not intentional, but it was real. So, notice the combination of concepts. First, the Jews intentionally and actually thrust the word of God from them. Second, they did that because they did not believe it to be the word of God. Third, by intentionally rejecting what was, in fact, the word of God, they unintentionally judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. It is not difficult at all to identify and separate the various facts involved in this case.

In Acts 17:10 we find that Paul and Silas come to Beroea. They teach in the Jewish synagogue and find an audience willing to consider what they say. But when unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica learn that Paul and Silas are preaching in Beroea, they come to Beroea and stir up trouble. Notice how Luke presents this to us in Acts 17:13: “But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed at Beroea also, they came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitudes.” Now what do we find? The Jews that have come to Beroea are the unbelieving ones whom Paul faced in Thessalonica (17:5-9). Some Jews did believe and a church was established (17:4; cf. 1 Thess. 1:1). But in Acts 17:13, Luke is not talking about these Christians. He is referring to those Jews in Thessalonica who had just rejected the gospel. Some of these folk came to Beroea to cause problems for Paul and Silas. But notice what Luke says in verse 13. These unbelieving Jews “had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed of Paul at Beroea also….” What is Luke saying? He is not telling us that the unbelievers in Thessalonica have now suddenly become believers. He is saying that they knew Paul was preaching in Beroea what he had been preaching in Thessalonica. And Luke knows that what Paul preached in Thessalonica was, in fact, the word of God. So notice, first, the unbelieving Jews had knowledge that Paul was preaching in Beroea as he had been preaching in Thessalonica. Second, they do not know that what he was preaching was the word of God though Luke claims that they “had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed….” Third, Luke knows that what Paul was preaching was the word of God. So, we find a combination of three concepts expressed as one thought without Luke’s distinguishing between what the Jews believed about the message preached and what Luke believed. But again, in the context, it is very easy to determine these facts.

Consider a third case. In Acts 18:5 Paul, Silas and Timothy are in Corinth. Paul is “testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.” Now in Acts 18:6 Luke writes, “And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his raiment and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” What do we find here? First, since they rejected his message they were unintentionally opposing themselves. They did not mean to be doing that, but Paul says that they were, in fact, doing that. They were doing what they did not intend to be doing! Second, they blasphemed (unintentionally, of course) in what they were saying about Jesus. Since they remained ignorant in their unbelief, they intentionally spoke against Jesus and unintentionally blasphemed against God since they were speaking against the Son of God. They certainly were NOT trying to oppose themselves and did not know that they were. They did NOT intend to be blaspheming, but Luke says that they, in fact, were doing so.

Let us now explore a passage of increased difficulty. In Acts 21:4 Paul is at Tyre and Luke is with him. They meet in worship with the disciples. Luke informs us that the disciples tell Paul “through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.” Then Luke tells us that Paul and company continue on their journey (v. 5-6). Where is Paul going? To Jerusalem. Paul goes from Tyre to Ptolemais and then on to Caesarea on his way to Jerusalem. At Caesarea a prophet, Agabus, warns Paul of coming bondage in Jerusalem. Luke says the prediction came from the Holy Spirit (v. 11). Then, those traveling with Paul and some brethren at Caesarea all began trying to persuade Paul not to go to Jerusalem. But we learn in verse 14 that it is the will of the Lord for Paul to go to Jerusalem. So, we now go back to verse 4 where Luke had said that the disciples at Tyre said to Paul “through the Spirit, that he should not go to Jerusalem.” Just what are we to make of this? If, in verse 14, Luke claims that the conclusion reached by the brethren at Caesarea was that the Lord’s will was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, then how are we to take the seeming prohibition from the Holy Spirit in verse 4 that Paul was not to go to Jerusalem? Just here, the scholarly J.W. McGarvey astutely writes, “The knowledge was supernatural; the advice was the result of their own judgment” (A Commentary on Acts of Apostles, p. 255). Otherwise, we have Paul violating divine prohibition and then confronting the fact that his going to Jerusalem was the Lord’s will! McGarvey was exactly right. And his understanding of the passage underscores the point that I am trying to make in this article. In Acts 21:4 Luke combines two thoughts that he himself does not distinguish. He combines them into one expression. What is the one expression? “…and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go to Jerusalem.” Now, taking this passage together with the passage that follows (21:10-14), we have the following facts. First, the Holy Spirit was giving warning that Paul would face bondage in Jerusalem. Second, brethren in Tyre and Agabus at Caesarea both received revelation to this effect. Third, this prophecy was what was given by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, the attempt at Tyre to prevent Paul’s going to Jerusalem was like the attempt at Caesarea. Fifth, the brethren at Caesarea were finally convinced that the will of the Lord was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, and this is the conclusion that had been reached at Tyre, even though Luke did not mention it. Sixth, he simply stated that after the brethren at Tyre learned that Paul would be in danger in Jerusalem, they attempted to prevent his going. This was their own uninspired judgment. When Paul persisted and left Tyre on his way to Jerusalem, the brethren at Tyre evidently concurred that it was the will of the Lord for him to go on to Jerusalem (v. 5-6). So, what was the ambiguity in Luke’s writing in Acts 21:4? He combined the inspired warning from the Holy Spirit (that Paul would be in danger in Jerusalem, cf. 21:11) with the uninspired judgment of the brethren at Tyre that he should not go to Jerusalem.

In Acts 26:10-11 we have a very simple case. Paul is presenting a defense lesson before King Agrippa. He reports to the king that in former days prior to his conversion, he had persecuted Christians. “And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities” (v. 11). Now, what is Luke telling us? He is telling us that Paul at the time that he stood before Agrippa knew that what he had tried to get Christians to do was to “blaspheme.” But, what Luke does not say—and does not need to say—is that at the time Paul was persecuting Christians, he did not realize that it was blasphemy. This is the unstated fact that Luke does not mention. Paul would not have persecuted Christians if he had known that Jesus was God. Paul came to learn that what he was trying earlier to have Christians say about Jesus was, in fact, blasphemy since Jesus, as Paul would learn later, was God (cf. Acts 9:1-9). So, what is the combination of concepts that Luke mixes in Acts 26:11? It is that (1) Paul tried to get Christians to blaspheme, while (2) not knowing that it was blasphemy.

Finally, the most difficult sample of this unique writing style of Luke is found in Acts 8. It is the most complex case, and before going into it in detail, I suggest that the reader consider a passage from the writer, John, in John 5:18, for a similar writer’s viewpoint. In John 5:18 we read, “For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own father, making himself equal with God.” Why does John say that some Jews wanted to kill Jesus? He said it was for two reasons: First, Jesus broke the sabbath, and, second, he made himself equal with God. Now, we know that Jesus claimed to be God. But did Jesus break the sabbath? We know that he did not actually break sabbath law because that would have been sinful, and Jesus knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21). So we are left with the question: In what sense, if any, did he break sabbath law? And the answer is that Jesus broke sabbath law only in the sense of breaking human tradition regarding sabbath law (cf. Matt. 12:1-8; 15:9). So, in John 5:18 the meaning is that Jesus broke what the Jews thought was sabbath law (but which, in fact, was not).

