“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.” – Colossians 3:15
What enables us to have such uncommon peace as Christians? Probably the key word is “commonality,” for we share so many essential things in common. But three of these items are unquestionably at the very top of the list of essentials. One is our relationship with God and the nature of that relationship. All of us were baptized into Christ only after the decision to truly make Jesus the Lord of our lives. It was not a selfish decision to simply get saved; it was a selfless decision to surrender our lives in representing him to our fellow man. Therefore, we are intent on imitating him and doing what pleases him. He is, and forever must remain, our top priority of life.
A second essential that ensures peace and unity is based on that decision to make Jesus the Lord of our lives. This decision means that everyone will be discipled, which ensures in turn that a lack of peace simply will not be tolerated. If we have a problem with another disciple, we go to them or they come to us for a resolution. Actually, we should be going to them as they are coming to us, for in Matthew 5:23-24 Jesus says that we should go to the other person if we have offended them, and in Matthew 18:15-16 he says that we should pursue reconciliation if we are the one offended. Hence, we have God’s double indemnity spiritual life insurance policy which guarantees the dividend of our uncommon peace.
The third essential is that disciples also have the same basic mission-—to seek and save the lost. When we are in the battle together, we are not very likely to attack one another. Persecution from a common enemy as we seek to carry out our mission will actually unify us even more if we view and handle it biblically. An all-out commitment to the mission and to discipling is what separates us from mere church goers. The first gives us our purpose in life and the second, the means by which it can be accomplished. If we stay committed to the mission and to discipling, our unity will stay strong. Obviously, if we begin to waver on either, unity will be threatened. We cannot afford to condone any deviation from the unity for which Jesus prayed—and died.
Biblically, the “daily diet” of the healthy disciple consists of the essentials above. We are to spend time in the Word daily (Acts 17:11) and in prayer (Luke 11:1-4), both of which are elements in our relationship with God. We are to share our faith daily (Acts 17:17) and be open with our lives daily with one another (Hebrews 3:12). Therefore, the first warning sign of approaching disunity comes when we as individuals do not have our relationship with God as our top priority. When either the quantity or quality of time with him is compromised, sin will enter and ultimately permeate our spiritual lives.
A second warning sign appears when there is a lack of commitment to and involvement in the mission of evangelism. Paul’s short letter to Philemon makes this remarkable statement: “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ” (Philemon 1:6). While the context of this verse is likely referring most directly to the sharing of faith and our lives with other Christians, all sharing of our faith builds our faith. Appreciation for our life in Christ grows with our sharing of it. Evangelism is not just to save the souls of the lost; it is designed to keep our own souls saved.
When we are studying the Bible with others, we are reminded of why we became disciples in the first place, our hearts and convictions are strengthened incredibly. We remain excited and thankful about the amazing life that God has given us in Christ. Therefore, if evangelism has become humdrum to us, a burden and not a blessing, a duty and not a desire, we are slipping into the sins described in Revelation 2 and 3: loss of our first love and lukewarmness. If you are not in the mission heart and soul right now, Satan is into his mission with you, heart and soul. Wake up and repent.
A third warning sign is more subtle and deceptive than the other two. It of course ties in to the discipling process. Are we being discipled? Are we consistently seeking advice? Are we being open with what is in our heart of hearts? Do we want to be open with everything? The honest answers to those questions will go a long way in evaluating where we are spiritually. Satan is a master at encouraging us to be partially open, but not to really share our deepest doubts, sins and fears. For God to use us powerfully, we must learn to trust and stay truly open to discipling and God’s Word.
Let us heed the words of Paul, “I appeal to you brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10). A clear focus on the essentials of our faith will produce in us an uncommon peace and a powerful people united in faith.
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” —Mark 10:29-30
I needed to go to Philadelphia to help out an old friend. The church leader there, Walter Evans, asked me to speak to one of their ministry groups on Sunday, since I was going to be in town until the next day. We discussed where I was most needed and settled on the campus group. I was pleased, since my personal preference is always to speak to this group—I love their youthful idealism and sharp minds.
However, on that particular day, to be honest, speaking was more of an assignment than a passion, so I did not have high expectations for the service. Thankfully, God did. I was looking forward to seeing my daughter’s husband, Jeff (whom we call our “son by marriage,” not “son-in-law”), who was in town for a wedding. When I arrived, I learned that a groupof the HOPE Youth Corps would also be in attendance.
The service began with enthusiastic singing. My heart started stirring. Thank God for singing. The welcome by the campus ministry leader followed. Although I did not know the brother well at all, I was most impressed and thought to myself, “This is an amazing introduction to a service. I need to steal it!” Then after some other passionate songs, a campus ministry intern began the communion message. As it turned out, he was one of the top college debate team members in the country, and he spoke well. I was moved even more. Thank God for young leaders! He then introduced a campus woman from North Carolina who was to share what the cross had done in her life. I was unprepared for what was about to happen.
As she came up to the microphone, her physical beauty was apparent. Soon her spiritual beauty would be. Something about her voice was unusual, and for a few moments I couldn’t identify why. I had heard similar voice and pronunciation qualities before, and suddenly I realized that Kelly was deaf. She shared about how her physical father had rejected her because she was deaf and therefore imperfect. She went on to share how her stepfather had rejected her and forced Kelly’s mom to choose between her older children from a previous relationship and him (she chose him). She described the heartache, heartbreak and rebellion fostered by such rejection. Toward the end, she shared her conversion experience and closed with a profound but sad statement: she could picture God as Creator, as Savior and even as Husband, but she could not picture him as Father. Her concept of a father was seriously damaged by her life experiences.
By this time, tears were spilling down my cheeks and down Jeff’s as well. Most of those young people in the audience were brushing back tears. I quickly wrote down Mark 10:29-30 on a note to Kelly, and offered to “adopt” her as my daughter. God had really moved my heart, and then he used me to move many other hearts during the sermon that followed. The whole experience could only be called a “God thing.” After the lesson Kelly gave me a big hug, and I sensed that God was going to use all of this to do some healing in her.
The idea of being a spiritual dad for young people did not have a welcome beginning in my mind and heart. I had moved to San Diego to lead the church there when I was forty-two years old. One of the young interns asked to talk to me after a staff meeting. He shared that he felt really close to me, almost like I was his dad, and then he asked if he could call me “Dad.” I replied, “Absolutely not!” I rebelled at the idea of being seen as that old. When I shared the experience with one of the elders there, he gave me a much different perspective. He talked about how many young disciples either do not have living fathers or they have poor relationships with them. He thought that being a dad to them was one of the best roles we could have. In essence, I said that that was fine for him, but not for me! (He was a couple of years older.) The years have shown me just how right he was. Being a dad to many people in the church has been such a joy and honor.
Several years ago, Bryan and Renée (our “natural” children) gave me a ring for Christmas which displays the word “Dad.” They understood that I was not just a dad to them, but to many others. They often ask us to “adopt” some of their friends who need the spiritual love of mom and dad figures. Mark 10 has become one of my favorite passages because it gets at the heart of love in the kingdom—family love, adoptive love.
After the Philadelphia experience, I received a card from Kelly, asking if she could visit us with Theresa and me, if only for a dinner. She had taken the adoption thing seriously. I make the offer on a widespread basis, and some take me up on it in a special way (no doubt those who need it most). Kelly is one of those. She seemed to sense what John the apostle sensed in his relationship with Jesus. He felt totally at ease reclining on Jesus’ bosom (the literal translation of John 13:23) at the Passover meal. He described himself in the same verse as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Do you really think Jesus loved him more than he loved the other disciples? I rather think that Jesus loved all of them more than any of them could come close to grasping. But I do think that John was best at accepting and internalizing Jesus’ love. He perceived at a deeper level what kind of relationship was there for the taking. People like John and Kelly simply claim what is actually available and soak up the love as a result.
