Galatians 5:16-18 “The Ammunition of the Spirit in Civil War”

Galatians 5:16-18 “The Ammunition of the Spirit in Civil War”

Galatians 5:16–18 (ESV) — 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

McKnight (1995:272):

I know of no Christian parents or youth leaders, or for that matter any pastorsm who seriously believe what Paul teaches in verses 16-26 (of Galatians 5), that the sole foundation of Christian ethics is dependency on the Spirit and a life of freedom in the Spirit….I have met only one person who ever expressed this view of Paul in a definitive and, to him, practical way. That person was F.F. Bruce…”

I would add Gordon Fee to that list in my own experience as I also shared this same conviction in my study of the reality of Spirit-fullness in the New Covenant. McKnight continues:

To be sure, Paul knew that when a person was controlled by the Spirit, that person was holy. He also knew that a person who lived in the Spirit lived in a loving way. Thus, he knew that the Old Testament moral guidelines and the teachings of Jesus on holiness, righteousness, and compassion would be confirmed by anyone who lived in the Spirit (1995:273).

Needless to say that we can be accused, just like the early Galatians, of wanting to derive our ethic from the law or traditions of man. I am not opposed to the “3^rd use of the Law” in relation to our sanctification, but if such is taught in a way that doesn’t necessitate the presence of the Spirit, then we may very well be acting like the early Judaizers.

What has Paul said about the Spirit thus far?

Galatians 3:1–6 (ESV) — 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

-          Received the Spirit by faith

-          Began in the Spirit, but seeking sanctification in the flesh

-          Spirit supplied by hearing with faith, not works of law

Galatians 3:13–14 (ESV) — 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

-          V. 13 speaks of the verb…Christ redeemed us

• Followed by two adverbial purpose clauses
  • So that…blessings of Abraham to Gentiles
  • So that we might receive the promised Spirit
    • The work of redemption must lead to salvation and the reception of the Spirit.

Galatians 4:6–7 (ESV) — 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

-          We are sons and heirs through the Spirit, enabled to cry out Abba! Father! The Spirit enables our faith, our assurance as children. This speaks of objective status realized through a subjective cry, which is absolutely brought about through the giving of the Spirit

Galatians 5:5 (ESV) — 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.

-          The Spirit is the agency through which we have faith and hope for the coming righteousness.

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

-          Walk = present imperative, denotes ongoing life of the Christian, NIV has “Live” although the new NIV has “walk”.  Speaks of direction

-          “by” or “in”, “pnuema” is in the dative/locative/instrumental case with no article. “by” or “in” is supplied to understand the nature of the command.

• Dative = to, locative = in, instrumental = by, can be referring to the domain we live in, or the means whereby we walk. Both ideas are taught in Scripture. I think “by” makes the most sense, especially in light of Paul’s earlier reference in  3:3 about beginning by the Spirit, trying to perfect by flesh.

-          “you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” – strong double negative, aorist subjunctive expresses certainty, “you will never under any circumstances”. Implied and expected result of walking in the Spirit, it is thus a promise. If you are walking in full reliance on the Spirit, you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh (sarx). There is a “pneuma/sarx” battles in Scripture.

• Is this promise too strong? NO. It is impossible to gratify the desires of the flesh when you are walking in the Spirit, just like it is impossible to lie when you are telling the truth, to starve to death when you eat, to suffocate to death when you are breathing.
• The law can only inform and instruct, but it is the Spirit that actually empowers!!!
• This civil war inside of us is dealt with some more:

The Pauline Necessity of the Spirit in Sanctification and Christian Ethics

The following quote is from Scot McKnight’s commentary on Galatians in The NIV Application Commentary series:

McKnight (1995:272):

I know of no Christian parents or youth leaders, or for that matter any pastors who seriously believe what Paul teaches in verses 16-26 (of Galatians 5), that the sole foundation of Christian ethics is dependency on the Spirit and a life of freedom in the Spirit….I have met only one person who ever expressed this view of Paul in a definitive and, to him, practical way. That person was F.F. Bruce…

I would add Gordon Fee to that list in my own experience as I also shared this same conviction in my study of the reality of Spirit-fullness in the New Covenant. McKnight continues:

To be sure, Paul knew that when a person was controlled by the Spirit, that person was holy. He also knew that a person who lived in the Spirit lived in a loving way. Thus, he knew that the Old Testament moral guidelines and the teachings of Jesus on holiness, righteousness, and compassion would be confirmed by anyone who lived in the Spirit (1995:273).