Now, we are ready to explore Acts 8:18. This verse is in the midst of a discussion of a given situation that exists in Samaria. Philip had been preaching in Samaria. Some Samaritans had been convinced by the gospel and Philip had baptized them in water (8:12). Among those who had been baptized was a previous sorcerer named Simon (v. 9-10). Since entering the kingdom entailed both immersion in water and in Spirit (John 3:3-5; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:13), and since these Samaritans had as yet been baptized in water only, and since Peter held the keys to kingdom entry with regard to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 1:8), it was necessary that Peter be present in Samaria for kingdom entry to be completed. So, the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter along with John to Samaria (v. 14). The water-only baptism experienced by the Samaritans heretofore was a baptism “into the name of the Lord Jesus” only (cf. Acts 19:5). The complete baptism that initiated one into the kingdom was not simply into the name of the Lord Jesus but was “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). So, Peter and John came down so that these disciples in Samaria, who had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus only, could now be immersed into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit (which was immersion in the person of the Holy Spirit himself [1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Acts 2:33]).

We know from other passages that the Father gave the Holy Spirit to Jesus, and that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to humans by immersing them in Holy Spirit. John the baptizer had promised that those water-baptized disciples of his would later be immersed in Holy Spirit by the One coming after him (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16), and which began to occur on Pentecost (Acts 2:33). The kingdom came in Acts 2 because disciples, having been baptized in water only were now baptized in Holy Spirit, which combination gave them kingdom entry. The church was established in Jerusalem as recorded by Luke in Acts 2:1-4.

Now, in Acts 8:14 Peter and John come to Samaria. The Holy Spirit “was fallen upon none of them” as yet, but these not-yet-Christian disciples had been baptized in water only by Philip. Peter and John laid their hands on each one of the water-only baptized persons (v. 17). Since only Jesus could distribute the Spirit (John 1:33), the question arises as to why Peter and John laid hands on these people. I would suggest that it was for two reasons: first, to identify each one who was to receive the Spirit, and, second, to connect their reception of the Spirit to their reception earlier of the water. It demonstrated that the one baptism by which one entered the kingdom (Eph. 4:5; John 3:3-5) entailed two elements—water and Spirit. These Samaritans had been baptized in water by Philip’s hands. They are now to be baptized in Holy Spirit by Jesus directly from heaven (“for as yet it was fallen upon none of them”), and their kingdom entry completed. The “hands” of the apostles thus were for (1) identification (water-only baptized people have hands laid on them) and (2) association (the Samaritans had not entered the kingdom though by the laying on of Philip’s hands they had been immersed in water). Now they are to enter the kingdom due to the laying on of the hands of either Peter or John. So, the coming of the Spirit is by laying on of hands associated with the previous laying on of Philip’s hands (cf. Acts 19:6 where Paul lays his hands on twelve men to immerse them in water so that they can receive the Holy Spirit). Philip had done in Samaria what Peter had preached on Pentecost: sinners must be immersed in water for remission of sins so that they can then receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38). (Do not get confused over Cornelius, who received the Spirit first and the water second since he was not a sinner [this is discussed at length in other articles].)

After praying to God that these Samaritans would now receive the Holy Spirit (thus completing kingdom entry), we read, “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” This is what happened in Acts 19:6 by means of Paul’s hands. He laid hands on these men in order to immerse them in water, and while under the water they received the Holy Spirit, the proof of which was the empirical verification by tongue speaking and prophesying, which miraculous power was provided by the Holy Spirit now present in each one of them. Note that this case is not like what we find in Acts 8 because Peter did not have to be present for kingdom entry for these Jews in Ephesus. That’s because Peter had been present in Jerusalem in Acts 2 on the day that the Jews first entered the kingdom, which was in harmony with Peter’s holding the keys for Jewish entry (cf. Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 2:1-4, 8).

Now in Samaria we come to Luke’s unique writing technique. In verse 18 we read, “Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.” The question is this. Is Luke telling us what Simon really saw or what Simon only thought he saw?

Remember John 5:18. Did the Jews want to kill Jesus because he actually violated sabbath law or because they thought he violated sabbath law? Remember Acts 17:13. Did the Jews really know that the word of God was being preached in Beroea, or did they only know that the same message was being preached in Beroea that had been earlier preached in Thessalonica (which they thought was NOT the word of God)?

I submit to you that in Acts 8:18 Luke is telling us what Simon thought he saw but which Luke knows he did not see at all. Luke had already told us in verse 16 that the Spirit was coming from above (vertically). Remember, the Greek for “unless one is born again” in John 3:3 can be translated as “unless one is born from above.” The Holy Spirit did not come through anyone’s hands (horizontally), but the Holy Spirit did, in this case, come due to prayer (v. 15). Simon, not being clear on some facts, misjudges the case. Simon assumes that with their hands the apostles are actually distributing the Holy Spirit! Let me say loudly and clearly: No human ever gave the Holy Spirit to anyone. Ever. The laying on of hands never entailed such purpose. Neither Paul nor Ephesian elders nor anyone else ever handed out the Holy Spirit to anyone (2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:14). The Holy Spirit himself is the only one who ever gave a miraculous gift to a Christian (1 Cor. 12:11). No apostle (or non-apostle) gave the Holy Spirit or a miraculous spiritual gift. Only Jesus could give the Spirit (Matt.s3:11). Only the Spirit could give a miraculous gift (1 Cor. 12:11). Hands had their purposes, and the early church was taught as foundation doctrine the purposes of “the laying on of hands” (Heb. 6:1-2).

If someone objects and says that I am simply guessing about Luke’s use of any alleged writing technique as applied to Simon, I would reply: That what Simon thought he saw he didn’t see is proven by Peter’s explanation and accusation regarding Simon. In verses 20-21 we see the seriousness of Simon’s mistake. Notice the following facts. First, while Simon attempted to buy the power to bestow the Holy Spirit (that he thought came through hands), Peter says that, actually, what he did amounted to attempting to buy the Holy Spirit himself (v. 20 [“the gift of God” here is the Holy Spirit (v. 18, 20; cf. Acts 2:38; 10:45; 11:17)]. Second, Simon thought the gift of God could be purchased with money (v. 20). Third, Simon had nothing whatever to do with the matter of giving or receiving the Holy Spirit (v. 21). Fourth, his heart was not right before God (v. 21). Fifth, he was in the grip of wickedness (v. 22). Sixth, he needed to repent so that perhaps God would forgive him of the thought of his heart. Seventh, as things stood, Simon was “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity” (v. 23). Even though we have not tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money, most of us in the churches of Christ in my lifetime have followed the absolutely abhorrent view of Simon thinking that apostles could hand out the Holy Spirit. We’ve made the same false assumption as did Simon—that “the gift of God” is the ability to perform miracles. That’s what Simon wanted to be able to give others. What he should have seen is that the gift is the Spirit (Acts 2:38). There is no such thing as the laying-on-of-hands “measure” of the Holy Spirit among mere men (John 3:34).

