The Authorship of 2 Thessalonians

Oddly enough, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 was in the news today. I saw one journalist who frequently claims to have significant Bible knowledge (but keeps getting some of the basics wrong) state that this epistle was a forgery and not actually written by Paul. I thought I would respond.

The idea that Paul is not the author of 2 Thessalonians is largely a holdover from the 19^th century when the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation was in its infancy and the authorship of all of the books of the Bible was up for grabs. Greater understanding of the texts, their theology, and a more thorough understanding of the use of the historical-critical method has substantiated most of the traditional claims of Pauline authorship. 2 Thessalonians is still debated. While earlier generations focused on the eschatological differences between it and 1 Thessalonians, a greater realization that such differences were not in conflict has led to a more recent focus on the stylistic differences between it and 1 Thessalonians as the reason to doubt Pauline authorship. I’ve not found the arguments against Pauline authorship convincing, and I would like to give the reasons why.

-          Doubts about authorship are only based on the differences of style between it and 1 Thessalonians. If all we had was the second letter no one would doubt its authorship. Yet, no one doubts the Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians even though it is stylistically different from Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, letters which no one doubts are Pauline, too.

-          The Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is well attested in the early Church. No one doubted its authenticity until recently.

-          The letter claims to be from Paul (1:1; 3:1).

-          Those who reject Pauline authorship state that 2 Thessalonians was written just after Paul’s death. 1 Thessalonians is widely regarded as being the first Pauline letter. This would mean that 2 Thessalonians was written about 25 years after 1 Thessalonians. Yet, if the second letter is a forgery, the author apparently was attempting to create a letter for the era 1 Thessalonians (1:1) a quarter of a century later. This in of itself is odd. Why not just create a brand new letter? Why introduce a letter that the Thessalonians are supposed to believe was lost for 25 years? And then why make references to personal encounters/information concerning the readers (2:5, 15; 3:1, 6-10) and respond to the specific situation of his readers (1:4; 2:2, 3:11) when the persons and situation would have undoubtedly changed.

-          While there were definitely forged documents circulating within the early church (particularly in later centuries) there distinguishing characteristic was that they were attempting to introduce heresies into the Church. There is nothing like that in 2 Thessalonians. Indeed, the author is encouraging his readers to continue to follow established Pauline teaching (3:1, 6).

-          While there are differences in style between it and 1 Thessalonians, they are far more alike than they are different. Indeed, those who doubt Pauline authorship state that the forger was imitating Paul’s style.

-          There are several stylistic and theological similarities between 2 Thessalonians and other Pauline letters. Here are a just a few: 2:10-12 (Romans 1:26-28), 3:8 (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15-18), 3:9 (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1), 3:14 (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11), 3:17 (cf. Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 16:21), and 3:18 (cf. Philippians 4:23; Galatians 6:18; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Romans 16:20).

It’s generally guarded that those who favor the non-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians have the larger burden to bear to make their case. The above reasons are why I favor Pauline authorship.

Philosophy of Ministry

If I had to express my philosophy of ministry, it would be based upon the following two Bible references:

“And He said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called “Benefactors.” But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.’” (Luke 22:25-26)

“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:11-12)

Both of passages express the Biblical concept of servant leadership. This concept is the practical application for the Church of Jesus’ readjustment of power structures (Matthew 5:3-10; 20:16; Luke 4:18-19; 1 Peter 5:1-3) and which he himself embodied (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:1-7; Philippians 2:7). While leadership in the world works in a top-down arrangement in which the leader exercises authority over others and they serve his wishes, the model Jesus taught for the Church was the reversal of this. In the Church the leader is there to serve those “under” him, to sacrifice himself for those with whom he serves.

God has given the people of the Church the gifts, talents, and abilities to fulfill the task and the purposes that he gives them. It is up to the minister/pastor to support those volunteers in their service, giving them the resources, aid, encouragement, that they need to be the best servants of God as possible. Volunteers are not there to support the minister; the minister is there to support the volunteers. It is through that support that God accomplishes his Kingdom goals.