Kelly came to visit for a few days, and we shared our story at a workshop for singles. She later visited again for a few days with her younger sister, hoping to influence her by showing her what love in the kingdom is all about. Kelly has become a special daughter to me and Theresa and has found a lodging in our hearts and lives that will outlast this life. Kingdom relationships are closer than mere physical relationships. I may have trouble appreciating some things in the kingdom as much as I should, but the relationships I do understand and appreciate.
I, like untold numbers of others, am the product of a dysfunctional family. When I was younger, I looked for love “in all the wrong places,” as the song says, but now I have discovered the true love of the family of God. He has granted me the high honor of being a dad to his family, and Theresa a mom. And the reason for this is that others might feel his love through us, and through every disciple, as we come to understand what his family is to be to the world and to one another. Then we will be able to lavish on others what he has lavished on us.
If we are not filled to overflowing with gratitude for the family of God, we simply have missed the essence of the gospel. Figure it out, for within these relationships are housed some of the most unbelievable blessings which will ever be known to mankind on this side of eternity.
“Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother’” (Mark 3:34-35)
Another Kind of Adoption — the Story Continues
My article, “Another Kind of Adoption,” was originally written as a chapter in my book, The Power of Gratitude. (Read the article in the Articles section on this web site if you have not read it.) I had met Kelly, the star of the story, in July of 1998 and then wrote the chapter in my book in May of the following year. Therefore, the story was less than a year old when I described how our relationship began, and even though it progressed quickly, much has occurred in the nearly fifteen years since. Kelly was twenty-four years old and single back then; she is now thirty-nine, married with three children. I am writing this article to update you on how God has continued to work in our lives and relationship, and in the process will add in a few details that were not included in the original article.
Kelly is one amazing young woman, who has now earned her doctorate and teaches at the university level. When she and her husband, Kye, decided to start a family, she had her heart set on having twins. Then on a biblical tour of Rome, she decided that she wanted those twins to have their genesis in Rome. In spite of the fact that twins do not run in either her family or Kye’s, she indeed conceived twin boys in that ancient city, one of whom is named Roman. Keep in mind that we are talking about a woman who has been basically deaf since she was a toddler. That’s why it takes words like “amazing” to begin to describe her adequately.
But, let’s run the clock and the story back to that fateful meeting in July of 1998. As stated in the original article, Kelly invited herself to Boston for a visit. She stated on the card she sent me that she knew I was a busy man, but still had to eat, and so asked if she at least could have a meal with me. Talk about being starved for the love of a dad! I wept when I read the card. (I’m weeping now.) So I wrote her back and said, “Just come up and spend a weekend with us,” which she soon did. I set her up on a date with a good young man from MIT, and the four of us went up to the North Side (all Italian) for dinner and hanging-out time.
Going back to the car after dinner, Theresa was walking and talking with Kelly’s date, and I was talking with Kelly. She was looking at me with lights in her eyes, like a kid in a candy store, or as if she had somehow entered into a fairy tale. I told her something like this: “Kelly, whatever love you are feeling from me now (and I hope she was feeling all that was there), multiply it several million times, and you will be starting to get the picture of how much God loves you.” You recall that her communion message was that she could see God as a Creator or a Judge, but not as a Father. Well, it was some weekend, as you can imagine.
She came back a second time with her sister, hoping we could influence her, and on that trip, I think we spoke at a Single’s Service and shared “our” story. We’ve come a long way together since then. She came a third time to introduce us to Kye, to whom she was engaged or about to become engaged. Our next time together was at their wedding in Savannah. She told me that since I was her dad, she wanted her step-dad to walk her only half way down the aisle, and then have me take her from there, and then perform the wedding. She also wanted Theresa to share some thoughts for them in the ceremony – all of which we did. It was a beautiful day in a beautiful setting. As I was waiting in the garden where it was to be held, someone came for me and said Kelly wanted to see me upstairs in the Bride’s Room. She, the bridesmaids and her Mom were all fully dressed and ready, but as I entered the room, “Butterfly Kisses” started playing and Kelly came over to me for a father/daughter dance in front of that small, but special audience.
That girl is so far down in my heart she couldn’t find her way out if she wanted to (and, of course, she would never want to). But to me, here is perhaps the biggest shocker of all. Several years after our relationship began, her biological father (who had rejected her earlier because of her not being “normal”) got in touch with her and wanted to get with her, to which she agreed. He expressed regret about not being there for her when she was growing up and wanted to have a relationship with her now. She told him that she was fine with having an adult relationship with him, but that she couldn’t go back to being a little girl again and make up for all of those missed years. Then she added the kicker. She said, “Gary (I think that’s his name), as I said, I’m happy to have an adult relationship with you, but to be honest, I don’t need an emotional relationship with you as a dad. I have that with Gordon.”
Knowing the longing that adopted kids and others in similar situations to Kelly’s have to connect with their biological parents, this one blew me away – totally! I still find it almost unbelievable that I could be the chosen one for such an exalted role. Kelly is as much of a daughter as anyone could possibly be, bloodlines notwithstanding. She is probably more like me in character and personality than anyone I know, which can only be one of those “God things.”
So those are the highlights of the continuing story. Pretty good ones, wouldn’t you say? Sadly, there have been long periods when I haven’t stayed in touch with Kelly very well. I recall writing her once (probably more than once) and apologizing for being a poor dad to her by not keeping up with her better. (That has been one of my weaknesses in the past with loved ones.) In reply to my apology, Kelly said, “Dad, you were there for me when I needed you most. We’re good.” I don’t deserve that kind of love, but it has helped me repent – with her and others.
Something over a year ago, I was teaching a Texas staff training session in Dallas while working with the Houston church, and Kelly and Kye were in San Antonio visiting his family and their church friends there. I flew down for a day to see her. She and Kye took me out for lunch when I arrived, and then he went back to visit his relatives, while Kelly and I sat in a Starbucks outside seating area and talked for hours. (I have to fine-tune my feminine side for such lengthy conversations!) Not long before we moved to California, Kelly visited us in Phoenix for a few days, and we had another one or two dad and daughter times at Starbucks (her favorite coffee place, being a Seattle resident!). She is now planning a trip to visit us in California at our new home. Thankfully, Kye is always willing to keep the kids when she spends time with us because he understands the importance of her being with her adopted dad.
And so the story continues with Kelly, as Jesus’ perspective about his church being true family continues to be fulfilled in our relationship.
Mark 3:31-35
Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 10:29-30
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields–and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.”
Paul’s Actions in Acts 21
Paul was not only the designated apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8; Romans 11:13), he was a staunch defender of Christianity against attempts to force it into a Jewish mold. A cursory reading of Galatians is enough to see his strong resistance to those Judaizing teachers who would bind aspects of Judaism on Gentiles, or bind it on Jews as a matter of necessity in pleasing God. Clearly he was the most influential voice in the early church against all efforts to blend the religion of the Old Testament with New Testament Christianity. Therefore, after reading about all of his teachings and his battles in this regard, we are somewhat shocked to read about his behavior in the following passage:
When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” 29 (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)
30 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. (Acts 21:17-32)
After reading this passage, it is natural to ask the question posed in the title: “Did Paul sin in Acts 21?” The answer to the question is neither simple nor brief. However, it will lead us into some deeper truths that are highly important in understanding the early church and one of the primary challenges it faced.
What Was Paul Thinking?