Now, a final point, which is this: Peter’s accusation that Simon had attempted to buy the Holy Spirit (rather than simply some miraculous power) can only be true if Simon did not actually see what he thought he saw. Let me explain. Look at the following:

1. Apostles’ hands → power to give (i.e. cause) → the Holy Spirit (i.e. effect) → to others

2. Simon wants to buy → power to give (i.e. cause) → the Holy Spirit (i.e. effect) → to others

3. Peter says Simon is asking to buy → the gift of God/Holy Spirit (i.e. effect)

How can Peter’s accusation be true? How is it that Simon had tried to buy the Holy Spirit? The answer is that Simon thought he saw cause and effect. The cause, he thought, was the laying on of hands. The effect he knew was that the Holy Spirit was given. Peter’s accusation is true (that Simon was actually attempting to buy the Holy Spirit) because the cause that Simon thought he saw was not actual. What was actual was the effect (i.e. the gift of God, the Holy Spirit). Simon imagined a cause, and that’s why Luke writes it from the viewpoint of what Simon saw. Peter didn’t see it as Simon saw it. Simon the sorcerer and Peter the apostle cannot both be right.

There are two things in Simon’s mind that are relevant: power to bestow the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit himself (v. 19). But the power to bestow the Holy Spirit was not actually the cause of the coming of the Spirit. That power was NOT in the hands of the apostles! This proves that what Simon thought he saw (v. 18), he didn’t see at all. Thus, again, Luke’s unique writing technique is employed. In explaining Simon’s predicament, Luke shows us several things. First, Simon did see that Peter and John laid hands on people. Second, Peter and John prayed for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Third, though the Spirit was coming from above, Simon “saw that through the laying on the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” And, that was a wrong conclusion reached by Simon!

Doctrine, Expository, New Testament

And So All Israel Shall Be Saved

Posted on August 2, 2022August 2, 2022 by Mac Deaver

The religious doctrine of “premillennialism” entails the notion that after the Lord comes back to the earth, the Jews as a nation will be converted by the gospel. They base this contention, at least in part, on a misunderstanding of Romans 11:26 where the expression “and so all Israel shall be saved” is found. To understand that expression in its context, one has to familiarize himself with the context. Otherwise, the expression becomes by misconstruction a conclusion that is not intended.

In the context, Paul is developing the idea that God has used both Jews and Gentiles historically in such a way as to make the gospel accessible to all men. The gospel first went to the Jews (Acts 2) in harmony with what the Lord had predicted in Acts 1:8. Jesus had told the woman at the well that salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22). The Jews were the first ones to enter the church, and so were the ones from whom the gospel later was provided to non-Jews. Paul affirms in Romans 11 that he hoped that by preaching to the Gentiles, that his Jewish kinfolk would be moved to jealousy and so come to understand the gospel. My father, Roy Deaver, points out in his good commentary, Romans—God’s Plan For Man’s Righteousness, that the jealousy to which the Jews were moved was a jealousy with regard to their own Jewish law. That is, the divine strategy was that when Paul preached to Gentiles, Jews would be so jealous of their law that they would be moved to investigate it further so as to disprove what Paul and others were preaching. If they had honest and good hearts, by their jealous search of their Scriptures, they could come to understand the gospel. In Beroea we later find some noble Jews willing to search the Scriptures to see if the gospel was in harmony with the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:11). In Romans 11:11-15, Paul shows that the gospel reached the Gentiles by means of the falling of the Jews. We see this strategy demonstrated in Acts 13:46 at Antioch of Pisidia. Luke informs us that when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted what Paul preached (13:45). “And Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and just yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” This is the very strategy that Paul is discussing in Romans 11. He is showing that by means of the rejection of the gospel on the part of some Jews, the gospel then went to the Gentiles. Gentiles are represented in Romans 11 as a wild olive tree (11:17), and the Jews are represented as a good olive tree (11:24). Paul says that Jewish branches were broken off and wild Gentile branches were grafted in. If natural branches (Jews) came to faith, then they could be grafted back into the good olive tree. No one had to be lost; all could be saved. But salvation came by faith. Unbelief was not a condition in which a person (either Jew or Gentile) had to remain (20-24). And God had so arranged history so as to make the gospel accessible to all Jews and all Gentiles so that all could be saved (11:32). It was a remarkable divine scheme which evoked the great doxology that Paul by the Spirit provides in Romans 11:33-36.

Back in verse 25 Paul said, “a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” The rejection of the gospel by some Jews provided the historical circumstance in which the gospel then went to the Gentiles. Paul was even “an apostle of Gentiles,” and he hoped that by this Gentile ministry he could provoke Jews to jealousy that would motivate them to come to faith and be saved (11:13-14). The Jews could come back to the gospel if they would, and Paul so hoped. In fact, he desperately desired that they would (Romans 9:1-3; 10:1-3). But we also remember that he desired the salvation of all Gentiles as well as all Jews, while knowing that only some would be saved (1Corinthians 9:19-23). In Romans 11:25 Paul warns Gentile brethren against arrogance with regard to their salvation. They came into the church because of “the hardening in part” that befell Israel “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” And then he said, “and so all Israel shall be saved.” Notice, in the text we find in verses 25-26 (1) Israel, and then (2) all Israel.

Now, as before stated, premillennialism affirms that verse 26 declares that the time is coming when all of the ethnic Jews will be converted by the gospel following the Lord’s return (which they also wrongly declare will be a return to the earth to live on it). No passage says Jesus will ever set foot on earth again. Not one! And Romans 11 does not teach the universal salvation of the Jews at some future time. But let us proceed.

In my father’s commentary on Romans, he makes the point that the Greek word for our English word “so” in Romans 11:26 is an adverb (p. 414). The passage means that in the same manner by which the Gentiles were saved, all Israel would be saved. The word “so” is not a conclusion reached regarding numbers, but rather a word showing that Jews and Gentiles had to enter the kingdom in the same way or manner if they entered at all.

Now, please think about the expression “and so all Israel shall be saved” in Romans 11:26 and compare it with the expression “so also in Christ shall all be made alive” in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Read both passages very carefully, and then consider the following argument:

Argument

If the expression “and so all Israel shall be saved” in Romans 11:26 means that all ethnic Jews would in the future at some point be saved, then the expression “so also in Christ shall all be made alive” in 1 Corinthians 15:22 means that all men would be saved.
But, it is false that the expression “so also in Christ shall all be made alive” in 1 Corinthians 15:22 means that all men would in the future be saved (Revelation 20:11-15; Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24; 1 Corinthians 15:23).
Therefore, it is false that the expression “and so all Israel shall be saved” in Romans 11:26 means that all ethnic Jews would in the future at some point be saved.