A Response to the Use of "Christian" as an Adjective

Don’t Use ‘Christian’ as an Adjective Around Me Anymore

The person who wrote this article is not a Christian. Based upon this piece she appears to not have a very deep understanding of the Christian Faith. Here she is criticizing the use of “Christian” as an adjective (and as a noun) because it is used by Christians (and others) as a synonym for decent, humane, caring behavior. This suggests to her that the users are either consciously or unconsciously continuing the stereotype that other religions are not caring. The reason people tend to use that term as an adjective is because it points back to Jesus the Christ  as the gauge by which the Christian life should be measured. Jesus was decent, humane, and caring. But this is only her surface complaint. Delve deeper and her real complaint is that Christians make the extraordinary claim that the one creator God is saving the world exclusively through the figure of Jesus the Christ and that any faith that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior is illegitimate. The surface use of “Christian” as an adjective for caring is just an outgrowth of this deeper claim.


Not that the author is completely for the use of Christian as a noun either. She appears to endorse the idea that “labeling all Protestants and Catholics as Christians was and is used politically to combat Roe vs Wade.” This claim is so laughably ignorant that it should remove all her credibility that she has anything either insightful or relevant to say about the term “Christian”. It’s like saying that labeling all Sunnis and Shias as Muslim was used politically to combat the oil crisis of the 1970s. Even a cursory understanding of Christianity could tell one that the first use of the label Christian comes from Antioch nearly 2000 years ago (Acts 11:26) and predates the Roman Catholic-Protestant divide by some 1500 years. But, again, this is only her surface complaint. Delve deeper and her real complaint is that Christianity (including both Protestant and Roman Catholic) makes extraordinary claims about the dignity and worth of humanity based upon it having been made in the image of God.


On a side note: I hope her use of “humane” isn’t being used to suggest that animals (dogs, monkeys, dolphins, etc.) cannot be caring. Of course there is a long tradition of abusing animals and treating them as something not deserving the proper stewardship for which they were created.

This author needs to think a little harder about her subject matter before she types again.

Acts 13:1-4

“Biblical Question: Why is it assumed in Acts 13:1-4 that this was a church wide gathering and not 5 men praying and fasting? It seems all the commentaries I read assume it was a corporate worship gathering. What say you?”

I’ve always read this passage assuming that it was just the five men. That seems to be the most natural reading. But, yes, most of the commentaries I have either just assume a congregation was involved or attempt to make that argument.

That argument is very flimsy in my estimation. They point to Acts 6:2-5 and 15:22 where the congregation chose ministers. The problem with that argument for me is that 1) there are other places where individuals choose ministers (14:23; 16:3) and 2) in 13:2 it is stated that it was specifically the Holy Spirit that did the choosing.

In the old Broadman Bible Commentary, T.C. Smith admits that it is very difficult to figure out if it is just the five or the whole congregation, but leans towards the whole. He does so because the word used for worshipping/ministering in verse 2 is leitourgein, which in Attic Greek meant to discharge some costly public duty. The Greek Old Testament used this word for priestly service in the Temple (see Hebrews 10:11). Smith believes that Luke is using this word to describe the patterns of worship that one would find in a Jewish synagogue on which the early local churches were based. The idea is that these five were in the midst of administering the worship service when the Spirit spoke through one of the prophets. This to me is the best argument for the idea that the whole congregation was involved. However, I am not convinced.

Even if these five were administering in some way related to the worship service (and we do not know what form this took), there is no indication in the text that the rest of the congregation was directly involved. The congregation is not mentioned here whatsoever. So if the congregation is sometimes involved in these matters (6:2-5; 15:22) and sometimes not (14:23; 16:3), their lack of mention here suggests that they were not involved. The entire focus is on the five.

And here is the thing: the congregation didn’t have to be involved. The Holy Spirit was the one who acted here. The prophets and teachers were there to recognize, communicate, and affirm what the Spirit was directing. All this makes me go for the natural reading that only the five were involved.

I hope this helps.

Pouring Gallons Into Pints (Matthew 9:10-17)

As I am studying the book of Matthew, I thought I would write my thoughts on the episode recorded in 9:10-17 (Mark 2:15-22; Luke 5:29-39).

Jesus has invited “social outcasts” (those normally excluded from the covenant community) to his own home for a celebration feast hosted by Matthew (Levi). In doing so he is breaking two cultural practices (fellowship rules and fasting). The religious leaders of the day have obvious questions as to why Jesus is breaking these cultural norms.