Reading this section of Scripture without understanding the underlying issues can leave us perplexed and confused. This many years after the cross, with its subsequent termination of the old covenant and inauguration of the new, how could James and Paul be parties to such a blatant observance of Mosaic Judaism? After all, these men were two of the top leaders in the movement. Articles and books have been written by biblical scholars accusing or excusing Paul’s decision here in Acts 21. Did he give in to the influence of James (who was perhaps too close to the forest to see the trees), and just make a serious mistake in judgment with even more serious consequences? Many have alleged this very thing. And then another question looms large. If what he did was permissible, even advisable, what does that say about people continuing to observe many aspects of their former religion today? Some see the possibility of a broader application of the “disputable matters” in Romans 14, extending to non-Judaistic religious practices which would correspond to denominational practices in Christendom or practices in other religions. However, the thrust of Romans makes such applications questionable, for Paul is therein consistently correcting the understanding of the basis of salvation held by those with Jewish backgrounds. But these are good questions to wrestle with, don’t you think?
Let’s examine the denominational issue first, for it seems simpler. Biblical Judaism (not tradition-bound Judaism as we find it during the ministry of Jesus) had been originated by God. Denominationalism was neither introduced nor approved by him, and certainly other world religions were not. The two really don’t compare. Much in the OT is still quite applicable in principle today, excepting the ceremonial laws. Therefore, knowing which biblical principles were to remain in effect required, both then and now, good judgment and discrimination. Even the ceremonial type practices could be viewed as nationalistic and cultural rather than a requirement for pleasing God. Consider Timothy’s circumcision by Paul in that light (Acts 16:1-3), in contrast to Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus, a non-Jew (Galatians 2:3-5). Therefore, with God’s tacit approval, much of the Law continued to be followed in one way or another during what I believe was a transition period.
Ultimately, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD ended this transition period. Hebrews 8:13 states: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” In other words, the old covenant was obsolete and no longer binding after Acts 2 and the establishment of the church. However, this had not become obvious to non-Christian Jews, but should have become obvious even to them in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed, forever ending Biblical Judaism with its temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices. Thus, it disappeared. But until that time, the God-given Law could be honored by those with Jewish backgrounds, as long as they met two requirements: they could not bind their Judaism on Gentiles; and they could not trust Judaic practices for salvation. Denominationalism is a perversion of Christianity, and as such, does not compare to the first century transitionary period of Judaism.
Now to the other key question: did Paul go too far in trying to please his Jewish brothers in Christ and make a serious error in judgment? The text says nothing to indicate that God was displeased with what he did, unless the ultimate result of going into the temple – false accusation and arrest – is taken to mean that. Certainly his concession did not accomplish its desired end, but this cannot be viewed as proof that he made a mistake or sinned. The principle of 1 Corinthians 9:19-22, that of becoming all things to all men, was to achieve only the saving of “some.” My opinion is that Paul did not sin in what he did, but went as far as possible to satisfy his critics. The failure was with them, not him.
We face similar challenges today. We try to do all that we can to answer logically and sensitively those who criticize us. When we are guilty of making mistakes and committing sins, we must repent and learn from those mistakes. But we refuse to compromise biblical issues, although we are willing to make concessions if we think such will yield favorable results in the overall mission. How well does it work to make concessions in the interest of relating to others? Usually not very well, but we still try to obey the principles of 1 Corinthians 9:19–22 and Romans 12:17-18, which reads: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” The real issue is not whether what we do will be approved by men, but whether it will be approved by God. However, we still want to do all we can to be viewed by non-Christians as those deeply desiring to do the right thing. 2 Corinthians 8:21 puts the principle in the apropos words: “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.”
The early church was soundly criticized and condemned for their determination to follow Jesus. Did they make mistakes which could be rightly criticized? Probably so, since they were human. Certainly we have made our mistakes and committed our sins, but we have continued to repent of them and learn from them. The condemnation of our first century brothers and sisters by the large majority of the society in which they lived was not due to their well-intentioned mistakes. It was because of their convictions and lifestyle which condemned the sins of their fellow man. When young disciples today hear the charges of persecutors, with the old “where there is smoke, there must be fire” adage loudly alleged, they are tempted to doubt the movement and its leaders. “Maybe we really are doing something wrong,” they may think. Just remember that the founder of your religion was God in the flesh, without sin, and yet charged as a blasphemer of God and murdered as a criminal. We can make all of the concessions possible without compromising principles, and the result will often be the same as Paul experienced: emotion-filled outrage and shameless slander. When the modern-day movement of which you are a part is falsely charged, stand tall for Christ. You are in good company with the saints of old.
Introduction:
A briefer form of this article was originally written in August of 2009 just prior to the International Leadership Conference in Denver, Colorado. The purpose was to present a brief explanation of this term and the reasons for discussing it in the Delegates Meeting of the Cooperation Churches. The Teacher Service Group is one of nine groups selected by the delegates to offer recommendations on a variety of subjects that are of interest within our movement of churches. Three of these groups – the Evangelist Group, the Elder Group and the Teacher Group – are viewed as a type of team to help provide direction in a number of areas. Biblically, these three roles are certainly key roles of leadership in the church, and to have them working together as a team is fundamental to unity within both congregations and our movement as a whole. Therefore, although the Teacher Group was specifically requested to study this subject and make a presentation, representatives from all three groups actually addressed the subject orally in the Delegates Meeting. These brief presentations by me, Mike Taliaferro and Steve Staten can be heard on the Disciples Today web site, and my original article can be read there as well.
In my oral presentation of the article, I gave more details than were in the article, and at the suggestion of others, decided to expand the printed version of the article to include some of what was said orally and to generally broaden the material into a more comprehensive and definitive version. This expansion is reflected in the new title. The original version is presented first, followed by the deeper look. My prayer is that those who read this article will be helped sufficiently to make my additional efforts worthwhile. Enjoy the read!
Question #1 – What Is It?
Baptismal cognizance simply means what is understood or needs to be understood at the point of baptism to experience a valid baptism. In one sense, it is a more narrow way to define who is a Christian and who is not; who is saved and who is not – based on having experienced a biblically valid new birth.
Question #2 – Why Are We Discussing It?
There are at last three related answers to this question. One, in our leadership apology letters of 2003, we apologized for being too judgmental toward people in other churches, but we did not define what we meant by being too judgmental. That failure proved to be a serious one, allowing many of our members to assume that almost any sincere believer in Christ was likely acceptable to God, regardless of conversion experience or church affiliation. We went from one extreme to another. The old extreme was to teach or leave the impression that no person outside our ICOC boundaries of fellowship could have been converted correctly. The new extreme is to assume almost the opposite. Both are extremes and both are wrong.
What I think we meant by saying that we had been too judgmental was that we had stepped outside our responsibility to teach exactly what the Bible says about conversion and had stepped into the Judgment Day role that belongs to God alone. In other words, we were teaching in a way that didn’t leave room for God to be God in determining who would ultimately be saved and lost. While we must avoid that posture in the future, we cannot go to the other extreme and pronounce final judgment in favor of sincere religious people whose conversion doesn’t square with what the Bible teaches about entering a saved relationship with Christ. Extremism, however popular, is dangerous territory for all of us.
Two, several brothers (not many, and most are not currently in our fellowship) have written papers on the subject, and tended toward the extreme of a broader acceptance of conversion experiences. The impact of such writing has exerted influence on some people, but probably not that many. These papers have led to more discussions among leaders, but the average member is likely unaware of most of these discussions or the source of them.
Three, because of the undefined leadership apologies and the unsettled state of churches, particularly in the few years immediately after 2003, singles started dating or wanting to date outside our fellowship. We as leaders should accept our responsibility of having helped cause this reaction, but we must now also accept our responsibility of clarifying what the issues in this realm are – both biblically and practically.
Question #3 – What Are the Bottom Line Practical Issues?