Also, please consider that it is contextually possible that in Romans 11:26, when Paul uses the expression “all Israel,” he is not referring to ethnic Jews but rather to all the members of the church. Remember, back in Romans 2:14-15, Paul pointed out that Jews and Gentiles in days prior to the gospel system would be judged based on their laws. The Jews would be judged by the law of Moses, and the Gentiles would be judged by the moral law. And he pointed out that by means of the gospel, there was a new definition of an Israelite. A Jew, under the gospel, is not one by outward sign but by inward condition (Romans 2:28-29). And in Romans 9:6 he says, “they are not all Israel that are of Israel.” In other words, the church of the Lord constitutes spiritual Israel. Furthermore, in Galatians 6:16, Paul plainly identifies the church as “the Israel of God.”

So, it seems to me that it is possible in Romans 11:26 after referring to “Israel” in verse 25, Paul may well be referring to the church as a whole in verse 26. That is, all who come into the kingdom come in the same way, and this group constitutes “all Israel.” It would be similar (though not parallel) to what he had done earlier in chapter eight. In speaking of the suffering experienced in this world, Paul spoke of (1) the creation, and (2) the whole creation (8:19, 22). In context, “the creation” seems to refer to the church, and “the whole creation” would then refer to all of mankind. My father has an excellent discussion of this point in his commentary (pp. 280-283). Here in Romans 11:25-26 Paul refers to (1) “Israel” and then to (2) “all Israel.”

Let me make one further additional observation. If “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 implies the universal salvation of the Jews, then the “fulness of the Gentiles” would imply the universal salvation of the Gentiles. And if Romans 11:25-26 implies a time in which all the Gentiles and all the Jews will be saved, then we would ask, “Why didn’t that occur following the coming of the Lord the first time when the gospel was preached throughout the whole world? If there could be no guarantee of such a universal result following the Lord’s incarnation, his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension back to the Father’s right hand (John 1:14; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; 2:33), his dispatching of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Acts 2:1-4, 33), the apostolic preaching throughout the whole world with the accompaniment of miracles (Mark 16:19-20; Colossians 1:23), then how could there be a guarantee of such a universal result in some alleged future time since God has always desired the salvation of all men (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4)?

Doctrine, Expository, Salvation

Letter and Spirit

Posted on April 15, 2021April 15, 2021 by Mac Deaver

Have you ever heard someone say, “Well, that may be in accordance with the letter of the law but certainly not with the spirit of it”? When such is said, it is offered as some kind of criticism as though the stated obligation as to its overt requirement or outward form has been met, but somehow the proper disposition (or internal requirement of heart) intended as obligation has not been fulfilled. That is, the statement is suggesting that someone has “gone through the motions” of doing what law required, but his heart wasn’t in it or he did not comply with the intent of the requirement. He did only what the minimum requirement was, as stated or legislated, rather than the maximal and intended requirement which obligated him to do whatever he was to do with proper attitude as well regarding the purpose of the requirement.

Of course, it is very possible for a person to “go through the motions” of some realized obligation without thinking about what he is doing. A person can sing without understanding. He may move his mouth while his mind is on lunch (cf. Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15). One can worship without worshiping in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), but if a person worships in truth, he must worship with his own spirit under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Jude 20).

This idea of (1) complying with stated requirement and (2) at the same time not complying with motive/disposition requirement is mistakenly thought by some to explain certain Bible passages contrasting “law” and “spirit.” We have some passages that do mention and/or discuss the contrast between “letter” and “spirit.” Romans 2:27-29, Romans 7:6, and 2 Corinthians 3:1-11 do this. According to Bible teaching, however, there is no such thing in Scripture as faithfully complying with legislated obligation by overt action when the action does not derive from proper disposition. For example, whatever the Jew under the law of Moses was commanded to do, he was obligated to do it with love for God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40). If he failed in disposition, he failed in overt action.

The Lord’s disciples were once criticized for transgressing the tradition of the elders (Matt. 15:1-2). Jesus accused the critics of transgressing the commandment of God because of their tradition (v. 3). They were in fulfillment of one of Isaiah’s prophecies, “This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me” (v. 8). It wasn’t that they outwardly obeyed and inwardly disobeyed. They altogether disobeyed, and their disobedience entailed hypocrisy (v. 7). Honoring with lips only amounted to violation of law and, actually, to no honor at all being given to God. Pretense is not partial obedience. Hypocrisy is not law compliance with one’s obligation to any degree.

And yet, we do find in Scripture the contrast between “letter” and “spirit.” We must, however, keep the contrast in its context and not make the contrast become what it never distinguished. If we fail here with such a disregard for context, we wind up with concepts that do not derive from Scripture.

Let us briefly point out a few things that, when the contrast is made in Scripture between “letter” and “spirit,” the contrast cannot possibly mean. It is not a contrast between—

1. Being a stickler for accuracy on the one hand and, on the other, having the proper over-all disposition toward God, but without being all that concerned with the details of obligation. Have you ever heard a Christian explain a given passage in just this way? Sometimes Christians have wound up, even if unintentionally, justifying disobedience by thinking that “letter” and “spirit” suggest that accuracy of interpretation and action does not really mean much to God in the Christian dispensation. How many times have cautious brethren been accused of being “legalists” or “five-steppers” or described by some other conceptually kindred term? Such criticism may be offered because of the failure of the critic to grasp true contrasts as opposed to false ones. The Bible contrast between “letter” and “spirit” is never a contrast between accuracy with regard to divine information (the supposed “letter”) and good disposition without necessarily having accuracy of information (the alleged “spirit”). This is a humanly imagined contrast, but Scripture does not authorize it.

This suggestion that we do not really under New Testament authority have the obligation to be accurate as to information and correct in the practice of our obligations is never made in Scripture! In fact, the New Testament obligates us to know the truth (if we want to be saved) and to practice the truth (John 8:32; 1 John 3:18; Heb. 5:8-9). No Bible writer ever undermined knowing truth for certain and doing the truth. Preachers of another generation used to speak of our having purity of doctrine and practice. Amen! Those today who would have us suppose that, somehow, the grace of God is going to cover the sins of people who never know God and who never obey the gospel are wrong and dangerous (2 Thess. 1:8). Furthermore, no man can have the proper attitude toward God while at the same time trying to devise ways and means of opposing what God, who cannot lie, has already said (Rom. 1:18; Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2; Rom. 3:4). One prominent preacher among us several years ago claimed that it is the case that men must be right about Christ but that surely we can be wrong about everything else. His apostasy is sad, and his comment is unfounded.

