Eamon Younis: July 2019

Friday 26 July 2019

The Message Of Life In The Gospel Of John

By John H. Niemelä

John Niemelä received a B.A. (University of Minnesota), and earned the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in New Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. John is Professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary. His email address is language@chafer.edu.

Come and See

A most troubling feature of Christendom is that it lacks consensus in answering the question: “What must I do to go to heaven?” Ask this of any ten who call on the name of Christ and be prepared to hear at least eleven answers. Perhaps, Christendom is too broad a category, but Bible-believing evangelical Protestants evidence the same disparity. Few evangelicals are truly comfortable with the key passages defining the message of life:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life (John 5:24).

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life (John 6:47).

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30–31). [1]

Do these passages lack anything? Does John seem to omit any content that one must believe in order to receive eternal life?

All too often Christians tend to avoid passages that make them uncomfortable. Thus, any sense that these key statements in John are not complete leads to shunning them, even though John’s Gospel presents itself as the message, which gives life. A safer course is to admit that John contains some surprises. Nathanael initially rejected Philip’s statement that the Messiah came from

Nazareth (John 1:45), [2] so he challenged, Can any good thing come from Nazareth? Philip’s response is also appropriate for those who may wonder if John’s message needs more content: Come and see (John 1:46). Perhaps, contemporary evangelicals should come and see, before concluding that John’s message is incomplete.

The purpose statement in John 20:30–31 defines John’s message of life.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30–31).

Immediately, a question arises: Why does John say many other signs? The last time he used the word sign is in chapter 12. [3] It would be quite natural for him to refer to many signs, but the fact that he refrains from using the word signs in chapters 13–19 makes many other signs somewhat unexpected. [4]

Defining John’s Signs

Most expositors recognize seven signs in John: [5]

1.	Turning water into wine	(2:1–12)
2.	Healing a nobleman’s son from a distance	(4:46–54)
3.	Healing at Bethesda	(5:1–15)
4.	Feeding the 5000	(6:1–14)
5.	Walking on the water	(6:15–21)
6.	Healing a man born blind	(9:1–7)
7.	Raising Lazarus	(11:1–44)

John 2:18–22 shows that an eighth sign involves His resurrection.

So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, [6] and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

In one sense, viewing the eighth sign as the resurrection is true, but does Jesus say more? Limiting the eighth sign to the resurrection ignores a vital part (elided below) of verses 18–19:

So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “… in three days I will raise it [this temple] up.”

Jesus does not merely speak of His resurrection. He also referred to the crucifixion directly:

So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Someone may object saying, “The crucifixion cannot be part of the eighth sign, because His audience did not regard the destruction of the temple as miraculous. They only treat raising up the temple in three days as a sign. Then the Jews said, “This temple [naos] has been built forty-six years, [7] and will You raise it up in three days?” Even though they only understood the second part of the statement as a sign, this does not preclude the reference to the cross from being an integral part of the sign.

These Judeans, who question Jesus in verse twenty, were quite aware of the destruction of the first and second temples in Jerusalem. In that light, they would not regard a destruction of Herod’s temple as miraculous, though it must have seemed unlikely. They construed Jesus’ words as idle speculation about the future. However, when Titus actually destroyed the temple in A.D. 70, who could deny that God’s hand of judgment was upon the nation? In other words, Jesus and His listeners would regard any destruction of the temple as a sign from God, but His audience did not realize the truth of Matthew 12:6: Yet I say to you that in this place there is One [that is, Christ, who is] greater than the temple.

Just as it is true that the A.D. 70 destruction signaled God’s judgment upon the nation for rejecting their Messiah (Luke 13:34–35), it is also true that the crucifixion of the Messiah was part of the sign proving Jesus’ authority to cleanse the temple. Even so, the idea that killing Jesus could relate to a sign from God never occurred to the rulers: How could they possibly play a role in God bringing a sign against the nation of Israel?

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:7–8).

Amazingly, Jesus uses a second-person imperative, [You] destroy this temple…. It was not a foreign power that would initiate the destruction of this temple: The Judean leaders themselves ultimately delivered Jesus up to the Romans and insisted upon His crucifixion. The very fact that the crucifixion occurred was indeed a great miracle, for neither the religious leaders nor Satan sought to validate Jesus as the Christ, but unwittingly they participated in fulfilling God’s plan. Although the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was a sign that verified Jesus’ right to cleanse the temple, recognition of it as a sign only came after the resurrection.

The Cross

The Resurrection

Neither were seen as signs until Jesus’ resurrection

Both were seen as signs after Jesus’ resurrection

John tells of this delayed recognition:

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

When Jesus said this [“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”], neither the Judean religious leaders nor the disciples perceived the cross-and-resurrection as a sign demonstrating His authority to cleanse the temple. After the resurrection His disciples remembered this. Only then did they believe this truth. Were the eleven still unbelievers facing the Lake of Fire until after Christ’s resurrection? Absolutely not!

When Did the Eleven Receive Life?

Does the Gospel of John make it clear that the eleven possessed eternal life before they believed in the cross-and-resurrection? When Peter protested against Jesus washing his feet, Christ warned, If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me (John 13:8). Contextually, the idea of having no part with Christ is not that Peter lacked eternal life, but that he lacked rewardability. [8]

Peter accepted Jesus’ rebuke, but inferred that more is better than less: Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head! Jesus corrected him: The eleven already possessed eternal life through simple faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Therefore, He said in verse 10, He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you (plural) are clean, but not all of you (plural). Jesus knew Judas was an unbeliever and thus unclean. Therefore, He did not say that they were all clean: For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You (plural) are not all clean” (John 13:11).

The conclusion is inescapable, eleven of the twelve disciples already were believers who possessed eternal life. On that Passover night, [9] Judas left the room and the building: Having received the piece of bread, he then went out immediately. And it was night (John 13:30). Leaving the room on this night is significant. On the original Passover, no one was to leave their house, because the angel of death would pass over. Thus, not only was it unexpected for Judas to leave during the Passover, but it was also unlikely for anyone to join a Passover celebration once it had commenced. No reason exists for surmising that any others left. [10]

After Judas left, Jesus pronounced, You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you (John 15:3). Jesus does not indicate that any unclean person was still present. The eleven were clean because of the word He spoke, that is, they believed His message of life. They were clean because they believed the message that gives life. They were already possessors of everlasting life.

However, it was not until after Jesus’ resurrection that the eleven believed the eighth sign: His death and resurrection. They possessed everlasting life prior to believing that His crucifixion would culminate in resurrection. [11]

Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed [12] the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said (John 2:22).

John 20:27–29 warns Thomas (who already believed Christ’s message of life) not to disbelieve that the crucified Christ was now resurrected. In verses 24–25, Thomas is an example of an unbelieving believer. He believed salvific truth and so he possessed eternal life, but rejected the resurrection as the culmination of Jesus’ crucifixion. In verse 28, he became a believing believer. He was already regenerate, but the eighth sign now persuaded Thomas that Messiah’s death was not eternal. Verse 29 indicates that some had already believed in His resurrection before seeing the resurrected Christ. [13] Therefore, it is safe to conclude that (prior to Christ’s resurrection), even people who did not comprehend Jesus’ cross-and-resurrection received eternal life through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Taking God at His word, they believed such promises as John 5:24 or 6:47:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life (John 5:24).

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life (John 6:47).

The essential message of life (before Christ’s resurrection) was that Jesus Christ gives eternal life to anyone who became persuaded that He has given them eternal life. [14]

Understanding John 20:30-31

The passage contains both initial and ultimate purposes.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written (initial purpose) that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and (ultimate purpose) that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30–31).

John expresses his ultimate purpose for writing as:

… these are written that … you may have life in His name.

It is bold for John to claim that his message is the dividing line between death and life. If his readers believe the content of John 20:31, they have eternal life. If, in this life, they never believe it, they are under a death sentence. John’s Gospel is designed to give life to those who do not possess it. Unless John gives everything necessary for a person to receive eternal life, his book would be a failure. As inerrant Scripture, who would assert that he fails? Therefore, evangelicals should carefully examine what John treats as the content of this message of life. If what John says differs from what modern evangelicals preach, it is time to bring the modern message into conformity with the Gospel of John.

Again, the conclusion is inescapable: John asserts that believing that Jesus is the Christ, [15] the Son of God is sufficient to give life in His name. Someone may object: “There is a difference between saying that everyone who has eternal life believes X and saying that believing X alone is sufficient to give eternal life.” Precisely! It is our contention that John affirms both of the following propositions: [16]

Everyone who has eternal life believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, has eternal life.

Most evangelicals recognize that John 20:31 affirms the former statement, but many may question the second. The question is: Does the Apostle John accept the second? Absolutely! 1 John 5:1a affirms it also:

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

John does not say that 99% of those who believe that Jesus is the Christ are born again. He asserts that 100% of the people who believe this content are regenerate.

However, it is not just 1 John 5:1a that makes this point. John 20:31 does as well. Specifically, John’s Gospel expresses its purpose in terms of giving eternal life to those who lack it. He says to those who do not have eternal life: “You will have life, when you believe that Jesus is the Christ.” John regarded this as a sufficient message for receiving eternal life.