First of all, there can be no apology for preaching what the Bible says about the place of baptism in a faith response to Christ – by which we enter the death of Christ, are initially cleansed by his death and are raised from the waters of baptism to the new life of a Christian. We cannot soften or alter the message of passages like Acts 2:38; 3:19; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Titus 3:4-7 and 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism is inseparably connected to the forgiveness of sins as we come out of darkness into God’s marvelous light, and no man has the right to disconnect it. Period.
The real issue that is worth discussing comes with the possible distinction between having an erroneous understanding of the purpose of baptism and having an incomplete understanding of its purpose. Having a wrong understanding would include the very common evangelical teaching that one is saved at the point of believing in Jesus and “accepting him as Savior.” Whether we call this type of conversion a response to the so-called “Four Spiritual Laws” or the “Sinner’s Prayer,” it is not biblical. In essence, evangelicals teach that a person is saved first and baptized later – and that is a false doctrine according to the Bible.
Regarding a baptism experienced with an incomplete understanding of the purposes of baptism, this question may be asked: “Does a lack of understanding that baptism is the precise point that sins are forgiven invalidate the baptism?” If someone is baptized to obey Jesus, knowing that baptism is a part of the plan of accepting him, just what specifics beyond that does he have to understand? Our focus as a movement came from the Mainline Church of Christ focus, which arose in the debating days with the Baptists. Baptists insist that a person is saved before baptism, which explains their view that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. In reaction to that, the Church of Christ folks historically have said that one could not get baptized correctly with a false doctrine in mind regarding what he was doing.
Those who would raise questions about our past rigidity on that subject make a distinction between having an incomplete understanding of the purposes of baptism and an incorrect understanding of same. According to this reasoning, a person who was baptized simply to obey Jesus but was perhaps unclear about when his sins were actually forgiven might be acceptable to God, but the one who was taught and who accepted the wrong doctrine about the purposes (saved before baptism, maybe months before − given denominational practices) would not be acceptable to God. A further question that could logically be raised is why is it so important to understand that baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins,” and not as important to understand that it is when we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit? Both are joined together in passages like John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38 and Titus 3:4-7. Actually, the NT teaches that over 20 results follow our baptism into Christ.
It is important to note that this discussion is becoming less theoretical than in the past. More churches and leaders in various churches are coming very close to the same teaching that we have historically espoused regarding the purpose of baptism. In the past, it was extremely rare to find a person whose conversion experience sounded as if it could possibly be valid. In the future, we are more likely to find those whose baptisms may in fact be biblical (whether their church is biblically sound or not). In that case, we will have to be wiser in how we study with them, and decide each situation on an individual basis (which we should always do anyway). As we help decide these matters, especially with those having a Restoration background (Mainline Church of Christ and Christian Church), the bigger issue will be whether the person had really repented by making Jesus the Lord of his life and embracing Christ’s mission. Saying that someone has been baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” is not nearly all of the issue in the first place. Did they biblically repent and are they open to biblical discipleship – vertically (with Christ) and horizontally (with fellow Christians)? The lordship issue and the discipling issue are more significant than the baptism issue for those with a Restoration background.
The surrender of our hearts and lives to the will of Jesus is the bottom line of a saving faith. Certainly our mistakes as a movement in the past included our strong tendency to judge for God who was going to heaven and who was not. As one old Church of Christ preacher put it, “We are not the judges; we are the policemen − we can say if someone broke the law or not, but we cannot say what the judge is going to do with the case.” The illustration goes only so far, of course, but the fact that the judge (Judge) will make the final decision is correct. As for me, I intend to always teach what I believe to be correct, but will also always leave the final decision about one’s final salvation up to God. In that way, I believe I can still teach decisively without being judgmental. Obviously, however, that will always be a fine line to walk, but my teaching about conversion is exactly what it has been for decades and I have no inclinations to change it.
THE DEEPER LOOK
As mentioned above, our root system as a movement traces back to what the normally call the Restoration Movement, but specifically one part of that movement – The Churches of Christ. For some, that terminology may sound a little confusing, since the majority of our congregations use the same term now, and the rest of us use “Christian Church,” which also can be traced back to the other major segment of the Restoration Movement. A study of our historical root system is one that I highly recommend to every person in our movement of churches, to avoid confusion if for no other reason. In the new Second Edition of my book, Prepared To Answer, I deal briefly with this history and footnote other sources that address the subject as well. That would give you a good starting place for such a study, one that I think is needed.
Many of those within the Restoration Movement (and I would include our churches in that broader movement) are asking questions about whether we in essence are still satisfied with our views on baptism. The main reason we are asking this question is because our traditional stance on the subject brings the salvation issue into consideration regarding a number of writers and church leaders in other religious groups for whom we have respect and appreciation in many areas. We read their writings, note their obvious dedication to what they believe, and wonder whether we have been too narrow in our own thinking about initial conversion. Frankly, if we weren’t caused to do some wondering and questioning, that itself would be concerning. It is human nature to focus so much on one area that we miss seeing ourselves clearly in other areas. We feel reasonably sure that we know what those in evangelical or other denominational churches are missing regarding conversion; are we as aware of what we ourselves may be missing – on subjects perhaps just as important? As I say, if we are not asking some of these questions of others and of ourselves, we simply are spending too little time thinking. But just how we handle our questioning is the issue here, and it is a significant issue.
Let me begin by saying that my considered opinion is that in our earlier days as a movement, we accepted too easily the standard Restoration teachings about baptism, and at points became as legalistic as many groups and individuals were in our “root system” historically. That legalism was demonstrated most especially among us in the rash of “re-baptisms” we had back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. I am in no way discounting the need that some of us felt to be baptized again, given our lack of understanding (especially of true biblical repentance) when we were originally baptized. My wife and I are in that number, just to give a clear example. But many who had been baptized “as disciples” (meaning that they were taught and understood biblical repentance) also came to question their baptism and were re-baptized. During the phase of “Reconstructions,” this phenomenon was especially evident. To say that said practices went too far during these settings is a mild way to state it, in my opinion.
I personally know one former leader who got so caught up in the questioning of his own baptism that he was baptized seven times. Why? Because so much emphasis was placed on “doing it right” that a combination of his insecurity and sincerity led him to a very legalistic way of thinking. I think this particular phase of our history produced some very harmful results back then, and may well be connected to an over-reaction now by at least a significant number of average disciples and some leaders. Since we as a group (although never everyone within the group) swung too far in one direction, it is almost certain that a significant number of us will swing too far in the other direction. And that is where my present concerns for us lie.
No biblical subject should be off limits to a reexamination, and surely a subject as important as conversion should not be. My main concern is that we not enter such reexaminations with a predisposition to either rubber stamp our previous conclusions or to reject them in favor of new conclusions. Either predisposition is in fact an emotionally driven reaction. In the older, root system Restoration churches, I see the latter tendency frequently, and among us, I see the former tendency also frequently. If the very idea of restudying such issues disturbs you, you have a problem. If the study is entered with a strong predisposition in either direction, you also have a problem. God’s truth is God’s truth. It was here before we were born and it will still be around when we are not. From my perspective, two approaches to a broader type of biblical interpretation are of concern – one becoming prevalent in Restoration churches from our root system and one seeming to be finding traction among our discipling movement churches. Let me address them in that order.
A New Hermeneutic In Studying Acts
Denominational churches which have rejected baptism as an essential component of the salvation process have used this particular approach of which I speak to interpreting Acts for decades. Now recognized scholars within Restoration churches are buying into the approach, howbeit often using some new terminology. Briefly stated, the hermeneutic asserts that the conversion accounts in Acts vary so much from one another that no “standard” conversion process can be ascertained. Therefore, the one thing of which we can be sure is that faith is the essential item in conversion, while baptism cannot be confirmed as essential. As I say, this viewpoint is gaining ground among scholars whose historical restoration background had pointed them in quite the opposite direction.