2. Having a law and not having a law. Have you ever come across a Christian who takes the position that we do not have law from God today? Well, if we do not have law from God today, then we have no obligations from God today, if the idea of law entails obligation. In fact, if we have no law from God, we currently have no obligation to God. But, the matter of obligation is the dominant concept in “law” as described in Scripture. And that is why “law” as such is said to be unable to save anyone (cf. Rom. 7:11-13; Gal. 3:11). Law obligates, sin violates, grace eliminates. Again, we must keep contrasts in context or we wind up imagining what is never declared. For example, in Romans 6:14 Paul affirms that Christians are not under law but under grace. Now, if someone reads that and knows nothing of what Paul had already said in the same document or he does not know what Paul says later or he knows nothing of what other Bible writers say about law, he may well draw an erroneous and dangerous conclusion that Christians are not under any law whatever. But such is not expressed by Paul in this passage, however, or in any other one for that matter. In Romans 4:15 he had said that if we do not have any law, we cannot have sin. In Romans 6:1 Paul asks if we Christians should continue in sin that grace may abound. We should not, he affirms, but the possibility of even attempting this (continuing to sin so that grace may abound) is only possible because Christians do have law. In context Romans 6:14 is saying that our law (or gospel) is not a law system. And no law systems (Gentile-ism and Judaism) can save; they only condemn because there is in them no provision for actual forgiveness. Forgiveness in these systems could only be prospective (cf. Heb. 9:15; 10:1-4; Rom. 3:25-26). It was the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coronation of Christ that made forgiveness actually possible. That is why the gospel can be called “a law of faith” (Rom. 3:27). Why? Because, unlike Gentile-ism and Judaism, we can trust—or, have faith—in the gospel itself to save us (Rom. 1:16-17). No Gentile (under moral-law-ism or Gentile-ism) and no Jew (under Judaism) could trust in his law to save him. He will certainly be judged by his law (Rom. 2:14-15), but his salvation (if such there be) would have to come from God outside of the system of law under which he lived. The gospel is not like that (Rom. 1:16). We can trust it to save us, or to put it another way, we can trust God by trusting his message to save us! This is why the gospel can rightly be called “a law of faith.” The gospel is “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). It is “a law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12). In fact, it is the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). It sets us free—not from obligation, but from sin (guilt, practice, consequence).

3. Abiding by law and merely following the supposed “intention” of the law without doing what it says. Some evidently have subscribed to the notion that since we are under grace and not under law that we are at liberty to do pretty much what we want even though we do have definite and specific obligations stated in the New Testament. But what are specific obligations among friends? As long as we follow the intended purpose of an obligation, we stand all right before God, it is thought by some, even while we violate the specificity of the obligation as stated. The question is: How in the world can we follow the “intended” purpose of an obligation if we do not submit to the obligation as stated? This issue is settled by interpreting Scripture, understanding Scripture, and rightly applying Scripture. There is no scriptural authority for the concept of (1) disobeying a specific obligation and yet at the same time (2) obeying its intention. Cannot God properly describe what it is that he does and does not want me to do? How can I know what his intended purpose is beyond what he declares? If his purpose is not revealed in the specific obligation, how in the world could I find it outside of and beyond the stated obligation? Can God not make himself clear?

This approach to contrasts is a way of justifying the claim that we do not or perhaps even cannot know truth for certainty regarding obligation, but that we can comprehend God’s general intention behind the stated obligations. But then the question arises: How can we know, generally speaking, God’s intention from Scripture, but that we cannot know specific obligation from Scripture? After all, the supposed comprehension of the divine intention is derived from the articulated obligation.

The fact is that in 2 Corinthians 3:1-11, Romans 2:27-29, and Romans 7:6, where we find the contrast between “letter” and “spirit,” the contrast is between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ.

Deity of Christ, Expository, Miracles

Which None Other Did

Posted on December 29, 2020December 29, 2020 by Mac Deaver

In John 15:22-24 Jesus referred to the fact that the Jews had no excuse for their sin of rejecting him because of his words that he had spoken to them. He also referred to the fact that their rejection of him was in spite of the fact that he had done works which none other did. Let us briefly consider in what way his works were unlike those of any others.

First, we need to consider the amount of the works that Jesus did. Peter would later describe Jesus as one anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power, and one who went about doing good (Acts 10:38). His life was a constant display of divine power in behalf of needy men. Near the end of his first book, John would say, “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30), thus indicating that a complete record of all the miracles of the Lord was not being recorded in spite of the fact that a record of a lot of them is recorded. And in an obvious hyperbolic statement at the end of this book, John said, “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). No one performed the amount of miracles that Jesus did.

Second, we need to consider the variety of the works that Jesus did. Think of the kind of miracles that he performed. Jesus, himself, once referred to the partial variety when he said, “Go tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up” (Matt. 11:4-5). Matthew tells us that along with the Lord’s teaching and preaching, there was the “healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people” (Matt. 11:23). The Lord’s power was amazing. He did not even have to be present at the site where his miraculous power was activated (Matt. 8:5-13). And in addition to dealing with bodily sickness and infirmity, the Lord’s power was used to terminate a storm at sea (Mark 4:35-41), to walk on water (Matt. 14:22-33), to wither a tree (Matt. 21:18-19), to instantly increase food supply (John 6:1-14), and even to raise the dead (John 11:1-44)! Such an array of power the world had never seen!

Third, we need to consider the degree of the works that Jesus did. Of course, in one sense, it would seem that the raising of the dead would be the extreme measure of power displayed by Jesus or others. But, just here, however, I am concerned about the Lord’s activity regarding demons. The Lord’s compassion regarding human distress is evidenced in several specific instances of divine cure involving the casting out of demons, a specific kind of malady evidently providentially arranged for the express purpose of demonstrating in the first century the power of God over the power of Satan, and, thus, the power of light over darkness, and the power of truth over error. It seems that God arranged for a unique kind of confrontation between his own power and that of the devil in order to further convince men in the first century of the credentials of the Christ and truth of the gospel. Demon possession was a horrible thing causing tremendous distress and/or the loss of one’s freedom (cf. Mark 9:22; Matt. 8:28-34) in response to which even some of those not able to overcome the demons on occasion attempted to do so anyway (Matt. 12:27; Acts 19:13-16). Demons were responsible agents who knew who Christ was and who knew of their eventual destiny, and divine power easily disposed of them (Matt. 8:28-29; Acts 16:16-18).

Fourth, we need to consider the reason for the works that Jesus did. Jesus said that the very works that the Father had given him to accomplish bore witness to the fact that the Father had sent him (John 5:36). The writer, John, declared that the reason for the inclusion in his first book of the record of some of the Lord’s miracles was so that “ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:31). This was a part of the uniqueness of the Lord’s miracles when compared to the miracles performed by others before him and by others after him. No mere man’s miracles had ever been utilized to support the personal claim for the divinity of the person performing the miracle. Never! This sets the Lord’s miracles apart even from those of the apostles. The “signs of the apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12) set the apostles apart from everyone else who in the first century had miracle working power (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-11), but the Lord’s miracles were used to prove that he was God in flesh!