Needless to say that we can be accused, just like the early Galatians, of wanting to derive our ethic from the law or traditions of men. I am not opposed to the “3^rd use of the Law” in relation to our sanctification, but if such is taught in a way that doesn’t necessitate the presence of the Spirit, then we may very well be acting like the early Judaizers.

It is sometimes said that the Holy Spirit is the neglected members of the Godhead. Study of Scripture, however, will make clear that the Spirit is the one who regenerates our hearts, accompanies the inward call, adopts us into our relational standing as children of God, seals the believer as an objective member of the New Covenant, empowers and guides our sanctification, as well as gifting the Church for ministry. I’m sure that there are pastors out there emphasizing this dynamic, however I resonate with McKnight when he claims F.F. Bruce as the first scholar which emphasized these points in Pauline Pneumatology. For me, it was the pages of Gordon Fee’s, “God’s Empowering Presence”, that had confirmed all that I had believed from my own study of Paul’s theology of the Spirit.

Governed by the Spirit

Galatians 5:25 reads: εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.  It is variously translated:

• “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (NASB)
• “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.” (NIV)
• “If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit.” (NRSV)
• “Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives.” (NLT)

But my favorite rendering is by F. F. Bruce in his Expanded Paraphrase of the Epistles of Paul: “So then, if our principle of life is the Spirit, let our behavior also be governed by the Spirit.”

This is what makes Christianity unique.  The Christian life is not the exercise of a new religion, it is the outgrowth of being governed by the Holy Spirit.  The extent to which we experience the fullness of “Christ living in us” (Gal. 2:20) is determined by the extent to which we cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s ministry to us.  That’s why Jesus stressed the coming of the Holy Spirit to his disciples.  That’s why it is so important that the Church stress “life in the Spirit” from the moment that life in the Spirit begins – at conversion.  Note how F. F. Bruce translates Galatians 5:16:

“What I want to emphasize is this: live continually in the power of the Spirit, and you will not carry out the cravings of your old nature.”

That should be our consistent and constant focus – “Live continually in the power of the Spirit.”  Living continually in the power of the Spirit, being governed by the Spirit, is the Christian life.  And, if we stay in step with Him, he will lead us into all that life in Christ entails and equip us with every experience and gift that living that life “to the full” requires.

Remember, since the origin of your Christian life is the result of the working of the Holy Spirit, the continuation of your Christian life will be the result of the same.  Let Him govern your behavior.

Former Assemblies of God Pastor Andrew McIntyre Weighs in on “Initial Physical Evidence”

I posted a review of some comments from William and Robert Menzies book, “Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience” (here).

It drew a clarifying comment from Endued blogger, Matt:

I’m unclear Pastor Rick if it is your position that the baptism of the Spirit is BOTH conversion AND the initial filling, such as the Third Wave view (As I understand it), or is the Baptism of the Spirit what happens at conversion and then there is later an initial filling of power? Just curious, I’m still undecided on it.

Matt

My response:

Matt, I hold that the prescribed patter of initiation into union with Christ comes from Peter in his Pentecost sermon: “Repent, Be Baptized, Receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit”. Let me clarify that a bit…I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, nor do I believe that their is a singular reception of the Spirit that comes AFTER one repents and is baptized. In the Ordu Salutis (order of salvation), I believe that one can’t repent apart from some work of the Spirit, which I would call regeneration. Even my Wesleyan friends would acknowledge a prior work of the Spirit in bringing one to faith. Once one repents and is baptized, it is impossible for them to be a believer and not have the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9). So, in a theological rendering of initiation, one isn’t a Christian apart from the Spirit.