Frankly, this new approach to interpreting Acts is amazing to me, for at least two reasons. One, even without the conversion accounts in Acts, many other passages in the Epistles clearly connect baptism with conversion. Two, the alleged differences in the conversion accounts in Acts are quite easily explained. It is true that sometimes only faith is mentioned and sometimes other things (including baptism) are mentioned, and it is also true that faith is mentioned most often. What are we to make of these differences? Some people are prone to line up the majority passages against the minority passages, claiming that faith is essential while the commands in the other categories are optional. This approach pits Scripture against itself and is therefore erroneous.
One biblical and logical explanation would be that biblical faith is used as a common figure of speech (synecdoche) where the part is used to represent the whole. Usually faith is mentioned, since it is the beginning point out of which all other conditions grow and also the most central quality needed for continuing in the Christian life. However, other terms are used in other passages in this same way. For example, Luke’s version of the Great Commission (24:44-49) mentions that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached.” Since faith is not mentioned, it is obvious that repentance is mentioned as a part of the whole process of salvation, which would certainly include faith (and baptism). Obviously, when the term “faith” is used in this manner, it is meant to include all other aspects of the salvation process, including both repentance and baptism.
We use synecdoche commonly in everyday life situations. If someone asked what I had to eat when I ate at a restaurant, and I replied that I had the steak, they would not assume that all I ate was a steak. They would automatically assume that there were other parts of the meal, such as potatoes, salad, a drink and a dessert. But I only said steak, because that was the main course around which all the rest were accompanying items. Similarly, faith is the “main course” in our becoming Christians, but that does not invalidate the other items which grow out of faith (notably repentance and baptism).
The existence in Acts of variations in conversion accounts is sometimes explained by the variations in where different people were in the conversion process. In three such cases, the teaching sounds like it differs, but it simply corresponded with the people’s present position and need. A man traveling from Texas to New York may ask what the distance is while still in Texas. The answer he receives will be different from the answer to the same question asked when he is halfway to New York. In both cases, the answer is based on his present position. Similarly, the Philippian jailer was told to believe (Acts 16:31) because he was just beginning his trip to salvation. The audience on Pentecost had already believed, so they were told to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Saul was already a repentant believer when he was told to “get up and be baptized” (Acts 22:16). In each case, the command was based on the position and need of those being addressed.
To use such variations as “proof” that no standard conversion process exists in Acts is to approach the subject with a predisposition to come to a conclusion that broadens the conversion path. Even though some who follow this line of reasoning (or lack thereof) would be called scholars, their hermeneutic is anything but scholarly. Having been too legalistic at one point historically does not justify becoming biblically evasive at another point. The Bible has not changed.
An Over-Focus on Grace
This concern is one I have for those in our movement, one that I believe is growing in its application to initial conversion. To be very candid, I express this concern with personal pain. I have labored for years to help people understand God’s grace in ways that were hopefully life-changing. Romans is my favorite book in the Bible, and the writing and teaching I have done on this one book alone is significant indication of my own desire to propagate a better understanding of the very foundation of our salvation. Paul’s description of this foundation is stated beautifully in Ephesians 2:8-10: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Given our legalistic background historically, we have a continuing need to be taught more about grace in our relationship to God (and to one another). Granting also our human propensity to feel too much guilt and to be fairly unsuccessful in letting it go (even with God’s approval biblically), the subject of God’s grace cannot simply be a subject among subjects. It deserves the place of highest honor, for it focuses on God and gives him the glory. That cannot be a wrong emphasis.
On the other hand, the emphasis cannot be placed in isolation, causing us to have an unbalanced view of God. Paul also addressed this danger quite directly in Romans 11:22 with these words: “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” In the current leadership training I have been doing, leaders are recognizing the issue of becoming unbalanced in our view of God and his grace, and are requesting help from my teaching. A course I have entitled “Sound Doctrine and Church Discipline” has been requested with vigor in several places. I just taught it in our newly begun Ukrainian Institute of Ministry in Kiev. It was also one of the earliest courses requested in the Asia-Pacific Leadership Academy. I was also asked to conduct a teaching day in the Oahu church on the subject, although we changed the title to “Developing a Balanced View of God.” This four lesson video series in DVD format is now available through Illumination Publishers International (IPI).
In teaching this material, I strive to present a balanced view of God’s kindness and sternness from both Old and New Testaments. As much as I love the subject of grace (and need it personally so badly for time and eternity), I cannot just dismiss what I read about God’s call to fear him (in the sense of having great awe and respect for him) and the consequences in the lives of so many people when they did not heed that call. Accounts in the OT about people like Cain, everyone except Noah and his family during the time of the flood, Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, King Saul, Uzzah, and many, many more like them fill me with fear and trembling before the King of the universe. And these accounts are designed by him to do just that (1 Corinthians 10:1-11; Hebrews 4:1-3, 11; Hebrews 12:15-17). It will hardly do to claim, as did the Gnostic heretic Marcion, that there is a more graceful God (Jesus) in the New Testament, in contrast to the Creator God of the OT (which included Jesus too, by the way, as the eternal Logos – John 1:1-3). The NT, compared to the OT, cannot be taken less seriously, if we are to believe passages like Hebrews 10:26-31 and Hebrews 12:25-29.
So what am I saying? Simply that we cannot swing the pendulum between legalism and an unbalanced view of God and what he expects of his creation – as the Bible describes those expectations. It is a delicate balance of which we speak. The emotional impact on my heart of thinking that sincere, dedicated, spiritually minded people are not right with God is huge and heavy. But I cannot allow that impact to drive me into teaching that those people can discount, even through ignorance and with the best of intentions, what God’s Word says about conversion. I cannot quit teaching what I sincerely believe the Bible teaches about the subject. Nor will I assume the role of Judge in the final analysis of who spends eternity with God. His biblical standards are perfection, which means that none of us lives up to those standards. I cannot guarantee exactly how God is going to apply those standards to each of us. That is his job and his alone. Just why he tolerated some things like slavery among his people (in the OT and NT) and had zero tolerance for other things like idolatry is somewhat of a mystery to me. But those mysteries of God and his nature keep me from trying to occupy his seat.
I pray for much grace in my own life, for that is the only way that I am going to get into heaven. I also pray for much grace for all who appear to be sincere seekers of him. I hope that more will receive that eternal grace than most of us might now be aware, but that is all in his hands. Once I heard a statement by an older, very conservative minister in one of the branches of the older Restoration movement that resonated with me. He said (surprisingly, given his conservatism): “I have hope for sincere believers in other religious groups, but I do not feel that I have the right to give them hope.” In other words, in his heart of hearts, he wished strongly that God’s grace would be applied liberally to those who had not embraced and experienced biblical conversion as he believed the Bible taught it, but he could not fail to teach them what it taught – unequivocally. He could not assume the role of God as Judge of all men.
That position is where I find myself, and have found myself for most of my 40 year career as a preacher of the Word. I know it will take much grace to save any of us. Just how God ends up applying it in every possible case is up to him. All that is up to me (thankfully) is to preach the Word, try as best I can to first of all live it myself, then try to get everyone else to obey it (in or out of the church), and let God take it from there. I can live with that. I have lived with that for years, and will continue to live with it until I meet him. I cannot live with anything other than that, which brings me to the statement with which I concluded that original article: “I believe I can still teach decisively without being judgmental. Obviously, however, that will always be a fine line to walk, but my teaching about conversion is exactly what it has been for decades and I have no inclinations to change it.” Amen!