Defining Terms in John 11:25-27

What does it mean to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? A definition of terms appears in John 11:25–27. Jesus received word that Lazarus, His friend, was sick (John 11:1–3). So, when He heard that he was sick, Jesus stayed two more days in the place where He was (verse 6). Verse 17 says, So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. It appears that Jesus was at least one day’s journey away from Bethany. [17] The messenger who was sent to inform Jesus probably returned upon telling Him about Lazarus, so Jesus undoubtedly arrived two days after the messenger. A displeased Martha greeted Him with, Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died (11:21). She added, But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You (11:22). She wanted Him to pray at once to the Father to raise Lazarus. When Jesus assured her, Your brother will rise again, she thought that He spoke of the distant future: I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day (11:23). She wanted Jesus to pray for the Father to raise him at that moment.

However, Jesus corrected her theology. He did not need to pray for the Father to raise Lazarus, because Jesus Himself is the one who resurrects.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world” (John 11:25–27).

He starts with two theses:

I am the resurrection

and

[I am] the life.

Then, He amplifies both:

I am the resurrection:

He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.

and

[I am] the life:

whoever lives and believes in Me shall not die unto eternity. [18]

Do you believe [all of] this? [19] Yes, Lord.

Jesus explains what He means by saying I am the resurrection: He promises that He will resurrect all who believe in Him. Then, He explains the meaning of I am the life: He grants eternal life to all believers. He asked Martha if she believed all of this. Her answer, Yes, Lord, is sufficient. She went on, putting that statement into her own words: I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world (11:27). The question becomes: How is Martha’s response a restatement of Jesus’ discourse on the resurrection and the life?

To answer this question, we should look in the Old Testament. Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant requires the resurrection of Old Testament saints. Several passages in Genesis promise land to a patriarch and to his seed forever.

The land which you see I give to you [Abraham] and your descendants forever (Genesis 13:15).

Also I give to you [Abraham] and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:8).

To you [Isaac] and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father (Genesis 26:3).

I am the LORD God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you [Jacob] and your descendants (Genesis 28:13).

The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you [Jacob]; and to your descendants after you I give this land (Genesis 35:12).

God did not merely promise that Abraham’s lineage would possess the land forever. Consider Abraham’s lineage from a generational point of view: Abraham is Generation1, Isaac is Generation2, Jacob is Generation3, the rest of the generations are Generation Z.

God’s promise to Abraham made guarantees to Generations 1-Z.
God’s promise to Isaac made guarantees to Generations 2-Z.
God’s promise to Jacob made guarantees to Generations 3-Z.

In the course of time Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob died. Due to the nature of God’s promise to give the land forever to each of them, God’s obligation to them continues beyond their deaths. Through the Abrahamic Covenant God obligated Himself to resurrect them and grant them eternal life.

Is it any wonder that Abraham concluded that God was able to raise [Isaac] up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense (Hebrews 11:19)? Likewise, Joseph’s requirement that his bones not be left in Egypt testifies to his belief that God would resurrect him so that he could live in the Promised Land: By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave instructions concerning his bones (Hebrews 11:22). Actually, no Old Testament believer lived to see God’s millennial fulfillment of His covenanted promises: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Hebrews 11:13). Apart from resurrection and eternal life no Old Testament believer could live in the yet-future messianic Kingdom.

Paul links Israel’s hope to resurrection:

And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers. To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead (Acts 26:6–8)?

The hope of Israel refers to the future fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. That hope involves resurrection. Therefore, Paul highlights the contradictory nature of the charges against him. Logically, the accusations require both affirming and denying the resurrection. The self-contradiction itself refutes the position of any Israelite who condemned Paul’s message while clinging to a fulfillment of God’s promises to give the land to Abraham and his seed forever.

Why is it important to note that the Old Testament believers possessed eternal life and the promise of resurrection? They possessed eternal life even though their sin penalty was not yet paid on Calvary. In other words, prior payment of the sin penalty is not requisite to either receiving eternal life or receiving the promise of resurrection. John expresses his message in terms of regeneration and receiving eternal life, not the forgiveness of sins. John deals with the fundamental problem of the fall: death. A reading of Genesis 3 shows that man is fundamentally under a death curse. The word sin does not occur in Genesis 3, although it is quite correct for Romans 5 to refer to the act that plunged the human race into death as Adam’s sin. Even so, John focuses on the correction of the fundamental problem: death. [20]

Forgiveness of sin is a wonderful benefit of the cross. Believers enjoy the benefits of forgiveness that came through the cross and the New Covenant. Likewise, John relates the cross-and-resurrection of Christ to the message of life in a careful and deliberate manner.

In John 11:27 Martha affirmed her belief that Christ, God’s Son, will resurrect all believers and that He gives eternal life to them. John’s message of life is just that simple: Everyone who believes that Christ gives them eternal life not only receives that gift, but will also receive resurrection life. This is John’s message of life, even before the eighth sign, the cross-and-resurrection. Therefore, pre-cross believers possessed eternal life, just as surely as post-cross believers do.

The Cross-and-resurrection in Today’s Message of Life

John indicates that the cross-and-resurrection, the eighth sign, is sufficient to cause one to believe that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, gives him eternal life and will resurrect him. [21] These signs [including His cross-and-resurrection] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing that you may have life in His name. Now, if the cross-and-resurrection are sufficient to cause one to believe the message of life, then John has not confused believing the cross-and-resurrection with believing God’s promise of eternal life. The following visual may help.

Sign 1 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [22]
Sign 2 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [23]
Sign 3 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [24]
Sign 4 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [25]
Sign 5 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [26]
Sign 6 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [27]
Sign 7 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [28]
Sign 8 was written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. [29]

The following inference derives from this:

Sign 1 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 1.
Sign 2 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 2.
Sign 3 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 3.
Sign 4 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 4.
Sign 5 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 5.
Sign 6 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 6.
Sign 7 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 7.
Sign 8 was not written that you may merely believe Sign 8.

Obviously, John does not say, “These signs were written that you may believe these signs.” He does not offer such a circular message.

John keeps the signs distinct from the message of life, so evangelicals must not confuse them either. John does not set forth the sign of the cross-and-resurrection as the message that one must believe in order to receive eternal life. In other words, even after the cross-and-resurrection, John’s message remains the same as in John 5:24 and 6:47.

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life (John 5:24).

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life (John 6:47).

This message is consistent with the fact that Old Testament believers possessed eternal life, even though they died before the cross paid their penalty of sin. The gift of eternal life came to those people in Old Testament times that believed in the coming One who gives eternal life and would resurrect them in the future. Although as Hebrews 11 says, Abraham died without receiving (in his lifetime) what God had promised him. Even so, he believed the message of life. John shows that this remains the manner of salvation, even after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Eternal life is a gift received the moment anyone believes that Jesus Christ has given him/her eternal life.

Does this make the cross-and-resurrection of Christ into a mere afterthought? Not at all. As glorious as eternal life is, believers look forward to living in the Lord’s presence in resurrection bodies. The cross cleanses from sin and His resurrection as the firstfruits is what enables believers to be resurrected.

John 11:25–27 promises eternal life to every believer (now) and resurrection (in the future). Christ was free to give eternal life to all believers in John 11, in John 6, in John 5, and even in Genesis. However, He was not free to resurrect believers until after His own resurrection. [30]

Conclusion

John makes the message of life simple. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life receives it as a gift from Him. Evangelism is telling a lost and dying world this simple truth about the giver of life, Jesus Christ, God’s Son. John has given sufficient reason to believe in Him. Each of the signs is sufficient to cause one to believe this message. In addition, the cross-and-resurrection is the means by which He equips those with eternal life to live with Him in their resurrection bodies.

For anyone who doubts that the message can be that simple, remember that Philip told Nathaniel to come and see. When Jesus made it clear that he already knew Nathaniel without having met him, Nathaniel believed.

Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”

Jesus was pleased that Nathaniel believed after seeing such a small sign. Believers ought to invite people to come and see this One who gives eternal life to those who believe in Him. What could be simpler?