Fifth and finally, we need to consider the climax of the works that Jesus did. The Lord once expressed the profound truth that he had received “commandment” from the Father regarding his right to lay down his life and to take it up again (John 10:17-18). This is an astonishing revelation. When Jesus died he did not die by physical exhaustion. Before releasing his spirit, he cried with a loud voice, something impossible for a person worn out to do (Matt. 27:50). No one simply took his life from him as Peter on Pentecost declared (Acts 2:23). Jesus surrendered his life on his own in the midst of an attempt by others to take it from him. He laid down his own life. But then, by the commandment of God, Jesus had the right to take it again. In fact, Jesus had said that the Father loved him because of this situation: he was going to lay down his life so that he might take it again (John 10:17)! No one ever in the history of the raised dead had ever by their own authority come forth from the grave. But Jesus did!

Paul would later write to the Roman brethren that by the resurrection of Christ, in a special sense God declared him to be his own Son. Speaking of Jesus, Paul wrote, “who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). The Lord’s own resurrection was the product of power and of his own holiness. Having known no sin (2 Cor. 5:21), he was able to overcome the grave (Heb. 2:14-15; Rom. 4:25). In a sense, this was the climax to all the other miracles he had performed.

Expository, Nature of Man, Old Testament

And Afterward (Reflections on Psalm 73:24)

Posted on December 7, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

The Psalmist’s plight is dire in chapter seventy-three. Even though “God is good to Israel” (v. 1, ESV), the writer’s “feet had almost stumbled, my steps had nearly slipped” (v. 2). Spiritual catastrophe has come too close for comfort. How? The Psalmist has begun to envy the wicked (v. 3-12), who are “always at ease” and “increase in riches.” His thinking grows so skewed he begins to ponder that “in vain have I kept my heart clean” (v. 13). Surveying the scene of prospering sinners is leading him toward the conclusion that serving God is not worth the effort.

Trying to figure out why the wicked are blessed “seemed to me a wearisome task” (v. 16), that is, “until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end” (v. 17). Thankfully, a more accurate perspective sets in. The writer realizes that the apparent success of evil is fleeting, and that God will “set them in slippery places” and “make them fall to ruin” (v. 18). The unrighteous will be “destroyed in a moment” disappearing swiftly as “a dream when one awakes” (v. 20).

Then the Psalmist gets brutally honest about his own bad behavior. He humbly confesses to God that “my soul was embittered” (v. 21), and that “I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you” (v. 22). But, in spite of the author’s shortcomings, God is still holding onto his hand (v. 23). His salvation will be God’s doing, in spite of the writer’s painful flaws.

At this point the Psalmist pens a striking passage (v. 24-26):

24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

Compared to the New Testament (which is rife with discussions of the afterlife), Old Testament passages teaching the soul’s immortality seem few and far between (there are several scattered verses, but they will not be considered here). What does the Psalmist mean by asserting, “and afterward you will receive me to glory”? Since God is “in heaven,” and the Psalmist desires “nothing on earth” (v. 25), to be received “to glory” is an apparent reference to heaven. This is reinforced by the writer’s statement that “My flesh and my heart may fail” (v. 26)—evidently referring to the eventual death of his physical body. Nevertheless, after he has been guided with divine counsel (v. 24), and after his flesh fails (v. 26), he will be received “to glory” (v. 24) because God is “in heaven” and nothing remains “on earth” to be desired (v. 25). This hopeful outlook is possible only because, with flesh failing, “God is the strength of my heart…forever” (v. 26).

Could Psalm 73:24 be a bold Old Testament claim on the soul’s immortality and eternal destiny? On this Scripture Keil and Delitzsch comment that, even though the “heavenly triumph of the church” had not yet been foretold, faith in God “had already a transparent depth which penetrated beyond Hades into an eternal life…It is just this that is also the nerve of the proof of the resurrection of the dead which Jesus advances in opposition to the Sadducees (Matt. 22:32)” (Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 5, pp. 493-494). Craig C. Broyles notes, “If verse 24 does point to some kind of resurrection, it is interesting to note how the writer arrived at this conclusion. He did so not by virtue of a supposed immortality of the soul but by virtue of God himself and the kind of relationship he establishes. Because ‘God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever (v. 26), I shall therefore live on with God’” (New International Biblical Commentary on Psalms, pp. 304-305). It is worth observing that the Hebrew verb for “you will receive” in v. 24 is “identical to that found in Psalm 49:15 (‘But God will redeem my soul from the grave; he will surely take me to himself’) and Genesis 5:24 (‘Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away’), both of which seem to point to a divine act that transcends death” (ibid., p. 304). The Pulpit Commentary weighs in by quoting a professor who remarked about Psalm 73:24 that “the poet has that religious intuition which forms the kernel of the hope of immortality” (vol. VIII, p. 72).

The New Testament leaves Christians in no doubt about the afterlife, judgment, heaven and hell. But we need not think that people in Old Testament times had no clue about the soul. They had far less information than we, but God made sure they still had access to certain spiritual truths, including Psalm 73:24 and “the kernel of the hope of immortality.”

Baptism, Doctrine, Expository, New Testament, Salvation

Baptism In One Spirit Per 1 Corinthians 12:13

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Mac Deaver

Last Sunday, I listened to a faithful gospel preacher as he misinterpreted this passage. Sadly, I misinterpreted this passage most of my preaching life. It was all because I failed to understand that Holy Spirit baptism entailed no miracle whatever! As you, I was taught that there are three measures of the Spirit among men (while there actually are none—John 3:34), and that baptism in Spirit was a miracle. But this was all wrong, so sadly wrong, and these mistakes affected all of our biblical interpretation of passages that mentioned the Spirit and his relationship to us.

Think about the words in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were made to drink of one Spirit.” Please go immediately to Galatians 3:26-29 for the language of Paul there. And please return to John 7:37-39 immediately for the language there. Do you see concept and language connection?

But, because (1) we all knew there was only one baptism, and because (2) we all knew that water was for the remission of sins, we concluded that we must “interpret” 1 Corinthians 12:13 to mean that we were baptized “by” the Holy Spirit (usually taken to mean by the teaching of the Holy Spirit). How many times have you heard this “interpretation”? We were told that we were baptized in water in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit. My, my! This was an honest but ignorant and unintentional interpretive mistake that we made. But most of us made it. Think! Is there any other passage in the New Testament that supports the claim that the Spirit is an AGENT who baptizes anyone? No! However, we do have passages that claim that JESUS HIMSELF would be the agent who baptized in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16).

Interestingly, Luke in describing the difference between John’s baptism and the Lord’s baptism, says that John baptized “with” water, using the dative case of the word “water.” However, he used the preposition “in” (Gr. en) when he said that Jesus would baptize “in” Holy Spirit. Now, we do not reject water as the element in the first baptism on the basis that the proper translation is “with water” rather than “in water.” Do we? No, we do not. Secondly, John said that Jesus would baptize not “with” the Holy Spirit but “in” the Holy Spirit! So, we allow “with” to mean “in” but in 1 Corinthians 12:13 we force “in” to mean “by,” and the only reason we did this was because we took baptism “in” Spirit to mean a miraculous baptism! We were trying, in our ignorance, to be logically consistent.