Introduction
When we read parts of Matthew 24, we may quickly assume that Jesus is talking about his Second Coming and the end of the world. Such assumptions are based perhaps primarily on the questions the apostles asked, as recorded in 24:3: “As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. ‘Tell us,’ they said, ‘when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’” We are also influenced strongly by the wording of his answers in verses such as these:
“Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matthew 24:29-31).
Wow! Jesus must have been describing the end of the world – right? Let’s not be too hasty in reaching that conclusion. When we look at the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, we see some differences that appear to be significant. Let’s begin by looking at the questions the disciples asked Jesus in those passages and at the answers he gave to them. Keep in mind that a basic rule of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) is that we need to interpret difficult passages in light of simpler passages on the same subject, not vice versa. Therefore, we will do well to begin with Mark’s account, written to a Roman type of Gentile audience, and then proceed to Luke’s account, written by a Gentile to a general Gentile audience. After delving into these parallel passages, we will be in a much better position to examine Matthew’s account, which is clearly the more difficult one. The difficulty lies in the fact that he uses much Jewish terminology, since Jews were the main audience he had in mind when he wrote his Gospel.
Mark 13 – The First Parallel to Matthew 24
Thus we begin with Mark 13, the text of which we will include here to make it easier to study out the specifics of the passage.
As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. 12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
13 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong–let the reader understand–then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.
17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now–and never to be equaled again. 20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.
21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect–if that were possible. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress, “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ 26 “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. 35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back–whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!'” (Mark 13:1-37)
It is immediately noticeable here that Mark records two questions by the apostles and not three, as Matthew 24 seems to do. Jesus had just foretold the destruction of the temple, to which they replied: “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” They had a time question (when will these things happen?) and a sign question (all these events about to take place?). Both questions refer to “these things,” the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted. Absolutely no mention is made by the apostles about a second coming or the end of the world, as far as Mark’s account is concerned.
What just preceded all of these comments were Jesus’ observations at the end of Mark 12 regarding the little widow who gave her last coins into the temple treasury. Jesus wanted to make sure the disciples didn’t miss the lesson provided by her example, so he called them over and said: “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything–all she had to live on.” (Mark 12:43-44) They were evidently not only shocked at what he said, but felt compelled to offer him a correction by way of a gentle reminder. “As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!’” (Mark 13:1) Luke will make it even clearer – they wanted to make sure Jesus remembered that the temple was built by the offerings of the rich, not by the pennies of poor little widows. That prompted him to foretell the absolute destruction of the temple in the not-too-distant future. Material things may be highly impressive to men (even supposedly spiritual men), but they mean absolutely nothing to the King of Glory! We cannot afford to miss that lesson while in the process of trying to deal with a difficult passage.
Jesus begins to answer the two questions by first saying what the sign is not (verses 6-13). It is not false Christs (verse 6). It is not wars and revolutions (verses 7-8). It is not natural calamities (verse 8). It is not persecution (verses 9-13). Next, he addresses what the sign actually is, starting in verse 14. First he mentions the “abomination that causes desolation.” That just sounds scary, doesn’t it – like something that would be associated with the end of time. If Jesus were describing his second coming and the end of the world at this point, nothing that follows in these verses would make any sense at all. When Jesus returns, how could anyone be tempted to go back into his house to get his cloak or anything else, and where would he get the time to do it? In a passage that clearly talks about the Second Coming, we see that everything associated with Christ’s return is going to happen fast – really fast! “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) A twinkle of an eye won’t leave any time to worry about coming down off your roof, and you surely won’t be concerned about whether it is winter or not!
Just read Mark 13:14-20 with these things in mind. Jesus was talking about an event of great distress from which he said to flee. No man can flee the return of Christ at the end of time. Note in verse 20 that the Lord was going to shorten these days of distress. When God sent the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, he indeed shortened the days to protect the Christians in Jerusalem and Judea. In a siege against the city lasting nearly a year, Cestius Gallius, the Roman general, withdrew to Caesarea and brought back a larger army. This break in the battle allowed the Christians who understood Jesus’ prophecy to flee the city, and Josephus, the Jewish historian and eyewitness to the event, says that many did, leaving behind the Jews in the city who were determined to fight to the death (which they did).
Next, Jesus turned his attention to the time question – about when this calamity was going to take place (verses 24-32). In this section, he used what we call “apocalyptic” language, using symbols to describe this time of upheaval. It is a passage virtually guaranteed to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by anyone not familiar with the same type of language in the Old Testament. However, for those who are familiar with the OT Prophets, it is understood that this type of symbolic language was used frequently to describe God’s judgment against nations. We should take the time to give some examples to make sure this point is obvious.
Help From the Old Testament
Wail, for the day of the Lord is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty. 7 Because of this, all hands will go limp, every man’s heart will melt. 8 Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame. 9 See, the day of the Lord is coming –a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger– to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. 10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. 11 I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless. 12 I will make man scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the Lord Almighty, in the day of his burning anger. (Isaiah 13:6-13).
Note in verse 1 of Isaiah 13 that all of this is spoken against Babylon centuries before Christ.
An oracle concerning Egypt: See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt within them. (Isaiah 19:1)
The Lord is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter. 3 Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood. 4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. 5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see, it descends in judgment on Edom, the people I have totally destroyed. 6 The sword of the Lord is bathed in blood, it is covered with fat– the blood of lambs and goats, fat from the kidneys of rams. For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom. 7 And the wild oxen will fall with them, the bull calves and the great bulls. Their land will be drenched with blood, and the dust will be soaked with fat. 8 For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause. (Isaiah 34:2-8)
In the twelfth year, in the twelfth month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt and say to him: “‘You are like a lion among the nations; you are like a monster in the seas thrashing about in your streams, churning the water with your feet and muddying the streams. 3 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: “‘With a great throng of people I will cast my net over you, and they will haul you up in my net. 4 I will throw you on the land and hurl you on the open field. I will let all the birds of the air settle on you and all the beasts of the earth gorge themselves on you. 5 I will spread your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your remains. 6 I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh. 7 When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. 8 All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign Lord. 9 I will trouble the hearts of many peoples when I bring about your destruction among the nations, among lands you have not known. 10 I will cause many peoples to be appalled at you, and their kings will shudder with horror because of you when I brandish my sword before them. On the day of your downfall each of them will tremble every moment for his life. (Ezekiel 32:1-10)
Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand – 2 a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains a large and mighty army comes, such as never was of old nor ever will be in ages to come. 3 Before them fire devours, behind them a flame blazes. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden, behind them, a desert waste– nothing escapes them. 4 They have the appearance of horses; they gallop along like cavalry. 5 With a noise like that of chariots they leap over the mountaintops, like a crackling fire consuming stubble, like a mighty army drawn up for battle. 6 At the sight of them, nations are in anguish; every face turns pale. 7 They charge like warriors; they scale walls like soldiers. They all march in line, not swerving from their course. 8 They do not jostle each other; each marches straight ahead. They plunge through defenses without breaking ranks. 9 They rush upon the city; they run along the wall. They climb into the houses; like thieves they enter through the windows. 10 Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine. 11 The Lord thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty are those who obey his command. The day of the Lord is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it? (Joel 2:1-11)
And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. 30 I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 31 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 32 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls. (Joel 2:28-32)
Many other similar accounts from the OT could be cited, but these are sufficient to help us understand just how such language was used, and how often it was used. You will recall that this last passage from Joel 2 is quoted in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost when the church was established, and was referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on that occasion. The language in all of these passages is very similar to that used in Matthew 24 and parallels, and also in the Book of Revelation. It can be (and was) applied to God’s judgment against any people in rebellion. Taking it literally will lead to more misunderstanding and twisting of Scripture than you can imagine. If you try to make symbolic language literal, you will at some point be forced to make literal language symbolic. Much modern interpretation of Revelation provides a clear example of such erroneous exposition. But the main point here is that no one is equipped to deal with Matthew 24 (or Revelation) without having a reasonably good grasp of the writings of the OT Prophets.