—End—

Notes

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are from the NKJV, New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982).
Imagine someone asking, “Where is that Rolls Royce from?” He may want to know (1) the location of the factory from which it originated or (2) the name of the state on its license plate. From Nazareth (“apo Nazaret”) refers to Jesus’ residence, not His birthplace. Despite his misunderstanding, Philip was willing to come and see.
Sēmeion (“sign”) appears in John 2:11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30.
Does he refer to the signs of verse 31? Such an anticipatory use of other would be a bit abrupt.
Although Jesus performs signs prior to Cana of Galilee (John 1:28, 35, and 47), John begins counting the signs chosen for his gospel account in John 2:11, This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana.
A better translation is: “This temple [naos] has been built forty-six years.” Cf. Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 40–43. The naos (the holy of holies and holy place) was completed in 18/17 B.C., so A.D. 29/30 would be its forty-sixth year. Another word, hieron, refers to the temple precincts.
See the immediately preceding note.
A key line of evidence for this is in verses 10–11. Jesus pronounces the eleven as bathed and clean, while declaring Judas unclean. It is not that Peter was unbathed and unclean until verse 9. Instead, the issue is that his feet remained unwashed. Having no part with Me deals with loss of rewards, not with damnation to the Lake of Fire.
Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 81–90, shows that Judeans and Galileans differed by one day in observing Passover. Jesus and His disciples ate it the night before His death (on the Galilean timetable), but His crucifixion occurred while Judeans slaughtered Passover lambs. Those seeking Jesus’ death did not realize that they slaughtered the Lamb of God at Passover. What greater sign could possibly verify Jesus’ right to cleanse His Father’s temple (John 2:18–19)?
The Passover was a night when few were likely to come and go. Other than Judas, everyone who heard John 13:10 also heard John 15:3. The reason for not judging Judas harshly for leaving the room is two-fold. The eleven took John 13:27 in a positive light (cf. verses 28–29). They thought that Jesus had sent Judas on an errand. Neither tradition nor Jesus’ prior teaching had led them to treat leaving the room as a crime. Even more importantly, John 18:1 indicates that Jesus and His disciples left the room and went to the Garden. John does not judge Judas for leaving the room on Passover night (but for betrayng Christ). The religious leaders may have chosen this night (in part) because fewer Galilean pilgrims would wander about Jerusalem than on earlier nights.
Neither Jesus nor John deprecate what some like to label “mere sign faith.” The eleven later believed the eighth sign (the cross and resurrection) due to seeing this sign: Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said (John 2:22). Theologians rightly accept the “sign faith” of verse, but ridicule it in verse 23: Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. John 2:23 does not question the legitimacy of their faith, but recognizes that new believers have not yet grown into trustworthiness. John 2:23–3:36 contrasts the trustworthiness of John the Baptist fearlessly proclaiming Christ (John 3:22ff) with untrustworthy new believers that hid in darkness (like Nicodemus). Although Nicodemus came to faith that night, it was not until John 19 that Jesus could entrust him with ministry. Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John—Part 4: Coming to the Light: John 3:20–21, ” BSac 135 (October-December 1978): 314-22, offers good evidence (from verse 21) that Nicodemus believed the message of life that night.
John 15:3 indicate that the eleven were clean prior to Christ’s resurrection. They had already believed the message of life. However, they only understood and believed His reference to the destruction of the temple (His body) and the resurrection until after Christ’s resurrection.
The Gospels do not dwell on this point, but focus on those who believed in His resurrection from the dead when they recognized Christ. However, verse 29 indicates that some had already believed in His resurrection from the dead without first seeing the resurrected Christ.
The present author believes in the sufficiency of this message before and after Christ’s resurrection. Thus far, the article has only argued for it being sufficient prior to the cross. See the remainder of the article concerning its validity today.
Some expositors may be tempted to construe the Greek of John 20:31 as: “that the Christ is Jesus.” This would make Christ the subject and Jesus the predicate nominative. The correct understanding is believe: that Jesus is the Christ, with Jesus as subject and Christ as predicate nominative, as John 11:27 establishes. It says, I believe that You are the Christ. The form of the verb is ei (“you are,” second person singular) from eimi (“to be”). This means that su (“you”) is the subject, not the predicate nominative. Certainly, the culminating statement of John 20:31 parallels Mary’s climactic statement in John 11:27. Thus, John’s purpose remains for his readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ.
Two provisos are appropriate: 1. These statements refer to the time period after Christ’s ministry began, because the content which gave eternal life prior to that point did not name Jesus as the one who is God’s provision for eternal life. 2. Believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God only gives life to one who understands that John means that Christ gives eternal life to all believers. It would be insufficient to take it as merely affirming that Jesus is His first name and Christ is his surname.
Assume that a messenger traveled for one day to reach Jesus, who remained there two more days before making a one-day trip to Bethany. Probably, the messenger returned a couple of days before Jesus came. Martha was not happy about this delay.
The rendering “shall not die unto eternity” is more literal than “shall never die.” Similarly, Revelation 20:5–6 says, But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. This passage distinguishes physical death from the second death. John 11:26 affirms that believers will not face the second death.
The paraphrase [all of] this derives from the use of the neuter form touto for this. Greek uses neuter forms of this under two circumstances: (1) when a neuter word (in context) is the referent or (2) when it has a multiple-word antecedent. The latter applies, since no other neuter words appear. Jesus asks her if she believes all of the words in the heavy border: “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.”
1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of believers and for the sins of the whole world. However, it does not specify the content that one needs to believe in order to receive eternal life. Though the sin issue is important, John does not present it as the fundamental one facing the unbeliever. Not even John 16:9 does that. The Holy Spirit uses the sin issue in convicting the world, but unbelief in Christ is the fundamental problem.
These [signs, including the cross and resurrection] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31).
Sign 1 is: turning water into wine (2:1–12).
Sign 2 is: healing a nobleman’s son from a distance (4:46–54).
Sign 3 is: the healing at Bethsaida (5:1–15).
Sign 4 is: feeding the 5000 (6:1–14).
Sign 5 is: walking on the water (6:15–21).
Sign 6 is: healing a man born blind (9:1–7).
Sign 7 is: raising Lazarus (11:1–44).
Sign 8 is: Jesus’ cross and resurrection.
The raising of Lazarus did not give him a resurrection body. Although Jesus raised Lazarus, Jesus was the first to receive a resurrection body. In the course of time, Lazarus died. Resurrection bodies will not die.

This Sermon is Illegal in California - Shane Idleman

Thursday 25 July 2019

Abiding in Christ: A Dispensational Theology of the Spiritual Life (Part 3 of 3)

The walk in the Spirit is to live and walk in Christ, to have Him always before the heart in the power and energy of the Holy Spirit, who is in us to make Christ a blessed reality. In such a walk, abiding in Christ, the lusts of the flesh have no place. [1]

Only when the believer ceases to walk by the Spirit or abide in Christ does sin ensue, breaking fellowship.

At any given instant the believer lives his life in one of two mutually exclusive, absolute states by either: walking by the Spirit or the flesh (sin nature); in the light or in the darkness; abiding in Christ or abiding not; being filled by means of the Spirit or not. When the believer abides in Christ (walks by means of the Spirit and is being filled by the Spirit), he walks in the light. Conversely, when the believer abides not (lives his life according to the sin nature and operates apart from the Word), he walks in darkness. Only in the former status does God the Holy Spirit experientially sanctify the believer by producing spiritual growth and developing maturity in the believer. When the believer sins, he no longer resides in this state of fellowship with the Holy Spirit, which alone is the environment for spiritual advance.

How then does the believer recover from sin to again advance spiritually? Traditionally, spiritual recovery has been taught using words such as repent, confession, turning from sin. Yet there is much disagreement. Some teach that confession of sin is for the unbeliever at salvation and is part of the requirement for salvation. Others teach that confession of sin after salvation is unnecessary since the blood of Christ continually cleanses every believer (1 John 1:7). Still others suggest that confession is a work, while others hold that without confession, there can be no restoration of fellowship and advance in the Christian life.

This third and final article will show that the key doctrinal idea in 1 John 1:7, 9 is cleansing or purification, not confession per se. Moreover, the finished and completed aspect of Christ’s atonement does not in itself nullify the necessity of purification for sin in the post-salvation life of the believer. Before the believer can operate within the framework of his royal priesthood and enjoy fellowship with a righteous God, he must first be cleansed or purified from sin. This cleansing takes place positionally at salvation, and experientially each time the believer admits his sin to God the Father. These principles are true in every dispensation, though the particular details of their mechanics vary.

Cleansing and Confession

In his first epistle, the apostle John addresses a congregation of believers who had been seduced and distracted by a false doctrine that rejected the true humanity of Jesus Christ. John is writing to correct this erroneous teaching, affirming that Christ has come in the flesh. By following his correction, his readers might have fellowship with us (John and his fellow apostles); and indeed our fellowship is with the Father. In 1:5–10 the apostle addresses false claims to fellowship. He describes walking in the light and walking in darkness as mutually exclusive spheres of the believer’s life. Walking in the light is synonymous with having fellowship with God. John then states that while thus walking in the light and in fellowship the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Several possible options exist for understanding 1 John 1:7. First, one may understand the present tense verb to be a continuous present. This would mean that the blood of Jesus continuously and automatically cleanses the believer of sin. According to this view, the purification of all sin, pre- and post-salvation, occurs at salvation, therefore, no accompanying condition is requisite to receive purification from post-salvation sin. From the instant a person believes in Christ onward, he is automatically cleansed of all personal sins, thus no confession, repentance, remorse et al., are necessary. Two problems exist with this interpretation. First, it renders the condition expressed in 1 John 1:9 unnecessary. If the believer is automatically and continuously cleansed from all post-salvation sin, then confession is superfluous if not wrong. Second, since John addresses those who have sinned subsequent to their salvation by adopting this false teaching, the cleansing he has in mind in this verse is a post-salvation purification rather than the cleansing which occurs at initial faith in Christ.

A second approach is to understand this as a gnomic principle: as long as the believer is in the light he will be cleansed of unknown or unintentional sins. Only when the believer refuses to acknowledge these as sins, does he quit walking in the light. [2] The problem with this approach, we addressed in the second article in this series. This view understands light only in its revelational aspect, but not as a metaphor of God’s perfect righteousness. This assertion assumes that sin only violates the righteous standard of God if it is known or intentional, or the Lord revealed it to the believer to be sin. Yet any sin, no matter how apparently inconsequential or unintended, violates the righteous standard of God and thus would grieve the Holy Spirit.

He is the Holy Spirit and all which is unholy must be avoided so as not to displease the guest who dwells in the heart. Every sin is a sin against Him, who is in us. Especially is He grieved when the Lord Jesus Christ is no honored and given the pre-eminent place. Confession and self-judgment will end the grieving of the Spirit. He himself leads to this through the Word of God. [3]

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse for disobedience to the law.

A third approach understands the principle of 1 John 1:7 to be the basis for the efficacy of confession. The present tense of the verb expresses a present tense reality true for every believer that is actuated only when the condition of confession is met (1 John 1:9). Whenever the believer sins, he violates the righteous standard of God. The sin, whether overt or mental, relatively minor or heinous, has already been paid for by the substitutionary death of Christ. The term blood of Christ (1 John 1:7) identifies the redemptive penalty paid for by Christ on the cross (1 Peter 1:18–19). Because Christ paid the penalty in full, post-salvation forgiveness of sin is available. We find the condition in 1:9, confession, which means to acknowledge, admit, sin.