Now what does Peter mean when he says that one will receive the Gift of the Spirit in the package including repentance and baptism? I actually DON’T hold that this is the gift in a “Sonship” paradigm, or merely a converting work of the Spirit that Peter is offering. I think Peter is referring to the work of the Spirit has had been witnessed in the disciples. So in my ordu salutis, I would make a distinction between the work of the Spirit preveniently bringing one to repentance (Regeneration), the adoptive sealing work of the Spirit that indwells the believer who has repented and is baptized, the sanctifying fruit-bearing work of the Spirit that follows the life of the believer in a gradual manner that is different for various believers, and the empowering work of the Spirit that now proceeds from the life of the believer in context to their union to the Church for the edification of the Church.

If anything, I am willing to make even more than 2 distinctions in the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. What I am opposed to is stating that their is a primary secondary work that necessarily requires tongues as the infallible proof that you have gotten the second work. Luke doesn’t give an exact paradigm. The Samaritans reception of the Spirit in some sense was lacking following their repentance and baptism (Acts 8). This is seen as exceptional and not normative. I think folks argue for too much when they say that the Samaritans weren’t “saved” (James Dunn) and that Pentecostals argue for too much when they claim Acts 8 as a prooftext for what they consider to be normative. I’m willing to grant that Acts 8 was a “two step” process and don’t even feel the need to give some practical reasons for why it needed to be that way. For Peter in Acts 10, the Gentiles got up and spoke in tongues while he was preaching!!! Their repentance was assumed and they were admitted to the waters of baptism following this demonstrative act of God’s acceptance. It would be silly of me to say that Acts 10 is normative and that people must get up and speak in tongues in the middle of a sermon before they can be baptized. Essentially, Acts is a unique transitional period and God is pretty much doing things as He wills. While Peter prescribes repentance, baptism and reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, we have two accounts here: where full reception of the Spirit was lacking following baptism (Acts 8 and where tongues preceded baptism in Acts 10).

I’m okay with attributing to the Spirit His sovereign freedom in these matters. If someone insisted that they were baptized with the Spirit subsequent to salvation and spoke in tongues, I would affirm that as a work of the Spirit. If someone spoke in tongues during an evangelistic message at some local park, I would accept that as a work of the Spirit and encourage baptism. So while I hold the “one baptism many fillings” paradigm as the prescribed norm, I am okay with the Spirit working in a “two step” process if that’s how people want to read it. Essentially, I am opposed to the doctrine of “initial physical evidence” which dogmatically asserts that Spirit-baptism is a “necessarily” distinct second work of grace that is validated solely by the manifestation of tongues, thus dogmatically asserting that this is how the sovereign Spirit MUST WORK. Like I said, I am the first to say that the Spirit has worked this way, and continues to work this way, and does give tongues as a manifestation of the reception of the Spirit (in fact I would argue that the Spirit not only bears fruit, but will normatively manifest Himself in a “charismatic” manner, whether it be tongues or a great zeal for administering mercy). What I am not willing to say is that the Pentecostal position is the prescribed normative view. While I hold the broad “Evangelical Charismatic” position as what I see as the normative paradigm, there is room enough for me to acknowledge that the Spirit can act in an analogous fashion to what the Pentecostals expect. They, however, can’t grant such charity to me. They can’t say, according to their doctrine, that I have been baptized with the Spirit in an empowering fashion unless I give testimony to tongues in my life. They would have to say I am lacking the baptism of the Spirit and am still deficient in some sense for having not spoken in tongues.

It drew the following comment from Assemblies of God Pastor Andy Harris (http://www.centralonthehill.com):

Rick,
The “initial, physical evidence” doctrine as you note is the primary thing that distinguishes traditional Pentecostalism from the wider evangelical world. That, of course, and the fact that the largest Christian missions force in the world is led by those who hold to the “initial, physical evidence” doctrine. The Pentecostal explosion in global missions is the greatest defense of a subsequent experience of empowerment for Christians and
that speaking in other tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is promised to all believers (Mark 16:16-17; Acts 1:8, 2:4, 38-39, et al).