Now let’s return to Mark’s account. In continuing to answer the time question, Jesus tells the parable of the fig tree (verses 28-31). While no specific time is given, the general time is to be within one generation (verse 30). In that era, a generation was considered to be 40 years. Jesus spoke these words around 30 AD and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD – 40 years later. However, Jesus said that no one could know the exact time – expressed by the term “day or hour” (verse 32). Therefore, Jesus concludes by speaking of the need to watch for the sign (verses 33-37). If this material was only found in Mark and Luke, the confusion would have been reduced considerably. One thing to be learned in this situation is the need to study less difficult passages on any subject and allow them to help us understand the more difficult ones on the same subject. It is, after all, one of the most common principles of biblical interpretation, but espoused more than practiced in trying to interpret passages like those we are considering here. Too many people love speculative “end time” interpretations to practice good biblical exegesis or exercise common sense.
Luke 21 – The Second Parallel to Matthew 24
Luke even more basic and simple than Mark in describing these events. As stated earlier, he is a Gentile writing to Gentiles, and he simplifies quite a few things for his intended original readers. He is clearly the least “Jewish” in writing style and terminology, which is of great help in understanding this particular section of Scripture. Again, to make is easier to follow, let’s include Jesus’ words as Luke describes them.
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”
8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”
10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.
12 “But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 This will result in your being witnesses to them. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 All men will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By standing firm you will gain life.
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkeness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21:1-36)
The order is about the same as that of Mark 13. Jesus first commends the little widow, after which the apostles remind him of how beautiful the temple is and how it was built with the gifts of the rich. He tells of the temple being destroyed, and Luke records the two questions by the apostles regarding the signs and the time when they would take place. Luke’s order follows very closely to Mark’s, so we don’t need to go back through it in detail – except in the things that are slightly different and will help us understand better what Jesus is saying. The two questions both refer to “these things” about which Jesus had just spoken. If the Second Coming was in view, Theophilus, to whom the Book of Luke was addressed (1:3), would have been misled. The sign was not false Christs (verse 8); wars and revolutions (verse 9); natural calamities (verses 10-11); or persecution (verses 12-19).
Verse 20 removes any confusion in talking about what the other two accounts call the “abomination that causes desolation.” Older versions call this the “abomination of desolation,” a term widely used by the “end time” speculators. Luke could not have made it clearer: “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.” Jesus follows this statement with the warning to flee when the armies were approaching Jerusalem. With this comment, he switched to what the sign was, and he goes on to describe in symbolic language the great upheaval of God’s judgment against the Jews and Jerusalem. The fig tree parable came next, with the general time before the destruction being a generation. Jesus concluded with the warning to watch for the sign and to live life accordingly –righteously and not carelessly (verses 34-36).
Matthew 24 – A Very Jewish Passage
Let’s move directly to the key issue here in Matthew’s wording of the questions. Did Jesus’ disciples really ask three questions, or did Matthew just use Jewish terminology to state the same two questions recorded in Mark and Luke? By now, the latter possibility is becoming obvious, isn’t it? When we read “the sign of your coming” in verse 3, it should be noted that the Greek word translated coming is parousia, commonly denoting presence. Readers with a Jewish background would have taken these words to describe a coming in judgment (as we read about in OT passages such as Isaiah 19:1). Actually, Matthew 16:28 speaks of another coming of Jesus which cannot be the second coming as we know it. “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Clearly, all “comings” of God or Jesus were not associated with the end of the world. See also Luke 19:44 for “the time of God’s coming to you,” a clear reference in context to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
What about the “end of the age?” The Greek term is aion, for “age,” not kosmos, for “world.” The same phrase is used in Matthew 28:20. Whatever may be said of Jesus’ answers in Matthew 24, it is virtually certainly that the disciples could hardly have been asking about a second coming according to our concept, since they had not yet wrapped their minds around even his death or resurrection, much less a “second coming” at the “end of the world.” See Luke 9:45 and 18:34, which shows that their understanding of even his clearly-told death was absolutely nil.
The word end here is the same root word in Greek translated fulfilled in Mark 13:4. It refers in Matthew 24:6, 14 to the same event, which in its context, points to the destruction of the city. If the disciples were not asking about the second coming and the end of the kosmos, what were they asking? Two possible interpretations have merit contextually. One, the disciples may have assumed that such a great event would be the end of the Jewish world (or perhaps the whole world) – if the Jews (23:34-36) and the temple (24:1-2) were to be destroyed, their world ends. Two, since coming is from parousia (presence), often used in contemporary Greek to denote the arrival of a king, they may have pictured Jesus coming in battle against Jerusalem literally, thus terminating the old age and ushering in a new age. This view coincides with popular Messianic expectations of the disciples pretty closely. Either way, the question refers to these things as in Luke 21 and Mark 13, the destruction of the temple about which Jesus had just spoken.
Matthew adds a few things besides a different wording of the apostles’ basic questions. He mentioned the apostasy, when the love of most would grow cold (verses 10-12). He also speaks of the gospel being preached in the whole world before the “end” comes (verse 14). Of course, Colossians 1: 6, 23 give us a first century fulfillment of that prediction. Christ’s coming will be definite, in contrast to the false Christs (verses 26-27). The location of this coming will be where the vultures gather for the desolation of the decaying carcass (of Judaism – verse 28). Compare this statement with Hebrews 8:13; 12:25-29. Judaism with its sacrificial system was nearing its final end when all of these statements were made and written.
In verse 29, Jesus ushers in the apocalyptic language section with the phrase “Immediately after the distress of those days.” Immediately is from the Greek eutheos, meaning at once or soon, and it obviously refers to something which will occur shortly. Trying to fit in 2,000 years would strain the meaning of the word considerably! “Sign” in verse 30 is from the Greek semeion, which refers to a token of something rather than to the thing itself. In other words, a signification of Christ’s coming would be seen in the events he predicted rather than the Son of Man in person. Mourn in verse 30 is in the future passive tense, and could be translated “mourn for themselves.” The angel gathering the elect (verse 31) could refer figuratively to the preaching of the gospel to the world after the destruction, or it could refer to a gathering of the elect out of the city before its destruction. See the following verses for the gathering concept: Deuteronomy 30:4; Psalm 22:27; Isaiah 27:13; 45:22.
The need to watch for the sign Jesus had predicted is described in more detail than in the other passages. The wicked are contrasted with Noah, the righteous (verses 37-39). Noah was not caught unprepared – only the wicked were. Therefore, the comparison to the destruction of Jerusalem makes sense. He says that one is taken, and one is left in verses 40-41. The wicked were taken, not the righteous, for the righteous fled at the approaching armies. Of course, this text is a favorite of those who teach the “Rapture” doctrine, a doctrine with many biblical difficulties – but one that we cannot discuss in any detail here. We will save that one for a later discussion. The admonition to watch is concluded in verses 45-5l.
Remember that the Bible had no original chapter divisions. Since verse 44 is a culminating statement, this section may go better with chapter 25. Three views of kingdoms are given in Matthew 24 and 25: the kingdom destroyed (Jewish) – chapter 24; the kingdom remaining on earth (Church) – 25:1-30; and the kingdom eternal (exalted at God’s throne) – 25:31-46.
Luke 17:22-37 – Unsolvable Mystery or Mystery Solved?