Often confession is focused on as the key element of 1 John 1:9. If confession is so crucial, why is this verse the only place it is mentioned. Although the concept of confession is alluded to in other contexts, focusing on confession in 1 John 1:9 too often obscures the larger and more significant concept of cleansing. The verb katharizō, “to cleanse, purify, to be ritually or morally pure” (see 1:7 and 1:9) is, by virtue of repetition the crucial element. Confession is merely the means by which cleansing takes place. Once the focus has shifted from confession to cleansing, it will be evident that the doctrine of cleansing from post salvation sin to recover fellowship with God, scripture affirms repeatedly, though nuanced for each dispensation.

Four times the adjective katharos, “clean, pure, morally or ritually pure,” is used in a context in the Gospel of John (John 13:10, 11; 15:3) similar to that of 1 John. [4] The use of this predicate adjective in those passages describes the positional cleansing from sin that occurs for every believer at salvation. An examination of Jesus’ teaching about cleansing in the upper room is crucial for understanding the doctrine so vital to the believer’s experiential sanctification.

In The Upper Room

The night before He went to the cross, our Lord celebrated the Passover meal with His disciples. In preparation for Passover, or any other formal meal, the conscientious Jew would first bathe and anoint himself with the culturally prescribed unguents. Etiquette dictated that the servants of the host would wash the feet of the guests upon their arrival. Unexpectedly, our Lord awaited arrival of all twelve disciples and the beginning of the meal before He arose to fulfill this menial task.

Our Lord was not performing a merely domestic task or perfunctory ritual. Each word and action was calculated to provide an object lesson to the disciples to illustrate for them principles He would soon elucidate in the Upper Room discourse and the lessons on the vine. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle John carefully selects vocabulary laden with significance from Old Testament ritual. His vocabulary describing the partial and complete washings enables us to understand the way in which he used katharos.

In the familiar scene, Jesus arose, arranged his garments, picked up a washbasin, and knelt at each disciple’s feet and began to wash their feet. When he came to Peter, this outspoken disciple objected. The ensuing conversation illuminates Jesus’ point of teaching. Our Lord’s response, What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter (John 13:7) informs John’s readers that Jesus is illustrating a doctrinal principle through action. The future tense locates the application in the approaching, but still unannounced Church Age. Peter’s familiar objection and our Lord’s response turn on the use of two Greek words for washing, niptō and louō. [5] The first refers to the washing or cleansing with water of a portion of the body, the hands, the feet, the face. The second describes the complete washing of the entire body. The Septuagint [6] uses both terms to describe key events in the career of the High Priest. Understanding this Old Testament background illuminates the meaning any first century Jew would associate with Jesus’ teaching.

The Levitical Priesthood

In Exodus 29:4 and 40:12 (cf., Leviticus 8:6) the inauguration ceremony of the High Priest is prescribed. At his anointing the High Priest was first to be completely bathed. The translators of the LXX rendered the Hebrew word rāḥạ with the Greek verb louō. Hebrew, not as precise in this word group as Greek, had only one word to describe both full bathing as well as partial washing. However, the Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek were fully cognizant of the different washings and took advantage of the more precise Greek vocabulary to clarify the distinction. Only the initial washing of the High Priest was described by louō, subsequent washings that were partial were translated by niptō (Exodus 30:18–21). The Lord designed these ritual purifications to correspond to an inward spiritual reality.

The ceremonial washings of the High Priest illustrate the importance of ritual purification in the life of the priest in his service in the Tabernacle and Temple. When God first created mankind, the man and the woman were sinless. Unhindered fellowship existed between righteous God and the perfect creature until Adam sinned. Subsequently, unrighteous man no longer enjoyed fellowship with a righteous God. However, even under the Mosaic Law, the grace of God provided a solution in the Tabernacle and Temple where God could once again dwell with man, as symbolized by the Shekinah Glory. [7] However, the Mosaic Law established certain safeguards to protect sinful man from intruding on holy ground. The system of ritual established in the Mosaic Code provided a way for man to come before God to serve Him. In addition, these rituals provided instruction concerning the extent of sin and how radically it must be treated in order for man to have access to God.

Throughout Leviticus numerous regulations govern the believer’s ceremonial life. Access to the Temple and the presence of God could be thwarted through a wide variety of activities that rendered the supplicant ceremonially or ritually unclean. These prohibitions were not in themselves necessarily sinful or immoral. [8] It was not a matter of morality or immorality to touch the body of the deceased, or to touch someone who has done so, or to give birth, or to have a skin lesion, or any number of other circumstances. These non-moral actions involved contact with something related to the curse from sin. To violate these standards rendered a person ritually unclean for a specified period of days. To become ritually clean the participant must first offer the prescribed sacrifice to atone for the violation. Significantly, the LXX translators chose the Greek katharizō to translate the Hebrew kipper (“to atone”).

In Leviticus chapter five prescriptions for the sin or trespass offering dictated the offering of a lamb or kid (Leviticus 5:6) as a sin offering, or two turtledoves or young pigeons (one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering): So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin. First, the supplicant confessed his sin, and then brought the appropriate sacrifice. The author uses the piel perfect of kipper in this verse for atonement. In recent years much debate has surfaced regarding the meaning of kipper, older lexicons have the root meaning as “to cover.” [9] But recent lexicography suggests that the meaning is more consistent with the Akkadian cognate in the D-stem which is closer to the Hebrew piel and means to “rub out, blot out, or to cleanse.” [10] In the Pentateuch, this conclusion seems to be supported by the consistent way in which the translators of the LXX rendered the piel of kipper with the Greek katharizō. In the Mosaic economy, each believer had to be cleansed ritually from sin by confession and sin offering.

Jesus answers Peter

Peter’s refusal to allow our Lord to wash his feet elicited a remarkable rebuke from Jesus: If I do not wash you, you have no part with me (John 13:8b). Traditionally the word part (meros), commentators have understood to denote a role or participant in Jesus’ future ministry. However, the Greek meros, had a technical sense in both Jewish and Greco-Roman testamentary literature that better fits the context (Luke 15:12; 22:29–30; Matthew 24:51; Revelation 20:6). [11] This term described the inheritance share or portion dedicated to the heir. As such, Jesus is not merely informing Peter that he will not have a future role in ministry, but that Peter would not have an inheritance portion in the coming Messianic kingdom. In the same way, the apostle Paul later warned the Ephesian believers that continued walking in darkness would also nullify inheritance, but not salvation. That Peter understood the seriousness of the penalty is indicated by his response: Peter immediately reversed himself and demanded a complete bath. By implication failure to be cleansed from post-salvation sin threatens the believer’s rewards and inheritance in the coming Millennial Kingdom.

Positional and Experiential Perfection

Peter’s response enabled our Lord to continue to explain in greater depth the distinction between the complete bath, louō, and the partial, niptō. His statement to Peter that He who has bathed [louō] needs only to wash [niptō] his feet and is completely clean [katharos] clarifies the principles of sanctification. By using the articular participle of louō, Jesus elevates this statement to a universal principle. By extension, anyone who has bathed [washed clean at his first moment of faith in Jesus Christ] need only be partially washed to be completely clean again. Jesus then applies this to the group of disciples, by using a plural you. You all are clean, he said, but not all of you all. This last statement clarified that Judas Iscariot, soon to betray Jesus, was not justified or positionally cleansed.

That the adjective describes their positional purification is further evidenced by the use of the predicate adjective katharos in John 15:3. The disciples, He states, are already clean, i.e., saved, positionally sanctified, but now they must abide in Him (John 13:4). Again, the issue of cleansing in 1 John is tied back to the interpretive grid of John 15 discussed in part one of this series. Though the disciples were positionally clean, they still needed to abide, to have fellowship, in order to grow spiritually and eventually produce fruit. If they sinned, then they would not be abiding and would need to recover fellowship by some means of post-salvation cleansing in order to advance.

Summary

At salvation the believer, like the High Priest in the Old Testament, is completely cleansed. He receives the imputed righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) and is thus positionally righteous, positionally purified. Yet, the believer still possesses a sin nature and can choose to sin. When this happens the believer is no longer experientially clean. Once he ceases to walk by the Spirit and lives according to the sin nature, he is no longer being experientially sanctified. In this state the believer continues to operate according to the sin nature thereby disqualifying himself from inheritance.

These Old Testament rituals illustrate a key principle of sanctification: Sin, any sin, whether known or unknown, intentional or unintentional, abrogates the believer’s access to a holy God. Only by following the designated procedure precisely spelled out in the Levitical system could the Old Testament saint recover his privilege. This principle extended beyond the ritual to the spiritual life and prayer life of the Old Testament saint:

If I regard wickedness in my heart, the Lord will not hear (Psalm 66:18). Thus ritual cleansing corresponded to the need for spiritual cleansing. In the spiritual life of the Old Testament saint confession was the means to real, as opposed to ritual cleansing. The penitential Psalms of David best illustrate this (e.g., Psalm 32:5; 38:18). In Psalm 51:2 David prays, Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. The text does not state that David has offered the trespass offering making him ceremonially pure, but his confession toward God has rendered him spiritually clean.

Clearly both New and Old Testament texts emphasize the extreme importance of cleansing in relationship to confession. However, some Replacement theologians argue from their theological presuppositions, that what was true regarding cleansing in an Old Testament economy no longer applies following completion of Christ’s work on the cross. If their argument is true, specific instructions for cleansing from post-salvation sin should not be found in passages related to the spiritual life of believers in subsequent dispensations. Yet, descriptions for the ritual life of the millennial priesthood continue to emphasize the necessity of a purification for post-salvation sins through sin and guilt offerings in the Millennial Temple.