The accounts recorded in the three synoptic Gospels differ slightly from one another. The most significant difference is that Matthew characteristically adds an Old Testament reference: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). It is possible that Matthew’s intention is to point to the entire prophecy of Hosea. If this is the case, then at the very least, we are looking at another warning about the coming destruction of Israel (Hosea 6:4-11). At most, we could also be seeing another reference to the resurrection (Hosea 6:2; cf. Matthew 12:40). However, I am not certain that this is really Matthew’s intention here because it really doesn’t have to be. It’s best to err on the side of caution and treat this as a proof-text to what Jesus is immediately proposing.

The sacrifice that is referenced here is the ritual sacrificial system that was prescribed in the Law for dealing with the sins and transgressions of God’s people. When one committed a sin God provided a means of dealing with that sin and of seeking forgiveness. However, as is noted in Hosea 6:6 and other places in the Bible, sometimes the people would only go through the motions of enacting the rituals without having a real change of heart. God would respond that he cared more about their hearts than the ritual and that going through the motions made him hate the ritual. Jesus cites this verse as he is breaking some of the cultural rituals of his time. In doing so, he is suggesting that his purpose is directed more towards the heart than in the cultural structures that once regulated how one practiced their faith. But why is this so?

When asked why his disciples are not participating in the ritual fast, Jesus says, ““The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (9:15). This is a reference to the custom that individuals could abstain from the ritual fast at a wedding. Jesus elsewhere uses the analogy of a wedding to describe the coming of God to his people (Matthew 22:2-14; 25:1-13; cf. Hosea 2:19). What he is suggesting here is that something like a wedding is taken place with his presence so that the regular customs are now invalid. God has broken into history in the person and work of Jesus and has made these old customs pointless. But why have these cultural practices been made redundant? Jesus follows with examples of garments and wineskins:

“But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved” (8:16-17).

These are parables about new things in old things, about the incompatibility of the old with the new. The coming of the Kingdom of God is a decisively new stage in God’s purpose and the old cultural structures cannot contain the new movement that is being unleashed upon the world through Jesus. Paul will flesh this idea out a good deal in his letters, particularly Galatians. He will argue that there was nothing wrong with the Law itself, but that aspects of it had run its course now that God had worked decisively through Jesus. The Law is like a ship that one uses to cross the ocean to reach your destination. Once you reach land you disembark; not because the ship was ever faulty, but only because it has fulfilled its purpose. What Jesus is saying in these verses is that the old cultural customs have fulfilled their purpose and must be abandoned because God is now doing something new. 

If you put all of Jesus’ three points together, you get the following:

1)      God and Jesus are more interest in the heart than in the cultural structures of religious practice.

2)      The coming of God in the person and work of Jesus has invalidated these old cultural structures.

3)      The reason these structures are invalid is because they cannot hold, manage, and administer the new thing that God is now doing through Jesus.

The difficulty for many people in Jesus’ time is that while they fully expected God to do something decisive in history, what he is doing doesn’t fit into the expected patterns, so they don’t recognize it.

This passage is a popular one among non-traditionalists and those who are attempting to modernize the customs of the contemporary church and enact new methods of doing church and furthering the Kingdom of God. I think this is a fairly good application. One of the principles we should take away is that we should never become too attached to the traditions, customs, and ritualistic structures that we use to practice the content of our faith. These are all just modes and methods designed for a purpose. In all probability, for those whose pre-modern cultural practices went back hundreds of years, this abrupt change must have been far worse than what many experience today whose traditions only go back a few generations at most. Yet, there are still many immature believers in our churches who insist on their traditions at the detriment of furthering the Kingdom of God. There are numerous examples of this.

Worship. One of the purposes of music in worship is to help facilitate the worshipping process for believers. Mature believers should not need music in order to worship God in a service. They should cede their tastes to the younger, immature believers in order that they can learn how to effectively worship.

Clothing. Styles change over time and there is nothing in the Bible that says we must wear fancy clothing or business casual to church. Christianity is a relational faith, and it’s important that we dress like the people with whom and for whom we minister.