My response was as follows:

Andy, I am grateful for the success of “Evangelical” missions, including the Pentecostals. I would even go so far to say that there is a correlation to the success of distinctly Pentecostal missions in various parts of the world. Their emphasis on the empowering work of the Spirit, spiritual warfare, and the imminence of God in an experiential fashion are all good. I am still 99% Pentecostal. It is my heritage and I don’t repudiate it. I also differ on how I understand God’s Sovereignty from most Pentecostals, but that would still be compatible within the confession of faith.

I would disagree with you however in stating that the success of Pentecostal missions validates “initial physical evidence”. My goodness, Mormons and Islam is growing as well, does that validate Joseph Smith and Muhammad? They would argue along the same lines. I am gracious enough to say that there is a correlation of Pentecostal pneumatology and practice on a broader level to their “success” on the mission field, but to insinuate that the success is owing entirely to “initial physical evidence” and that such a doctrine is validated by the “success” is logically erroneous. Does the success of non-Pentecostal missionaries validate their convictions that none should speak in tongues? Does the overwhelming “success” of the Anglican Church on the African continent validate the 39 Articles of Religion and prove infant baptism to be true?

And now, a recent friend I have met, who is a former Assemblies of God pastor, Any McIntyre has chimed in:

First, let me frame my comments, especially for Andy, by saying that I used to be an Assemblies of God minister for 22+ years and had been a member of the Assemblies of God for over 40 years. I also have two degrees from A/G schools (B.S. & M.A.T.S.). And, finally, I have no axe to grind against the A/G; instead, I have many great memories from the two churches that I was privileged to pastor.

A Few Thoughts on James Dunn’s “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, His Disagreements with Dispensationals and Similarities with Oneness Pentecostals

The below are some notes from my research. These quotes are taken from the following:

Dunn, J.D.G. (1974). Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in relation to Pentecostalism today. London, UK: SCM Press

J.D.G. Dunn (1974:47) dialogues directly with dispensational readings of Joel 2:28-32:

Dispensationalists often argue that Peter did not consider Pentecost a fulfillment of the Joel prophecy; e.g. M.F. Unger: ‘ “This is that” means nothing more than that “this is (an illustration of) that which was spoken by the prophet Joel”’ (Bib.Sac. 122 [165] 177). This is special pleading. Luke (and Peter) clearly regard the outpouring on the 120 as at least the beginning of the outpouring on all flesh, and the ‘last days’ in which ‘whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Acts 2:21) have certainly arrived.

Dunn (1974:46) actually thinks that Joeline fulfillment on Pentecost is central to the whole idea of a new age:

…it was only at Pentecost that the Joel prophecy was fulfilled. In the old two-age view of Jewish eschatology the gift of the Spirit was one of the decisive marks of the new age. Certainly for the first Christians the gift of the Spirit was the decisive differentia which marked off the old dispensation from the new…

While J.D.G. Dunn (1974:53-54) makes it quite clear that he rejects the two step emphases of Pentecostal theology, he does highlight the Pentecostal experience as somewhat paradigmatic in a qualitative fashion of what it means to be a Christian:

In one sense…Pentecost can never be repeated—for the new age is here and cannot be ushered in again. But in another sense Pentecost, or rather the experience of Pentecost, can and must be repeated in the experience of all who would become Christians. As the day of Pentecost was once the doorway into the new age, so entry into the new age can only be made through that doorway, that is, through receiving the same Spirit and the same baptism in the Spirit as did the 120.

What I find ironic about Dunn’s pleading is that while he offers correctives to the classical Pentecostal understanding of Spirit Baptism, he seems to almost be saying that a Pentecostal experience of some sort is proof that one is truly a Christian. In Dunn’s fifth chapter, titled “The Riddle of Samaria”, he contends that the Samaritans’ conversion was deficient under Phillip because there was no manifestation of the Spirit. Such reasoning is consistent with Dunn’s overall thesis that conversion was a radical experience that was noted by some sort of manifestations.