Cleansing in the Future Temple

The existence of a future, literal Temple in Jerusalem is accepted only by dispensationalists. Regarding the restoration of the Temple, replacement theologians either interpret the restored Temple passages in Ezekiel and other passages in a non-literal way (historic premillennialists), or they completely spiritualize their application (amillennialists and postmillennialists). One basis for opposition to the necessity of restored literal sacrifices is based on a certain understanding of the finished work of Christ on the cross. Reformed Theologian Edmond P. Clowney expresses the dilemma replacement theology imposes on the text:

Jesus Christ is the only Mediator, His blood the final sacrifice. There can be no going back. If there is a way back to the ceremonial law, to the types and shadows of what has now become the bondage of legalism, then Paul labored and ran in vain—more than that, Christ died in vain. [12]

For the replacement theologian the finished work of Christ on the cross is defined in such a way that any reintroduction of literal animal sacrifices is sacrilege. The root of this discrepancy is found in the replacement theologian’s unwillingness to recognize a distinction between God’s plan for Israel and God’s plan for the church.

The basic error in this question is the assumption, usually unconscious, that the conditions which prevail in this age of grace must necessarily be the same in all future ages, that the relations between God and man which exist now must continue to the end of time … He will again bring forward His people Israel, the only nation He has ever recognized (Amos 3:2), and deal with them and with the Gentiles on a basis of law, although necessarily modified by grace as in the Mosaic dispensation. This follows for at least three reasons: (1) The age or dispensation of grace ends at the rapture and is never to be repeated. (2) In all other ages God deals with man on a law relationship. (3) All left on earth are God’s enemies and must therefore be dealt with by law. Law is, and must be, accompanied by sacrifice. A repentant Israel must join in such sacrifices; and repentant Gentiles must conform and join therein also. [13]

On the contrary dispensationalists consistently interpret Ezekiel in a literal manner. Just as the Shekinah Glory departed a physical Temple, so it will return to a physical Temple. Just as the prophets predict the destruction of a physical Temple so they predict the building of a new physical Temple. If the Millennial Temple is literal and physical, then so too must be the sacrifices offered in that Temple. Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil notes:

But the prophets of the Old Testament do not merely predict the return of the Israelites to their own land, and their everlasting abode in that land under the rule of the Messiah; but this prediction of theirs culminates in the promise that Jehovah will establish His sanctuary, i.e., His temple, in the midst of His redeemed people, and dwell there with them above them forever, and that all nations will come to this sanctuary of the Lord upon Zion year by year, to worship before the King Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. If, then, the Jewish people should receive Palestine again for its possession either at or after its conversion to Christ, in accordance with the promise of God, the temple with the levitical sacrificial worship would of necessity be also restored in Jerusalem. But if such a supposition is at variance with the teachings of Christ and apostles, so that this essential feature in the prophetic picture of future of the kingdom of God is not to be understood literally, but spiritually or typically, it is an unjustifiable inconsistency to adhere to the literal interpretation of the prophecy concerning the return of Israel to Canaan, and to look for the return of the Jewish people to Palestine, when it has come to believe in Jesus Christ.

As Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum observes: it is indeed an unjustifiable inconsistency to take the prophecies of Israel’s final restoration literally, but then to allegorize away the prophecies of the Ezekiel Temple and sacrifices. [14]

Dispensationalists recognize a new physical Millennial Temple as well as a restored literal sacrificial system in the Millennial Temple. Fruchtenbaum points out,

The problem for Dispensationalists has been in the area of what role the Millennial Temple and sacrifices actually play in the Messianic Kingdom and how they do not contradict or demean the final sacrifice of the Messiah on the cross. [15]

According to dispensational scholar, Dr. Randall Price, Replacement theologians fail to note the distinctives in the interregnum of the Church Age, that sets apart the present economy from the past Mosaic and the future kingdom economy. The uniqueness of the present age, where there is no Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ, makes the role of the individual believer-priest unique also. In this age the Gentile is integrated into one body with the Jew, but in the Millennium Gentiles are included in “an earthly Jewish economy under the theocratic laws of the New Covenant which include physical sacrifices at a physical Temple (Isaiah 66:20–21; Zechariah 14:16–18).”16 During this present Church Age the believer is a priest (Romans 15:16; 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), his body a spiritual temple (1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19) with spiritual sacrifices (Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15–16) and access to God through Christ our High Priest into the Heavenly Temple (Hebrews 4:14–16; cf., 12:22–24). This spiritual temple of the individual believer in the Church Age, the Lord will remove at the pretribulation rapture of the church when God’s plan returns to Israel.

When the Messiah returns to the earth at the end of the Tribulation to establish the promised earthly kingdom, the worship of God will once again center on a physical Temple with a literal priesthood. In that dispensation, the spiritual life of Israel will be based on the New Covenant established on the cross, but prophesied for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31–34). It is on the basis of the literal interpretation and application of these texts to Israel that regenerate Israel is restored to the land where they will experience the physical and spiritual blessings of the New Covenant. The argument of the Old Testament New Covenant passages as well as the Hebrews passage is that the Old Covenant was inadequate in its requirements, not the ritual. As Price observes:

Israel could not keep its conditional requirements and therefore a superior and unconditional covenant was necessary which could guarantee the fulfillment of its requirements. The New Covenant’s provision of spiritual regeneration will make possible the spiritual obedience of the Nation that was lacking under the Mosaic economy, thereby preventing any further loss of relationship with God, the Land, or the Temple. That certain ritual aspects of the Mosaic Covenant remain under the New Covenant is to be expected, since the divine ideal is for the Creator to dwell with His creatures in an uninterrupted relationship (see Zechariah 2:10–11 and chapter 3). Even so, the significant legal differences in the ritual under the New Covenant confirms it is not a repetition of the Mosaic Covenant. This ritual, the focus of which was the regulation of a relationship between God and man through sacrifice, as already mentioned, was initiated with Adam and Eve (see Genesis 3:20; 4:3–7), and continued in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:1–18), long before the Mosaic legislation was enacted. [17]

The Jewish Tribulation saints who survive the Tribulation will enter the Messianic Kingdom as mortals, still possessing their sin natures. Among these will be the new Temple priests. As fallen creatures with sin natures these priests will still sin, will still become ceremonially defiled and will thus require ceremonial cleansing before entering the presence of God in the Temple. Among the offerings listed in Ezekiel for the Millennial Temple are:

The burnt-offering (Ezekiel 40:38–39; 42; 43:18, 24, 27; 44:11; 45:15, 17, 23, 25; 46:2, 4, 12–13, 15),
The sin offering (Ezekiel 40:39; 43:13, 19, 21–22, 25; 44:27, 29; 45:17, 19, 22–23, 25; 46:20),
The guilt offering (Ezekiel 40:39; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20), the grain offering (Ezekiel 42:13; 44:29; 45:15, 17, 24–25; 46:5, 7, 11, 14–15, 20),
And the peace offering (Ezekiel 43:27; 45:15, 17; 46:2, 12).

The purpose of the burnt offering is to make atonement (Ezekiel 45:15, 16) and the purpose for the sin offering is cleanse it and make atonement for it (Ezekiel 43:20–26). Ezekiel does not designate a purpose for the latter three offerings, but they are often linked together with the first three in Levitical ritual.

In summary, these five offerings in the Millennial Temple ritual system are offered by millennial saints for the recovery and maintenance of ceremonial or ritual cleansing so that fellowship with God might be restored or continue. This cleansing was not for personal salvation or for personal sanctification, but ceremonial purification. This ceremonial purification corresponds to and teaches through a training aid the necessity for personal salvation and cleansing from post-salvation sin.

In the millennial period, the presence of God will once again dwell with His people in a physical Temple on the earth. As part of the ritual service of a fallen priesthood, there will be the necessity for ongoing cleansing designated as atonement. [18] Again, after insightful analysis of the meaning of sacrifice and substitution Price concludes:

Therefore, according to this view, what sacrifice accomplished was the removal of ritual impurity in order to restore the ability of worshippers to approach God. This concept understands that ritual violations (such as those specified in Leviticus), result in a ceremonial condition of uncleanness which not only interrupts and restricts the worship of the one who has committed an offense, but by its contagious nature is able to contaminate other people and objects, disrupting the required service of God. The possibility then exists that not only could the entire Nation suffer uncleanness, but that also the Temple itself could be defiled. [19]

The reality of an ongoing ritual teaching the need for post-salvation cleansing from sin subsequent to the completed work of Christ on the cross has crucial implications for the Church Age.

Replacement theologians frequently interpret the confession of sin in 1 John 1:9 to be related to admission of sin at the moment of salvation. This belongs to the “tests of life” school of interpreting 1 John that understands the connection between confession and forgiveness to be descriptive of the genuine believer.

In contrast, the “tests of fellowship” view, which is argued in this series to be more consistent with the dispensational sine qua non, interprets the conditional clause of 1 John 1:9, if we confess our sin, to have a prescriptive force. Confession of sin is mandatory for the believer to be purified of post-salvation sin. Like Peter whose feet needed washing, the royal believer-priest of the Church age who is a “spiritual Temple” may become defiled by sin, whether mental, emotional, or overt, and thus require post-salvation purification. At salvation the believer is completely cleansed of all sin. This is pictured by the complete washing of the High Priest. Nevertheless, subsequent to salvation the High Priest would go places and do things which would render him ceremonially unclean and unworthy to go into the presence of a righteous God. According to the standard of His grace, God provided a way for ceremonial purification to take place. In the ministry of the priest, his ablutions at the laver picture cleansing.