Methodology. Church growth methods change over time. What once worked in the 1980s and 1990s doesn’t always work in the 2000s and 2010s. Furthermore, the methods used to grow a small church will not work to grow a large church, and the methods used to grow a large church will not work to grow a megachurch. By doing so, whatever growth you get will soon evaporate. As a friend of mine said, “You can’t pour a gallon into a pint.”

I’ve stated my belief before that America is currently undergoing a spiritual revival and has been for a couple of decades. One of the reasons I think people are missing out on this current renewal it has manifested itself in ways that reject traditional methods of doing and being the church and thus they refuse to see it. Too many people want to pour new wine into old wineskins.

The Use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew

“Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’” (Matthew 1:22-23)

Both the books of Matthew and Luke record that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she was found to be pregnant (Matthew 1:18, 20, 23, 25; Luke 1:27, 34). Matthew adds the above verses to his narrative which includes a quotation from Isaiah 7:14. This in of itself is not unusual. One of the characteristics of Matthew is the inclusion of quotations from the OT, often along with the citation “prophecy fulfilled”, added to his source material (The Gospel of Mark, Q) (2:15, 17-18; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10).

When we come to Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14, we are confronted with a bit of a problem. The Greek word he uses for virgin is parthenos, which can mean either “unmarried woman” or “virgin” but usually means the latter. Matthew gets his term from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This is the word the translators used for the Hebrew word ‘almah in Isaiah. The problem is that this latter word usually designates a “young maiden” and not a “virgin” (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Songs 1:3; 6:8). Granted a virgin usually is a young maiden (that’s where the dual use comes in), but the Hebrew word that most authors would use to specifically identify someone as a virgin would be bethulah. This is the word that the translators of the Septuagint almost always translated at parthenos. Of the two exceptions of the translators using parthenos for a word other than bethulah is Isaiah 7:14. So if Isaiah had specifically wanted to highlight the young maiden’s virginity, he would have used bethulah. But he didn’t, which suggests that this wasn’t a part of his thinking or prophecy.

A further issue is that the context of Isaiah 7 makes it clear that when God spoke this prophecy through Isaiah to King Ahaz he predicted a fulfillment during that king’s reign. So what is Matthew doing here? What does he mean that this prophecy was fulfilled?

One must be careful how one interprets these claims of “fulfilled prophecies”. Matthew does not often mean that these OT prophets were explicitly predicting the specific events of his Gospel. More frequently, he means that a further fulfillment has occurred or a second, similar event is reoccurring. Almost always he is directing his audience to the passage from which the OT quotation derives. I think that this is what Matthew is doing here with Isaiah 7:14. He is directing us to read the story of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 in order to grasp the meaning of the Christ event.

A little history is needed to fully understand the prophecy which Isaiah proclaims. Ahaz was king of the southern kingdom of Judah from 735-715 BCE. When he ascended the throne he was met with a coalition formed by the northern kingdom of Israel and Damascus (Syria) that wanted to compel him to join them in opposing the Assyrian Empire that was arming a force against Israel. When the armies of Israel and Damascus approached Judah, the king and his people shook with fear (Isaiah 7:2). So God told Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub (which means “a remnant shall return”), go to the king, and prophecy that the plans of Israel and Damascus would fail. In doing so, God offered the following sign to show that this prophecy would be fulfilled:

“Behold, a maiden shall be with child, and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (Isaiah 7:14-16).

So this prophecy will be fulfilled within the time of King Ahaz. But who is the maiden and who is the child? The answer comes in chapter 8. Isaiah visits his wife (a prophetess) and she conceives and gives birth to a son whom God tells Isaiah to name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which means “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.” God then states that before this child can say “Mommy” or “Daddy” that Assyria will conquer Israel and Damascus and take away its riches. However, the prophecy continues with a warning that the fate of the northern kingdom of Israel will befall the southern kingdom of Judah.

“Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, it will reach even to the neck; and the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel” (Isaiah 8:8). Note the second use of Immanuel here.

The prophecies against Israel and Judah (the two kingdoms of God’s covenant people) are about judgment and Exile; prophecies which eventually came to pass.

Isaiah 8:18 informs the reader that Isaiah and his children are signs. So we have Shear-jashub, meaning "a remnant shall return"; Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "swift is the booty, speedy is the prey”; and Immanuel, "God is with us".