I don’t want to lump Dunn’s arguments with those of “Oneness Pentecostals”, but he sounds similar on many points. They take the traditional Pentecostal emphasis of tongues, but rather than tie it with a subsequent work of Spirit Baptism, they instead view it as normative in initiation. Essentially, “Oneness Pentecostals” believe that one must speak in tongues to validate their initiation into the Christian faith. Dunn does not believe that tongues are a singular sign, nor a normative sign for Christian initiation, but when he questions the Samaritans’ initiation because they weren’t manifesting the Spirit in an analogous fashion  to Pentecost, he does seem to argue that one needs to prove their faith by manifesting the Spirit in some radical or extraordinary fashion.

Craig Keener’s Argument for the Continuation of “Charismata”

NT scholar Craig Keener makes what I have always found to be a simple and logical conclusion on the implications of Pentecost and Peter’s preaching to the continuing nature of the New Covenant with relation to Spiritual gifts.  This excerpt is from his volume, “The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts”. Keener (1997:197-198) contends against the notion that the accompanying signs of the Spirit’s reception in Acts was confined to some brief era:

The phrases “and your children” and “As many as God shall call” likewise make clear that Luke does not envision the outpouring of the Spirit as a past, temporary gift; if Luke does not regard it as still available, then by his argument God’s calling, the new era, and the availability of salvation must have also been retracted. In this case Luke expects his Christian audience to reject the whole point of Peter’s sermon, as he reports that Peter’s unrepentant Jewish hearers did. The implications of such an interpretation run totally counter to Luke’s theology; clearly he assumes that Pentecost’s endowment of the Spirit and dynamic manifestations of the Spirit such as glossolalia are to continue until Jesus’ return. If “the last days” did in fact begin on Pentecost (2:17), and if, in the words of many scholars today, Luke’s view of the kingdom is “already” as well as “not yet,” Luke believes that Spirit baptism remains normative for God’s community, both to Israel and to “far off” Gentiles.

Brokeness

Romans 8: 23-27- “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.”

 

                I was reading through this passage recently, and I had to stop and think about what it’s really talking about. I guess I thought it was just about the Holy Spirit interceding for us when we don’t know what to say. But really it has to do more with our present sufferings in this life and our on-going redemption through the Holy Spirit, while we wait for the final work to be completed. The preceding verses talk about the suffering of the creation, while it’s waiting to be recreated. And this part continues talking about the suffering we face as believers. But I think it’s also part of a transition into the next passage, which is one of my most favorite parts of scriptures, verses 28 through 39. This next passage is where it talks about all things working for the good of those that love God and that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (39-39). And while these passages can be very uplifting, I’ve been thinking more recently about the suffering that we must face in this life, and the tools that God gives us to combat our pains.

My own personal brokenness has had a lot to do with the sufferings of others around me. For example, I recently heard about some real life stories about people living through war, rape, and murder, and I am forced to think about the imperfections and sin that are still very present in this world. And it also came to me that the same sin that is present in those people “out there” committing atrocities is also a part of me. I was deeply afflicted by the realization of the affects of sin. I realized once again that I am far from perfect, and I have a long way to go before I can be free to love with a perfect sinless kind of love. It was at this time that I also became very emotionally distraught. I could not and did not want to find any words to pray or speak about it. It was pain, but it was a healing type of pain, too. This is what is meant by the passage when it talks about “the Spirit helps us in our weaknesses. We do not know what we aught to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (8:26)” Thankfully that is why God has given us his spirit, who works both as a deposit and a guarantee that we will one day be free from the imperfections of this life.

As hard as it may be I think we all need to be exposed in this way to the suffering of the world around us. We should urgently ask God to reveal how he sees the world, so that we might learn to see the way he does. Hopefully by exposing ourselves to the needs of those around us, we will learn to hate the consequences of sin as God does. And then eventually we will learn to love like God does. Pain and suffering are not easy things to go through at the time, but it is through suffering that God teaches the most important lessons.