Cleansing in the New Testament

Confession per se might be mentioned once in the New Testament, but the necessity of cleansing is mentioned several times other than 1 John. In 2 Corinthians 7:1 the apostle Paul warns the Corinthian believers to cleanse themselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Likewise James admonishes his readers to draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded (James 4:7). James addresses believers who have fallen into various mental and emotional sins leading to division in the congregation. Before these believer-priests can advance, they must first be purified before God.

The Sanctifying Ministry of the Holy Spirit

As seen in part two of this series the believer is to abide in Christ and walk by means of the Holy Spirit as the sole and necessary condition for spiritual growth. This growth is the ongoing experience of sanctification. At the instant of faith alone in Christ alone the believer is not only positionally sanctified by virtue of his identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3–4), but also is [positionally and experientially] clean. Nevertheless, as the believer advances through life he quits walking by the Holy Spirit and lives according to the sin nature. At this point he becomes defiled. The ongoing sanctifying ministry of the Holy Spirit ceases, though other ministries of the Holy Spirit toward the believer continue: He is still indwelt by the Holy Spirit, still sealed by the Holy Spirit, still possesses spiritual gifts, and the Holy Spirit still convicts the believer by means of the Word of God to recover from sin (2 Timothy 3:16–17). It is not that all ministries of the Holy Spirit stop, but only that the positive ministries directly producing growth cease. Since the believer is neither abiding nor walking, growth and fruit production are stifled. The Holy Spirit is grieved (Ephesians 4:30).

If we neglect to be thankful and do not praise Him for everything, then we quench the Spirit, He is in us as the Spirit of praise and worship. [20]

Once the believer admits and acknowledges sin, then experiential purification takes place. The believer is restored to fellowship and resumes his walk by means of the Holy Spirit. Now walking by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit works His sanctifying, growth and fruit-producing ministry in the life. The walk by the Spirit is characterized by ongoing filling of the believer’s soul with the Word of Christ (Ephesians 5:18 with Colossians 3:16). The Spirit again teaches and guides. Under this dynamic the believer continues to grow. However, once he stops walking, sin again disrupts this sanctifying process and the believer-priest fails to function as a spiritual Temple performing spiritual service (Romans 12:1).

As the believer obeys the Word of God, is yielded to the Lord, is occupied with Christ, walking in the Spirit, the Spirit of God fills his heart. If we sin and have been disobedient, the Spirit is still in us, but instead of filling us and leading us deeper into the things of Christ, he will direct our attention to our failures, so that we may judge ourselves and confess our sins to God our Father. If the believer walks in self-judgment before God, walking in the light as He is in the light, obedient to His Word, the Holy Spirit is well pleased and then fills him. A believer may begin the day filled with the Spirit, but at night the filling may no longer be enjoyed, because there was disobedience to the Word of God. The filling returns as we retrace our steps and bring our sin into the light. [21]

Conclusion

This three part series has demonstrated that the theological presuppositions of Replacement theology have affected not only the interpretation of soteriological passages, but also passages on the Christian life. Since these presuppositions are antithetical to the dispensational sine qua non of a consistent distinction between God’s plan for Israel and God’s plan for the church, we must articulate a theology of the spiritual life consistent with dispensational distinctives. As part of this, it is clear that the believer must be in right relationship with the Holy Spirit who produces experiential sanctification. Sin interrupts this relationship and confession for purification is necessary for recovery. Apart from this, obedience to Scriptural mandates becomes nothing more than simple morality that any unbeliever can emulate. Only when a believer is in right relationship with the Spirit, and abiding in Christ, will the Holy Spirit work to bring about maturity and the production of the character of Christ in the believer.

—End—

Notes

Arno Clemens Gaebelein, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: An Exegetical Examination of Every New Testament Reference to the Spirit of God: A Brief Text Book for Seminaries, Bible Institutes and All Christian Workers and Bible Students (New York: Our Hope, n.d.), 69.
Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 60–62.
Gaebelein, Holy Spirit, 76.
See part 1, Robert Dean, Jr., “Abiding in Christ,” CTS Journal 7 (January-March 2001): 43.
Friedrich Hauck, Niptō, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74), 4:946–47.
The Septuagint (LXX), the translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Bible into Greek, was the Bible most familiar to the first century Jew. The disciples were intimately familiar with this version and frequently cite the LXX rather than the Hebrew text, in their writings. Hence, the analysis of the Greek vocabulary translating Hebrew terms frequently clarifies our understanding of New Testament statements.
The Hebrew nomenclature Shekinah developed in the Rabbinic period, first used in the Targums. It derived from the Hebrew, šākan, “to dwell” it refers to the dwelling of God in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle/ Temple. Robert B. Thieme, III, “The Panorama of the Shekinah Glory,” (Th.M. thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1987), 11–15.
The NET Bible clarifies this distinction between acts of moral turpitude (Leviticus 5:1) and acts rendering the person ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 5:2).
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 497.
Richard E. Averbeck, “kpr,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:689–710.
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, ed. Ralph P. Martin, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 36 (Dallas: Word, 1998), 233.
Edmond P. Clowney, “The Final Temple,” Prophecy in the Making: Messages Prepared for the Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Carol Stream, IL: Creation House, 1971), 181.
Clive A. Thompson, “The Necessity of Blood Sacrifices in Ezekiel’s Temple,” BSac 123 (July-September 1966): 238.
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Millennial Temple - Literal or Allegorical?” (Paper delivered in Dallas, TX, at The PreTrib Rapture Study Group, December, 2001), 3.
Ibid.
Price, Last Days Temple, 546.
Ibid., 547-48. It is beyond the scope of this article to survey the current discussions on the meaning of kipper, but this writer agrees with the conclusions that the primary sense of atonement is the removal of ritual impurity so the priest or worshipper could have access to God.
Averbeck, kpr, 692.
Price, Last Days Temple, 548.
Gaebelien, Holy Spirit, 87.
Ibid., 77.

Abiding In Christ: A Dispensational Theology Of The Spiritual Life (Part 2 of 3)

By Robert Dean, Jr.

Robert Dean, Jr., earned a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and also spent time in their doctorate program. He is the pastor of Preston City Bible Church, Preston City, Connecticut, and a visiting professor at Faith Evangelical Seminary, Tacoma, Washington. Besides an international schedule as a conference speaker, he serves on the board of advisors for Chafer Theological Seminary. His email address is rldeanjr@earthlink.net.

The previous article in this three part series posed the question, “Why do the same people always seem to line up together on opposite sides even when interpreting different scripture passages?” The verses themselves might appear to have little intrinsic relationship, yet the same theologians and commentators group together on the same sides, facing off in theological debates. The reality of this is never more apparent than in disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians, dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists, and lordship and free grace advocates.

We find the answer to this perplexing question in the theological presuppositions which, though seemingly unrelated to the passage at hand, frequently shape an interpreter’s framework resulting in interpretive decisions consistent with one theological camp or another. However, sometimes a theologian in one camp will inconsistently develop an interpretation more consistent with another camp. Often this is due to undetected presuppositions that shape the interpretation of a passage. The result might produce a dispensationalist who unwittingly holds to the interpretation of a passage that he develops on a presupposition antithetical to dispensationalism.

While wrestling with the interpretive options available for understanding our Lord’s discourse on the vine (John 15:1–10), it became apparent there were two broad groupings: the first understand “abide” to be soteriological—believers abide, unbelievers do not; the second understand abide to describe the believer’s ongoing fellowship with Christ. It was further observed that those who hold to the former position’abiding is believing’had other views in common including an emphasis on the Old Testament use of the vine imagery to describe the spiritual status of Israel: Just as Israel was composed of believer and unbeliever, so too must the vine in John 15. In contrast, those who held to the latter position’abiding is fellowship’did not emphasize the Old Testament vine analogy as hermeneutically relevant to John 15. For the most part these commentators were not only dispensational, but also free grace in their approach to soteriological and sanctification models. [1]

Since a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church is part of the sine qua non of traditional dispensational theology, [2] we concluded that to understand abiding as the believer’s ongoing fellowship with Christ was most consistent with a dispensational theology. Exegetical analysis further demonstrated that the ‘abiding is fellowship’ interpretation fit the lexical and syntactical data in the passage, while the ‘abiding is believing’ interpretation was insupportable exegetically.

One of the presuppositions that affect interpretation and frequently explain this alignment is the relationship of the Church to Israel. According to the conclusions of the previous article the following logic developed: if a central factor in the interpretation is related to maintaining a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, and the subject of John 15 is sanctification and not justification, then third, there must be an approach to the post salvation spiritual life of the believer that is consistent with dispensational theology. Further, this conclusion indicates that dispensational theology does not merely affect eschatology and ecclesiology, as some assert, but has a precise impact on sanctification. [3]

Furthermore, since dispensationalism also has certain distinctive views on the Holy Spirit, and pneumatology is foundational to understanding sanctification, then, of necessity, a dispensational sanctification consistent with a dispensational view of Israel, the Church, and Pneumatology must exit. Part two of this paper will seek to develop key elements in dispensational sanctification by comparing the conclusions from John 15—abiding is fellowship and fellowship is necessary and indispensable for spiritual growth and fruit production—with other New Testament passages describing the production of fruit in the life of the believer.