These verses indicate that the maiden is Isaiah’s wife and Immanuel is the prophet’s son. And since Isaiah already had a son prior to the 7:14 prophecy, it’s unlikely a virgin conception in the 8^th century is meant. I note that Isaiah prophesied for 64 years and this prophecy occurred towards the beginning of his ministry, so Isaiah and his wife were probably young adults at the time.

So there is a lot going on in these prophecies: fear of attack and the promise of salvation (7:2-9, 14-16), warning of coming judgment (Exile) (7:17-25; 8:1-22; 9:8-21), and the Promise that a remnant will make it through (7:3; 9:1-7; 10:20-34: 11:11-16). The question is what is Matthew doing with this passage?

Matthew has an interest in the return of God to his people (3:3; 21:5, 12-14, 33-46; 22:1-14; 24:29-31, 42-51; 25:14-30) and the coming judgment of the nation of Israel (2:18; 3:3; 21:12-14, 33-46; 22:1-14; 23:37-39; 24:32-41; 25:1-30). In several places these two events coincide. The return of God to his people is the coming of judgment on the nation of Israel. At the same time, Matthew makes it clear from these passages that a remnant will survive the coming disaster and they will be blessed. This is essentially what Isaiah was prophesying in Isaiah 7 and surrounding passages.

I think Matthew is using the coincidence of the Greek translation of ‘almah as parthenos and the fact of the virginal conception of Jesus to point back to the prophecy of Isaiah. I think that he is doing the same with the connection between Isaiah’s son’s name Immanuel (“God with us”) and the fact that God really was “with us” in the person and work of Jesus. While I do not think that Isaiah had Jesus specifically in mind when he spoke his prophecy, Matthew is saying that this old prophecy is happening again. God is really with us in the person and work of Jesus. Judgment is coming to Israel in which the wicked will perish, but a remnant will be saved.

‘We have Abraham for our father’

“You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:7-9; cf. Luke 3:7-8).

John the Baptist appears on the religious scene in the early first century and begins to preach in the wilderness around the Jordan River district in Palestine, proclaiming the imminent return of God, the Kingdom of God, and the coming of the Messiah. We get a sampling of his preaching in Matthew 3:2-12, Mark 1:4-8, and Luke 3:3-18. Part of this preaching is a call to repentance in preparation for the coming judgment God is bringing. But why does John invoke Abraham in doing so?

One of the most common misconceptions about Christianity and the Bible is that Judaism is a merit-based religion and that first century Jews thought that they had to earn their salvation by good works. This is not the case and the Bible nowhere advocates such a position. First century Jews believed God had elected Israel by grace and that they had been redeemed by that grace. Their response to that redemption by grace was to follow the Law (Torah) both out of love and a commitment to the covenant between them and God. First century Jews did not think that they had to follow the Law in order to earn their salvation with God. Our modern idea that Jews believed that they had to perform good works in order to be saved is a 16^th century misreading of Paul based on the theological disputes between Protestant Reformers and Roman Catholics. The Jews believed in God’s unmerited favor and that at some point in the future God would vindicate them, they would be justified, and that all of God’s people would be saved. The question they had was how does one tell in the present who will be vindicated in the future? How does one tell who is a part of God’s people, who is a member of true Israel, the family of Abraham? Obviously, not everyone would be vindicated in the future. Not pagan Gentiles. Not apostate Jews. Not “sinners”. The answer was that one could tell who was a member of God’s people by the “works of the law”.

“Works of the law” refer to those distinctive aspects of the Jewish law that separated them from pagan Gentiles: circumcision, dietary laws, ritual cleanliness, and table fellowship requirements. These were demarcations that set true Jews, true children of Abraham apart from everyone else. They were like cultural membership badges that identified who you were. Jews didn’t perform these customs in order to earn salvation; they did so in order to show that they were saved. The closest analogy is that of Baptism: baptism does not save a person but it is a public presentation that one is saved. Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians is that “works of the Law” are not the badges of membership for God’s people, but faith in Christ is. It’s faith in Christ that demarcates people as being saved. One does not have to become a Jew and adopt Jewish cultural distinctives in order to be identified as a part of God’s people. This was Paul’s argument about justification by faith.