This passage is not a parallel to Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, but it contains many of the same signs. However, the order in which they occur is different – in fact, they occur rather in random order compared to the other three passages that follow a similar outline. It will be worth our time to read this passage as well before proceeding.
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” 22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.
23 Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left. 37 “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” (Luke 17:20-37)
A number of biblical scholars divide Matthew 24 into two major sections: the destruction of Jerusalem (verses 1-34); and the end of the world (verses 35-51). Let’s call the first part Section A and the second part Section B. When you parallel the Luke 17 passage with Matthew 24, here is what you find:
Luke 17 paralleled with Matthew 24, with the wording classed in Sections A or B:
1. Luke 17:24 – Matthew 24:27 (A)
2. Luke 17:26-30 – Matthew 24:37-39 (B)
3. Luke 17:31-33 – Matthew 24:17-18 (A)
4. Luke 17:34-36 – Matthew 24:40-41 (B)
5. Luke 17:37 – Matthew 24:28 (A)
Obviously, the signs in Luke 17 are mixed up considerably when compared to Matthew 24 and the parallel accounts. We are left with three possibilities when trying to make sense of Luke 17. One, Luke 17 is a jumble which cannot be understood, which reflects negatively on the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Two, the entire passage refers to the second coming – a position with multiple problems, to put it mildly. For example, the same wording is found in Matthew 24 and parallels, definitely referring to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. And then why (and how) could one go into his house for material goods (verse 31) when Christ comes? We have already elaborated on that point earlier. Lot is used as an example in verses 28-29, which exactly coincides with the case of Jerusalem where the righteous fled and wicked remained to be destroyed in the city. In the day that the Son of man is revealed (verse 30), the watchful are to escape rather then going back to their homes (verse 31). Of course, no such choices will exist when the second coming occurs!
Third, all of Luke 17 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. In light of all the evidence, this view is really the only logical and consistent view. Therefore, Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are referring entirely to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age, rather than speaking about the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. Other passages discuss those subjects, but these passages under discussion do not. I pray that this rather lengthy article not only answered the original question to your satisfaction, but motivates you to study the Old Testament more – especially the Prophets. If that is the result, the study will have been well worth it. God bless!
This title conjures up many things in the minds of religious people, depending upon their backgrounds and present persuasion on the subject. At one end of the spectrum are those who believe that all followers of Christ today should be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a miraculous way, inducing them to speak in tongues and perform miracles of one sort or another (healings in particular). At the other end of the spectrum are those who are uncomfortable with the charismatic claims and practices, but aren’t sure just how to refute them biblically. Hopefully we are somewhere in between, rejecting the miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit, which were intended for the early age of the church prior to the completion of the New Testament. Now that we have a completed New Testament, the miracles it contains do the same thing for us that the original miracles did in the first century – namely lead us to faith in Christ and salvation as a result (John 20:30-31).
However, we still need to have a biblical understanding of just what the baptism with the Holy Spirit was in its original context and be able to explain both what it was and what it was not. A great beginning place is to read what John the Baptist said about the subject.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:7-12)
What Was the Baptism With Fire?
The most logical way to view this text is to assume that everyone in the audience was going to be baptized either with the Holy Spirit or with fire. The baptism with fire seemed to be fairly close at hand, since John said that the ax was already at the root of the trees that were not producing good fruit. I think this baptism refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, although others think it refers to hell itself. Malachi 4 provides a good commentary on the work of John the Baptist, and I think addresses both the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire. Take a few minutes to study out this prediction of John’s work as the “new” Elijah. At any rate, the NT has much more about the destruction of Jerusalem in it than most people realize, but we will save this subject for another column in the near future.
Regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit, two passages in Acts are essential to our comprehension of the subject: Acts 2 and Acts 10. In Luke 24:49, Jesus had promised the coming of the Spirit and the disciples’ reception of power from that event. Acts 2 records what Peter said was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2. Although the term “baptism” means a covering, an immersion or an overwhelming, it is described here as a pouring out. From heaven’s vantage point, the coming of the Spirit in a unique way was a pouring; from earth’s vantage point, it was a baptism – an overwhelming measure of the Spirit such as had never been seen before.
Acts 10 and 11 contain the account of what most assume is a second baptism of the Holy Spirit. Let’s read these passages together.
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47“Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” (Acts 10:44-47)
15“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” (Acts 11:15-17)
Two Baptisms With the Spirit — Or Just One?
The question is whether this falling of the Spirit on Cornelius constituted a second example of Holy Spirit baptism or not. As we have already stated, most assume that it is a second example, the first accompanying the induction of the Jews into the Kingdom and the second accompanying the induction of the Gentiles into the Kingdom. Certainly a number of things in the text may support that understanding. Acts 11:15 is a key consideration: “…the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.” Whatever else may be said, Holy Spirit baptism was not a regular occurrence, because this situation reminded Peter of the beginning, a reference to the Day of Pentecost back in Acts 2. This present account took place years later. The Pentecostal view that baptism with the Holy Spirit was (or is) an everyday occurrence does not agree at all with what Peter said.
Since Peter used the “keys” of the kingdom (means of entrance—Matthew 16:19; Acts 2:38) to usher in the Jews at the time of that first outpouring, he now used the same “keys” for the Gentiles at a similar outpouring (Acts 10:44-48). If this view is correct, baptism with the Holy Spirit was a two-time-only event in connection with ushering in the kingdom of God to both Jews and Gentiles. However, another view has much to commend it, as seen in the following explanation.
The account in Acts 10 and 11 is not necessarily a second example of Holy Spirit baptism. As we have seen, that view does make sense, but another similar view takes some other aspects into consideration. In Acts 2:17 (quoting Joel 2:28), Holy Spirit baptism was in the future tense, for it had not occurred before the Day of Pentecost. Then, in Acts 2:33, the pouring out of the Spirit was in aorist tense, which corresponds closely to our past tense, for it had just occurred. But in Acts 10:45, the Spirit having been poured out on the Gentiles was in perfect tense. Perfect tense denotes a past action with continuing results, like Jesus’ statement “it is written,” which means that the Scriptures are written and stand written, that they remain in force.
With this definition in mind, consider the wording of the passage: “The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” The perfect tense could well be pointing back all the way to Pentecost in Acts 2, as a past action with continuing results. Thus, the miraculous demonstration of the Spirit with Cornelius showed that Spirit baptism back at Pentecost was indeed for all men and not just for Jews. This similar direct falling of the Spirit on Cornelius, without human hands being laid on him, caused Peter to remember back to Christ’s promise (Acts 11:16).
Another evidence of support for this one time outpouring on Pentecost is that “poured out” in Acts 2:33 means literally “to be drained.” The word is often translated “spilled,” meaning emptied instead of having something partially poured out, leaving some of the contents in the container for later pourings. In my view, the evidence strongly suggests that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a one-time event, making him forever available for those who become Christians. As Jesus died “once for all” for all men, so the Spirit was poured out “once for all” for all men. Of course, we must keep in mind that he does not do exactly the same things for us today as he did for those in the miraculous age of the church. But he does seal, strengthen, lead and love us, to mention but a few of the ways he works in our lives as Christians today.
A good parallel would be to consider the death of Jesus and the baptism with the Spirit as similar one-time events. Before Spirit Baptism occurred, he was available only to a select few in the Old Testament (the prophets). Holy Spirit Baptism was the coming of the Spirit into to world in an overwhelming measure, making him available for everyone who would receive him. Jesus’ death was for all people (Hebrews 2:9), but only those who obey Him receive the benefit of salvation (Hebrews 5:9). The coming of the Spirit was for all as well, but only those who obey receive the indwelling Spirit (Acts 2:38; Galatians 4:6). Praise God for all of his work in us through the Holy Spirit!