Conclusions from the Vine

The first conclusion drawn from the exegesis of John 15 is that abiding in Christ means to have fellowship with Christ. Though the term fellowship is not used in John 15, it is used in 1 John as a synonym for meno “abide.” How consistently a theologian applies the distinction between Israel and the Church impacts not only the interpretation of John 15, but 1 John also. “Abide” is a key concept occurring thirteen times in 1 John; its interpretation affects the meaning of the epistle. Those who understand abide to mean believe understand 1 John to be about tests of faith, contrasting the genuine believer with the unbeliever. On the other hand, those who take “abide” as fellowship understand 1 John to be discussing fellowship of the believer, contrasting the carnal believer with the spiritual believer.

Fellowship translates koinōnia, which “denotes ‘participation,’ ‘fellowship,’ esp. with a close bond. It expresses a two-sided relation … As with koinōneō, emphasis may be on either the giving or the receiving.” [4] John uses this word three times in the introduction to his first epistle (1 John 1:3, 6, 7). The emphasis is similar to abide which also describes a two-sided relationship: the believer abides in Christ, He abides in the believer (John 15:4–5). In his first epistle the apostle John reveals three characteristics of fellowship with Christ: 1) Fellowship is based on a correct view of the undiminished deity and true humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:1–4); 2) Fellowship with God and walking in darkness are mutually exclusive (1:5); and 3) Fellowship is synonymous with walking in the light (1:7). [5]

Abiding and fellowship have identical characteristics. The apostle describes abiding as walking in the same manner as He walked (2:6) and is in the light (2:10). [6] Surely, Jesus always walked in the light. The believer who abides does the will of God (1 John 2:17). Further, abiding is based on believing the message about Christ that they heard from the beginning (1 John 2:24). What was from the beginning (1 John 1:1), John proclaimed that you might have fellowship with us. Abiding in Christ is tantamount to fellowship with Christ.

The second conclusion derived from the discourse on the vine is that there are three categories of Christians. The first category consists of those who do not abide and whom the Lord disciplines in this life, even to suffering the sin unto death (1 John 5:16). The second consists of young believers who abide, but have not yet produced fruit. The third consists of mature believers who abide and produce fruit.

Christians who do not abide	and are disciplined
Christians who abide,	but have yet to produce fruit
Christians who abide,	Mature, and produce fruit

Just as a plant must grow over an extended period before it can produce fruit, the same is true for the believer. Just as it is inaccurate to refer to the leafy growth of a plant as fruit, so too, it is incorrect to refer to the spiritual growth of a believer as fruit. Fruit comes only as the believer advances toward maturity.

The third conclusion from John 15 is that the believer can either abide in Christ or not. Abiding is an absolute status, which is consistent with the meaning of meno “to continue, remain, stay.” Believers either remain or fail to remain, but they do not partially remain and partially leave. One cannot both abide and not abide at the same time. Usage of abide makes this absolute status clear (Matthew 10:11; 11:23; 26:38; Luke 9:4; John 3:36; 4:40; Acts 2:7).

These conclusions may be put together in the following syllogism: 1) Abiding means to have fellowship with Christ; 2) A believer either abides or not; therefore, 3) At any point in time a believer is either having fellowship with Christ or not. Fellowship is an absolute status, not a relative or partial status. Believers cannot be partly in fellowship and partly out of fellowship.

Jesus’ discourse on the vine emphasizes fruit production in the believer because of abiding in Christ. This is the goal of the believer’s life and necessary to glorify God. In John chapter fifteen Jesus states that abiding in Him is the necessary and only condition for fruit production. In Galatians chapter five, the apostle Paul states that walking by the Spirit is the necessary and only condition for fruit production. This parallel indicates that walking by the Spirit and abiding in Christ are tantamount to the same concept. If abiding were synonymous with believing, then walking by the Spirit must also be synonymous with believing. Completely illogical!

Walking Produces Fruit

The Galatian Context

In Galatians 5:16–25 the Apostle Paul explains the significance of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s spiritual advance. With perhaps the exception of Romans chapter eight, no other chapter of Scripture is as significant in explaining this advance. In the development of his argument to the Galatians, Paul first establishes the nature of the Gospel in chapters one and two by making clear that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone (Galatians 2:20). One result of justification is the immediate reception of God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in Galatians 3:2 he asks: This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? The expected answer is hearing with faith (cf., Galatians 2:14b; Romans 10:17). Law refers to the Mosaic Law and the teaching of the Judaizers that wrongly instructed the Christians to obey the Law in order to fully enter into the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. This obedience to the Law included both the moral law and the ceremonial law. Paul counters by teaching that observance of moral and ceremonial precepts can never provide any sinner with the quality of righteousness necessary for justification (Galatians 3:10–12, 21; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

The Epistle to the Galatians, most likely the first of Paul’s letters, centers the attention of the reader on two dominant themes: (1) the justification of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ apart from legal works, and (2) the ministry of the Holy Spirit as the indwelling energizer of the spiritual life in Christ.” [7]

Paul then shifts his subject from justification to sanctification with another rhetorical question: Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh (Galatians 3:3)? He establishes two antitheses: begun/ perfected and Spirit/ flesh. The next place these concepts are addressed is in Galatians 5:16–25, when Paul explains the dynamic of how the Spirit brings the believer to maturity.

The first phrase, having begun by the Spirit, reminds them of the mechanics of salvation: a new life created by God the Holy Spirit began at the instant of faith alone in Christ alone. At the time of Paul’s writing to them, the Holy Spirit had already regenerated the Galatians. No creature can regenerate himself, only God can do this (John 1:13). For this reason salvation is by means of faith, not because of faith. [8] When an individual expresses faith alone in Christ alone, the Holy Spirit instantly regenerates him and simultaneously imputes God’s perfect righteousness to the new creature in Christ. This imputed righteousness is the cause of salvation. At that same instant, God the Father looks upon the believer’s possession of imputed perfect righteousness and declares him justified (Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:18, 20; Galatians 2:16, 20). Thus, ceremonial and moral acts are inconsequential to justification. The believer has received a new life from the Holy Spirit that the Spirit must then nourish and develop. Just as human morality is inconsequential to salvation, Paul will argue that ethical obedience is neither the means nor the cause of spiritual growth, though it is an effect of spiritual growth.

Being perfected (Galatians 3:3) is an unfortunate translation for the Greek verb, epiteleō. This word is an intensification of the verb found in Galatians 5:16, teleioō, describing the result of walking by the Spirit. Epiteleō means, “to perform,” “to establish,” “to finish,” or “to bring to completion.” [9] The Galatian believers began their Christian life through a work of the Holy Spirit, but they were now attempting to grow to spiritual maturity through dependence on their own human ability. The passive voice of the verb indicates the believer does not bring himself to maturity, but, by following certain protocols, the Holy Spirit matures him.

Moral though the Galatians efforts might have been, such attempts were illegitimate. Morality is never sufficient to control the sin nature. Spiritual growth and the advance to spiritual maturity can only come by dependence on the Holy Spirit. If not, this activity derives from the flesh. Paul wants the Galatians to understand that everything in life derives from either one or the other (cf., Colossians 2:6).

The main point of Paul’s rhetorical question here, however, has to do with the incongruity of beginning one’s Christian life on one basis (“with the Spirit”) and then shifting somewhere in progress to another basis (“by human effort”). What Paul wants his converts to see is that the Christian life is one that starts, is maintained, and comes to culmination only through dependence on the activity of God’s Spirit (cf., 5:25; also see Phil 1:6, where the same verbs enar omai and epiteleō appear and where the point is made that completion of the Christian life comes about on the same basis as its inception, viz. by God’s working). [10]

Paul emphasizes the antithesis between the production of the Spirit and the work of the flesh, the sin nature. Paul clearly uses “flesh” (sarx) with an ethical dimension beginning in Galatians 3:3. A Christian can clearly conduct an ethical, [Mosaic] law-abiding life, yet the results are sin. Isaiah emphasized that it is our righteous deeds not our unrighteous deeds that are like a filthy garment (Isaiah 64:6). Failure to take into account the reality that the sin nature can produce morality has led to much confusion and distortion in teaching about the spiritual life. Likewise, unbelievers can live ethical lives, in many cases superior to the ethics of believers.

In Romans chapter six, Paul makes it clear that everything the unbeliever does comes from the sin nature. The unbeliever is born enslaved to this sin nature. Only subsequent to salvation can the believer make a choice. Therefore, all that the unbeliever does—good, bad, moral, and immoral—proceeds from a fallen sinful nature. [11] Paul implies that a believer can distinguish between the good and moral that the sin nature generates, and that which the Holy Spirit produces through the believer. This standard cannot be subjective, but must be objectively verifiable. How can the believer determine if his attempts to apply Scripture come from the flesh or the sin nature?

The contrast between flesh and Spirit is not the only contrast in Galatians, or in Romans. The juxtaposition of these categories demonstrates the unique characteristics of the spiritual life of the Church Age.

Law	Grace
Works	Faith
Slavery	Freedom
Flesh	Spirit

A life that emphasizes Law and works (i.e., simple human morality, as the means to spiritual growth) is in fact slavery to the flesh.

Paul reminds the Galatians that since they did not receive their new life because of obedience to ceremonial or moral law, the growth of this new spiritual life is not because they observed ceremonial or moral law. Both spiritual life and growth in that life, the apostle bases on the vastly superior work of the Holy Spirit. This does not exclude morality, but recognizes that morality is not synonymous with spiritual growth. If it were, then the Galatians would have demonstrated this by their own legalistic attempts. Instead, the result was calamitous. As the apostle Paul had discovered in his own life, an emphasis on legal obedience and morality generates arrogance, covetousness, and numerous other mental and emotional sins. These sins then culminate in overt sins. Morality alone is never sufficient to control the lust of the sin nature because that same fallen nature produces human morality. Only ethical obedience to the precepts of Scripture in dependence on God the Holy Spirit has value for spiritual growth.