Up until this point, if a Gentile wanted to be identified as a member of God’s people and a child of Abraham, their conversion would have to be marked by circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Gentiles who did not adopt these cultural practices were called “God-fearers” and excluded from general fellowship. Those Gentiles who did meet the full conversion customs (including ritual cleanliness) were brought into God’s people by the purification ritual of immersing in water, i.e. baptism.

And this brings us back to John the Baptist and his very unusual practice. Along with his proclamation of judgment and his call to repentance, John was baptizing Jews just as if they were Gentiles. This was highly unusual at the time, and it’s probably the reason why he earned the epithet “the Baptist”. John is treating Jews as if they were Gentiles in need of purification to be a part of the family of Abraham. He is saying in the verses above that Jews should not be depending upon their ethnicity and their lineage from Abraham as the guarantee that God will spare them when he returns in judgment. Being an authentic Jew is not the determining factor for God. One cannot rely on family and culture for participation in God’s family.

So if John the Baptist is recorded in the Gospels warning his contemporaries not to depend upon their ethnic association with Abraham for salvation, what is the application for us today? Simply put, you cannot depend upon the faith of your parents and family to insure personal salvation. Growing up in a Christian home does not automatically give you salvation. Similarly, being baptized as an infant does not mean you are saved. Furthermore, growing up in a church does not equate with salvation. You cannot depend upon your association with Christian culture (including going to church, listening to a sermon, and owning a Bible) and expect to be saved. One can only expect to be counted amongst God’s people if they respond to the Gospel by repentance and faith in Christ.

Sequence of Repentance in Acts (from Dale Moody's Spirit of the Living God)

As part of my studies of the works of Dale Moody I am reading his book, Spirit of the Living God. In chapter 3, Moody discusses the role of the Holy Spirit recorded in the book of Acts. Very interestingly, he asks whether it is possible to establish a fixed order for the process by which people repent, receive the Spirit, have hands laid upon them, and are baptized. He supplies the following evidence of the sequences presented in Acts.

Repentance – baptism – no hands – Spirit            (2:38)

Repentance - baptism - hands – Spirit                    (8:14ff)

Repentance - hands – Spirit – baptism                   (9:17-19)

Repentance - no hands - Spirit – baptism              (10:44-48)

Repentance - baptism - hands – Spirit                    (19:1-6)

So no fixed order of this process is presented. This means that no fixed order is preferable to another. So there is no reason to be dogmatic about how this sequence is to be practiced. However, note that repentance comes first in every instance. Repenting, turning back to God, is a prerequisite for all that happens afterwards.

The Meaning of Theopneustos

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

These are well-known verses used as a proof-text to defend and describe the both the nature and purpose of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Specifically mentioned by many is the phrase “inspired by God” which is literally “God-breathed” (theopneustos). You may have heard either a preacher or speaker refer to the Bible as “God-breathed”. This is where that comes from. But what do the Biblical writers mean when they say Scripture (graphē) is “God-breathed”?

This is a very complex issue and I will strive to condense the matter down. First and foremost, when the New Testament writers refer to the “Scriptures” (graphē) they always refer explicitly to the Old Testament writings from which they are sourcing. The only exception to this is in 2 Peter 3:16 in which the author includes Paul’s writings within the Scriptural canon. The early Church generally viewed the writings of the apostles as being authoritative, prophetic, and thus on par with the Old Testament. The only discussion they really had was identifying which writings were genuinely written by an apostle and which were forgeries. Indeed, some side movements within the Church attempted to introduce heresies into the mainstream by falsely attributing their own ideas to an apostle.

Now the ancient Hebrew conception of reality is far different than what many people are used to, and it can appear quite strange to the modern mind. They thought that psychical functions had a physical basis, and that man is conceived not in terms of a “spirit” and “body” dichotomy, but synthetically as a psychical whole (nephesh). What is more, man’s vital power was thought to reach far beyond the mere contour of the body. For the purposes of this piece, this conception had two outworkings. First, the spoken word could be regarded as an effective extension of the personality. Second, the ancient Hebrews thought that under the right conditions spoken words could affect, shape, and change reality. An example of this would be the uses of speaking blessings or curses. The Hebrews really believed that such verbalizations could impact a person for good or for ill under the appropriate conditions. Speaking a curse could negatively impact an individual or community. Speaking a blessing could have a positive impact. Thus we have the story of the prophet Balaam (Numbers 23). Another example would be the importance of the naming of a child. The verbal announcement of newborn’s name could shape that person’s life. When applied to God the creator we have him speaking creation into existence (Genesis 1). He speaks and his Word (dabar) goes out from him creating, changing, and reshaping the world. Thus Jesus the Christ is called the Word (logos). He is the fullest extension of God’s personality and an active participant in creation (John 1:1-3, 14; cf. Colossians 1:15-17).