Too, in Matthew’s rendering of the account, in both references to water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism, he uses the same preposition, “in” (Gr. en). Whatever John was doing with water, Jesus would do with Spirit. If John immersed people “in” water, then Jesus would immerse people “in” Spirit. There is no getting around this. John in his preaching used both water and Spirit as elements. John and Jesus were both agents! We must be fair with the text. Ephesians 5:26 is no help in trying to get around what Matthew says that John did. Paul in Ephesians 5:26 says that Jesus cleansed us by “the washing of the water with the word.” But “the word” is applied to cleansing, and not to regeneration. And they are not the same. So, the passage does not support the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 that the Holy Spirit “baptizes” us through his teaching in his word!

Also, if Jesus in John 3:3-5 said that a person must be born of both water and Spirit, and if to be born of water means to be baptized in water, then just so does to be born of Spirit mean to be baptized in Spirit.

My good friend, Glenn Jobe taught me several years ago that Acts 1:8 proves that there is no miracle in Holy Spirit baptism. The verb “is come” is an aorist participle which indicates action antecedent to that of the main verb, “shall receive.” That is, the power which would enable the apostles to be the Lord’s “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” came after their reception of their baptism in the Holy Spirit. The power did not come before nor at the same time as but AFTER the baptism! The KJV is helpful in its translation: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” We have correctly taught that salvation follows baptism in water as Mark 16:16 teaches. The passage says that the one believing and being baptized shall be saved. Both “believing” and “being baptized” are aorist participles which indicate action prior to that of the main verb, “shall be saved.” It is an aorist participle in Acts 1:8!

Furthermore, while water baptism in the book of Acts is always connected to remission of sins, baptism in Holy Spirit is not. It follows forgiveness rather than to provide it. It is the regeneration of which Paul speaks in Titus 3:5-6. Only a forgiven man can then be given spiritual life! But, think about it: when we were baptized in water, we had to come up out of and leave the water. Water is not the church! When we came up from the water, we were already in the Holy Spirit, and remained in him! Jesus had immersed us in Spirit while we were being immersed in water. This is how and why it can correctly be said that we arise to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4) because life was given us while we were under the water following forgiveness! But we remained in Spirit after we left the water. Following our immersion in water, we came up from it while remaining in Spirit! We are, Paul says, “in Spirit” (Romans 8:9). Being in Spirit is being in the non-personal but spiritual body of Christ (Romans 8:1; Colossians1:18). And just as with regard to any physical human birth, our spiritual birth entails two elements (John 3:3-5). And remember, before Paul mentioned our baptism in Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13, he had already reminded the brethren at Corinth that the Jews had been baptized unto Moses by being baptized in two elements (1 Corinthians 10:1-2).

Expository, General

The World

Posted on October 29, 2020October 26, 2020 by Mac Deaver

It is insightful to realize that the word “world” in our English translations does not refer to the same thing all the time. There are several different meanings that surface as one contemplates the contexts in which the word is found. Let us consider this important English word in varying uses.

One, there is the “world” as universe. This is the world of “the heaven and the earth” of which Moses wrote. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Years later Paul in Athens would assert that our Maker was “The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth…” (Acts 17:24). Our universe is most remarkable in its makeup and in its design. It is indeed a marvel. The psalmist would affirm, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psa. 19:1-4a). The world and its components testify clearly to the existence of our God (Acts 14:17). The evidence is so obvious that a man who in his own heart denies God is a fool (Psa. 14:1; 53:1).

Two, there is the “world” of sin. The apostle John wrote, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passeth away and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:15-17). Here the world of sin is described. It is the description of evil and how it comes about in the lives of men. The three categories or vehicles for the expression of sin in humans have always been limited to the three classes John gives. Moses had written long ago before John, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh, MD), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes, MD), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (pride of life, MD), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:6). All of the sin of all of the people from Adam on down has come via these three routes. This is the world of sin.

Three, there is the “world” of sinners. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). God did not send his son to die for the universe. And God doesn’t love sin. But he does love sinners in whose behalf he sent his son. But the sinners in whose behalf his son died were human sinners—not angelic ones (Heb. 2:16). I would offer the suggestion that the reason why Jesus did not die for sinful angels (2 Pet. 2:4), but did die for sinful men has to do with the nature of their sins. The free will of man was poised at the point of connection between flesh and spirit (Gal. 5:17). The free will of angels was not. And since there is an inherent weakness in flesh (Matt. 26:41), Adam’s sin was one of weakness while angelic sin has always been one of rebellion (cf. 1 Tim. 3:6). Jesus died for sinful men and in John 3:16 we are told that believers “should not perish” (not “shall not perish). The verb is in the subjunctive mood rather than the indicative. It is no promise that believers will be saved, but it is the affirmation that Jesus died so that believers could be saved, and that God wanted them to be saved.

Four, there is the “world” that is a period of time. When Paul affirmed that God made the world (Acts 17:24), he used a word that derives from “cosmos.” When John described the world of evil (1 John 2:15-17), he used the same word. The world that God loved (John 3:16) is identified by the same word. But when we come to Matthew 18:20 we find another word that is translated “world.” It is a Greek word that derives from aiown, which refers to a period of time or an era. When the Lord promised the apostles that he would be with them “even unto the end of the world” he was not telling them that he would be with them until he came again at the destruction of the universe (2 Pet. 3). What good would a promise like that be to them? By that time they would all have been long dead. In fact, right now they have already been long dead. The promise that he was making to them was that he would be with them to the completion of their work in carrying the gospel to the world. He said, “Go ye into all the world (cosmos), and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). The promise of Matthew 28:20 to be with them to the end of the “world” was a promise to be with them to the end of the “age.” The transition from Gentile-ism and Judaism to Christianity which began with the work of John the baptizer (Luke 16:16) would be completed only when the apostles finished carrying the gospel to every creature. Then that era of transition would be over. Jesus told his apostles that he would be with them until that work was completed. Notice Mark’s ending: “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen” (Mark 16:20).

Five, there is the “world” of mankind’s natural attachment to his physical environment. Consider carefully in the book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon points this profound truth out to us three times. Most of us are familiar with Ecclesiastes 3:1 where Solomon writes, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven” but we aren’t as familiar with what follows in verse 11. “He (God, MD) hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.” Isn’t that something? God has so deliberately arranged our human situation so that there will always be things we cannot find out! Actually, the original word for “world” in Ecclesiastes 3:11 entails the concept of “time.” Man is by nature a finite creature who is limited by time. The reader likely remembers Deuteronomy 29:29 which tells us that “secret” things belong to God. So, God has withheld things from our knowledge by not revealing them either in the revelation of his word or in the revelation of his world. But Solomon in Ecclesiastes says that the impossibility of our knowing certain things is at least partially attributable to the fact that we are connected to the material or natural world by our creation. In it we fit. To it we are attached. And by it we are limited. God has set the world in our hearts.