But what happens when you or I speak and utter a word? This is important. When we speak, when we utter a word, we also breathe. Every word we speak is carried on our breath. Word and breath come out simultaneously. This is a very important image. When God speaks his Word, his breath also comes out. His breath is his Spirit (ruach, pneuma). His Word and his Spirit work in concert.

Thus we have Jesus (the Word of God) working in concert with the Spirit (the Breath of God). This is the imagery used extensively by John in his Gospel, but we see it in other NT writings. Jesus and the Spirit working in tandem (John 14:26). Jesus is the Truth (John 5:33; 8:32; 14:6) and the Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). We worship God the Father in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:23, 24). The Spirit is a Helper (paraklētos) (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) of the same kind (allos, not hetero) (John 14:6). And Jesus also is a Helper (paraklētos) (1 John 2:1). The Spirit descends upon Jesus (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22), the Spirit is upon Jesus (Luke 4:18), the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus (Philippians 1:19; 1 Peter 1:11). This is why Jesus can send the Spirit to this followers (Luke 3:16; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 1:8). This is why the Spirit helps believers recall Jesus’ teachings (John 14:26). The Word of God works in harmony with God’s Spirit-Breath.

And it is not just with Jesus and the Holy Spirit that this Word-Spirit relationship works. The Word is the mode of creation and the Spirit gives life (Psalm 33:6). Thus man is created by God’s spoken word (Genesis 1:26-27), but it is his spirit that gives man life (Genesis 2:7; cf. Job 33:4; Ezekiel 37:14; John 6:63; Romans 8:2, 6, 10). And when the Spirit comes upon prophets it enables them to proclaim the Word of the Lord (1 Samuel 10:6, 10; 2 Samuel 23:2; 2 Chronicles 15:1; 2 Chronicles 20:14; 24:20; Nehemiah 9:30; Isaiah 59:21; Joel 2:28; Zechariah 7:12). So Peter can say “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved (pheromenoi) by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21). This word pheromenoi, from phero (to carry, to move) is used by Luke to express the idea of wind driving a boat (Acts 27:17, 27). So God sends his Word and his Spirit to a prophet/apostle /etc. and he or she is able to speak or write what God wants them to speak or write.

So now we come back to “God-breathed” (theopneustos). This is a word used only once in the Bible. In pagan Greek writings it referred to divine dreams sent by the gods and the divine utterances of oracles or prophetesses such as the sibyls who spoke the revelations of the gods. Paul appropriates this word in order to express the origins of the Scriptures (which is from God), but he is drawing upon the whole Hebrew conception that when one reads the Scriptures one is drawing simultaneously upon God’s creative Word and his life-giving Spirit. When one reads the Bible, accurately understands its meaning, and appropriately applies it, one is transformed, changed for the better, because one participates in God’s divine nature, an extension of his personality. As the author of Hebrews says, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, cf. Ephesians 6:17). This is why Scripture is helpful for teaching, correction, improvement, and education; so that the believer may be perfectly complete to do the work of God.

Now this does not in any way mean that the books of the Bible did not have human authors. Indeed, these very human authors poured their own personalities into their works. They all used personal vocabulary and sentence structure, particular phrases and exertions, peculiar themes and poetics, characteristic imagery, metaphors, source material, and edits. They also were men and women of their times with then contemporary views about history, cosmology, social order, and, as stated above, very unusual conceptions of reality. We can learn a lot about the Biblical authors’ personalities from their books. They presented their moods, their joys, their fears, their anger and sadness. They laughed, they wept, and they emptied themselves for their God. If the Word is an extension of God, then the Scriptures are also an extension of the human authors. Yet God is guiding all of this.