Our divine limitation by time and boundaries is designed to lead us to search for God (Acts 17:26-27), but even after finding him, because of our attachment to the material world, there are things that we will never be able to comprehend about God’s activities. Later Solomon put it this way: “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him” (Eccl. 7:14). The exact “why” and the “when” of things in an individual’s life are open to interpretation. We cannot know for sure in many situations what God is exactly doing, though we can learn what our duty in regard to our experiences in those situations should be.

Solomon also wrote, “Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it” (Eccl. 8:17). The Bible clearly teaches all Christians to trust a loving and caring Father who can only wisely operate in the affairs of men. And though we cannot tell what God is doing and intending by the detailed events that become a part of our human experience, we do have his precious promises to us regarding his will for us and what awaits us (cf. Rom. 8:28). May God be praised that it is so!

Expository, General, Old Testament

The Lord Sent a Lion

Posted on October 26, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

About 1100 B.C. the Philistines were enemies and subjugators of God’s people, and Israel had sadly grown accustomed to the sorry status quo (Judg. 15:11). His chosen people having charted a path to self-destruction by plunging headlong into Canaanite paganism, God had to take action to preserve Israel — in spite of themselves — and the bloodline through which would come the Messiah. So the Lord in his providence sought an opportunity for Israel to begin throwing off the yoke of Philistine oppression (Judg. 14:4). Deliverance came in the form of Samson, a colorful paradox of a judge: a Nazirite who routinely violated the vow; a man motivated by what pleased his eyes who had his eyes gouged out; a man of divinely given superhuman strength who melted like butter in the hands of scheming women; a man who prayed to God and then consorted with a prostitute; a man whose greatest victories over the enemy were private acts of murder and revenge; a national deliverer who was no national leader; a fighter fit to slaughter a thousand, but unable to resist a solitary Delilah.

Samson’s final blow to the Philistines came at the cost of his own life when, as a blind, humiliated prisoner he broke the two pillars of Dagon’s temple, bringing 3,000 pagans to a crashing, crushing death. God did, indeed, find a way to strike at his people’s enemy. How it transpired is a fascinating study of divine providence, as events are traced backwards in Judges chapters 14-16.

Samson demolished the Philistines’ temple because they brought him there as a prisoner (16:25).
Samson was taken prisoner because Delilah had his head shaved (16:19).
Delilah coaxed Samson into telling his secret because the Philistine leaders bribed her (16:5).
The Philistine leaders bribed Delilah because they hated Samson.
The Philistines hated Samson because he slaughtered 1,000 of them with the jawbone of a donkey (15:15).
Samson killed the 1,000 when the Philistines were coming to take him prisoner (15:14).
The Philistines were going to arrest Samson because he attacked them (15:8).
Samson attacked them because they burned his wife to death (15:6).
They burned his wife because Samson had burned their crops (15:5).
Samson burned the crops because his wife had been given to a Philistine (15:2).
Samson’s wife had been given away because Samson had left her at the wedding feast (14:20).
Samson left the wedding feast to slay 30 Philistines and take their garments (14:19).
Samson needed their garments because his 30 companions had solved his riddle (14:18).
The companions solved the riddle because Samson’s wife told them the answer (14:17).
Samson’s wife knew the riddle’s answer because she pressed him continually after she had been threatened with death by the companions (14:15).
The death threat came after Samson gave the companions an impossible riddle (14:14).
The riddle was impossible because it seems to have involved the supernatural: bees and honey found in a semi-fresh animal carcass that no one knew about but Samson (14:8).
The honey was in the lion’s carcass because Samson had recently killed it with his bare hands (14:6).
How did this chain of violent events begin? The Lord sent a lion (14:5).

True, scripture does not explicitly say that God caused the lion to attack Samson. But, in light of the facts, can there be any doubt that the unseen hand of Providence was pulling strings, bringing to pass events that, when coupled with the freely made choices of men, would culminate in the will of “the Lord, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines” (14:4)? God had to get the ball rolling, because Israel was not going to do it on her own.

Even today the Lord needs to spur his children on from time to time, perhaps in a direction they otherwise would never have taken. As we age, we may be able to look in retrospect at our lives and see watershed events which we afforded no special significance at the time. What things is God placing in our lives so that we can help bring about his will? Over that answer is drawn a veil which will remain until we get to heaven. In Samson’s case, the Lord sent a lion.

Expository, Old Testament

My Thoughts Are Not Your Thoughts

Posted on September 28, 2020 by Mac Deaver

It is so very easy to repeat what we have heard without ever looking into what we have heard for ourselves. And a lot of the time, it really doesn’t matter all that much. But sometimes it might.

How many times have passages been quoted and then given a meaning that was readily accepted and never challenged. Of course, at the time the passage is quoted in our hearing, if we don’t look it up ourselves and read the context in which it appears, we likely tend to accept whatever meaning was assigned to it by the one we heard quote it.

In Isaiah 55:8-9 Isaiah long ago wrote, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

I’m quite sure that most of us recognize that passage and likely grew up hearing it quoted over and over again. And those of us who became preachers have quoted it often as suggestive of the idea that we can’t always know what the Lord wants or wills, and some things are beyond our comprehension because the Lord thinks on a higher plane than do we. In fact, it is a comforting thought to think that the Lord knows what is right and best even if in difficult circumstances wherein we find it impossible to know why something has occurred.

To be sure, there are passages that inform us of the truth that we do not always and cannot always know certain things because God has not revealed everything that is reveal-able (Deut. 29:29). He has only chosen to reveal certain things in His word and to make certain knowledge possible by means of his creation or world. God, in His word has revealed His expressed will. In providence, according to Scripture, is where God’s unexpressed will is located. We pray constantly for God’s unexpressed will in our lives to be done.

Romans 11:33-36 is a fascinating passage that, in its context, shows that in the historical development of the scheme of redemption, and His marvelous use of both Jew and Gentile, God demonstrated “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!” Furthermore, He evidenced “how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!” Indeed, we do have passages that teach us the extraordinary elevation of the thoughts and ways of God in His providence.

But, what is being discussed in Isaiah 55 is that the lofty thoughts and ways of God were the very thoughts and ways that God’s people were supposed to have themselves! Isaiah in this passage is not discussing the fact of God’s thoughts and ways being so far above mankind that mankind just cannot understand the thoughts and ways of God. In this passage that is NOT what is being affirmed.

Look at the verse just before: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (v. 7). God’s people had become wicked and unrighteous. They had refused to make God’s thoughts their own thoughts, and they had replaced God’s ways with their own ways! They had a revealed law from God, but they had neglected it. They had prophets sent from God, but these they rejected. Instead of allowing God’s ways and thoughts to continue to be their own, they had substituted their own thoughts and ways for His, and now they were bound for captivity.

Obviously, not a lot of harm is done in misconstruing the meaning of Isaiah 55:8-9 because the usual but errant interpretation of it is a truth found elsewhere. But the text would, in its context, be of greater value in making the point divinely intended if we would allow the context to speak for itself. And as people who now are under the last will and testament of Jesus Christ, we had best be those people who make God’s thoughts our thoughts and God’s ways our ways.