This argument can be presented in the form of a syllogism: 1) Everything the unbeliever does derives from his position in bondage to the sin nature and proceeds from the sin nature (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 6:6, 17, 18); 2) The unbeliever can live a moral, ethical life; therefore, 3) Simple human morality can be the product of the sin nature. A supernatural means produces the virtues and Christ-like character unique to the Christian life.

Since it is not enough simply to do the right thing, or live a moral life, the believer must have some gauge or criterion to determine whether his morality derives from the production of the flesh, as did the Galatians’ morality. Since moral reformation can be self-induced through an act of the will, how can the believer discern the difference between morality and spiritual growth? Paul answers this through the command to walk by means of the Spirit. Accordingly, he now answers the question, How does the believer apply this mandate?

The Unique Mandate of Love

In Galatians 5:16 it becomes clear why Paul makes dependence on the Holy Spirit central to the spiritual life. The moral qualities produced by mere human ability cannot approximate the ethical virtues exemplified in the spiritual life God desires for believers in the Church Age. The highest of these virtues is love. Paul reminds the Galatians of this standard in Galatians 5:13–15. The new freedom they have in Christ is not self-serving. Just the opposite is true. Freedom in Christ is freedom from the bondage of sin (Galatians 5:1; Romans 6:17) and freedom from the law (Galatians 3:11–13; 23–25; 4:7; Romans 6:14). The Lord liberates each believer from the self-serving orientation of the sin nature so that he is now free to love as Christ loves.

When he stresses love, Paul quotes not from Jesus’ statement in the upper room (John 13:34), but from Leviticus 19:18. He quotes from the Law because the Mosaic Law is the central issue with the Galatians. Paul’s point is to show that under the Old Testament, believers never fulfilled the command as stated. [12] In the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, saved Jews had a spiritual life based on simple adherence to the ethical and ceremonial precepts of the law. However, they were unable to live up to the Law by means of human ability.

Notice the differences between the commands in Leviticus 19:18 and John 13:34–35. First, in the Leviticus passage, the object of love is the neighbor whom Jesus defined in the parable of the Good Samaritan as any other human being regardless of spiritual status. Second, the standard, expressed by the comparative particle “as” (@os), is the individual himself (Galatians 5:14). Jesus radically transformed this command. In John 13:34–35 he states,

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

No longer is the object others, but one another, i.e., believers. And the standard by which the love is measured is no longer as you love yourselves, but as I have loved you. This love is the unique calling card of the disciple, the mature believer. Human effort cannot generate this love; only God the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer can produce this love. Nevertheless, how can the believer love in this way?

Paul answers that question in his mandate to the Galatians, walk by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Some observations need to be made regarding Galatians 5:16–5:25. First, we must take this passage as one unit whose purpose is to demonstrate how the believer can produce love. This explains the priority of love among the fruit of the Spirit. Second, the apostle makes four parallel statements that help clarify the subject: walk by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16), led by the Spirit (Galatians 5:18), live by the Spirit, and walk [follow, stay in step with, be in line with] by the Spirit (Galatians 5:25). Third, it is when the Christian maintains the condition of walking by the Spirit that the Holy Spirit produces character transformations in the believer. The conclusion expresses the answer to Galatians 3:3: Are you so foolish? Having begun in [by] the Spirit, are you now being perfected [brought to maturity] in [by] the flesh? The apostle concludes that if they live by the Spirit (and they do because they are regenerate), they must also walk (the continuation of the spiritual life) by the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit against the Flesh

The grammatical construction of Galatians 5:16 is crucial to understanding the dynamics of spiritual growth. The present active imperative of “walk” (peripateō) stresses a habit that should characterize the believer’s attitudes and actions. [13] The nuance here is most likely customary, implying, “simply continue.” [14] Walking by the Spirit should be the ongoing, habitual lifestyle of the believer. The nature of the verb itself, to walk, even in its metaphorical use, “to conduct oneself,” involves action on the part of the subject. The activeness of the subject is further demonstrated by the parallel verb, “to be led” (Galatians 5:18) which likewise necessitates the act of following, as do the verbs “living” and “staying in step with” (5:25). The nature of these active verbs anticipates a noun of means or manner. [15] The anarthrous dative of “Spirit” (pneuma) supplies this expectation. [16] The Christian life is not a passive waiting for growth that automatically happens. The believer must constantly decide to walk by the Spirit.

Though some suggest that the dative here should take a locative nuance, this meaning would render the concept passive, “in the Holy Spirit.” However, the action is not like the believer’s status “in Christ,” which is passive emphasizing his possessions in Christ and the reality of our having been united with Christ at salvation (Romans 6:1–3). The use of the dative of “Spirit” in context further supports the notion of means, or instrument. We demonstrated earlier that Galatians 5:16 begins to provide a positive answer to the implicit question of 3:3: How does the believer grow to completion in the spiritual life? In this light, we cannot understand an anarthrous dative related to eternal salvation as a locative sense: We are not saved “in” the Spirit, but regenerated “by means of” the Spirit. A locative sense renders the concept too passive and opens the door wide to a quasi mystical “let go and let God” approach as if by simply being in the Spirit, growth will automatically ensue divorced from the active volition of the believer.

Paul continuously hammers home that the believer lives his post-salvation life through the instrumentality, or by dependence on the Holy Spirit. Note that Paul uses the dative of means for pneuma five more times after Galatians 3:3 in the epistle. In Galatians 5:5, the NASB translates the dative as through, but makes the genitive of “faith” (pistis) sound as if it had an instrumental nuance. A better translation is, For we [believers] by means of the Spirit [not Law] through [or from the source of] faith are waiting for the hope of righteousness. In Galatians chapter 5, believers are led by means of the Holy Spirit (5:18); are to live by means of the Holy Spirit (5:25a), and are to walk in line by means of the Holy Spirit (5:25b).

Finally, the process delineated by Paul logically necessitates an instrumental understanding. The context of the passage describes the mechanics of production. The result is the transformation of the believer’s character into the character of Christ. This is described by the manifold fruit of Galatians 5:22–23. Since the context describes the necessary conditions for the result, then instrumentality makes more sense. The believer is to walk by means of the Holy Spirit, i.e., to live in dependence upon the Holy Spirit. That this is not automatic is emphasized in the remainder of the verse.

And you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. The implications of the syntax in this clause are profound. The verb is in the aorist passive subjunctive and is negated by “not” (ou mē), the strongest form of denial possible in the Greek. When the believer walks by means of the Spirit, it is impossible for him to bring to completion, or fulfillment, the lusts of the flesh. Fulfilling the lust of the flesh and walking by means of the Spirit are mutually exclusive alternatives. The believer at any moment either depends on the divine provision in the Holy Spirit, or his own innate ability that has its ultimate source in the sin nature.

In Galatians 5:16 Paul commands the believer to walk by means of the Spirit. This imperative is followed by ou mē with the subjunctive, which is an emphatic negation used here as a strong promise. The flesh and Spirit are so contrary to one another that a walk by the Spirit automatically excludes a fulfillment of the baser desires. Victory is available to every Christian. [17]

The next question might be: How, then, can a believer who is walking by the Spirit sin? He must first stop walking by the Spirit. According to Paul, whether the believer is fully conscious of his volitional act, whenever he sins, be it mental, emotional, verbal, or overt, he has already made a decision to stop depending on the Holy Spirit. [18] The promise implicit in this mandate is that as long as the believer consciously depends on the Holy Spirit, he will not sin. The following section covers how a believer accomplishes that dependence.

It is obvious from this verse that the Spirit and the flesh are polar absolutes and mutually exclusive. A believer walks either by one or by the other. A believer cannot be walking mostly by the Spirit with a few occasional unknown, or unintentional sins. Toussaint writes:

In this entire epistle two alternatives are set before Paul’s Christian readers. Either they may walk under law or under grace.

These same two choices are open in Galatians 5:16–23. A walk under law necessitates a walk by means of the flesh (cf. Gal 3:2–3; 4:23). At the same time a life lived in the grace system automatically involves faith and the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 3:2–3, 5; 4:29). It is for this reason that the contrast here is between the flesh and the Spirit; they are the two driving forces in each of the two systems of law and grace. [19]

Evidence of this dichotomy is then described in the various character qualities listed in Galatians 5:19–23. The fruit is the result of the believer’s process of walking in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Fruit is character produced by the Holy Spirit, not the believer. The believer is to abide in Christ, and to walk by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit produces the fruit. The believer may also stop walking by the Holy Spirit and begin operating by means of the flesh, or the sin nature. These are the only two options. Therefore, when this principle is compared to the conclusions from John 15 and 1 John, it is clear that abiding, fellowship, and walking by means of the Holy Spirit all look at the advancing Christian life from the same perspective. In contrast, not abiding, lack of fellowship, and operating by the sin nature describe the believer living in self-dependence. We must now relate these conclusions to another category of walking: walking in the light.

Walking in the Light

Numerous passages use walking as a metaphor for the Christian life. A noun in the dative or with an “in” (en) clause often accompany “walk.” The exegete must pay close attention to the context in determining the precise nuance. In Galatians, the nuance of instrumentality was necessary due to the nature of the verbs and the description of the action. In 1 John chapter one, the apostle does not use a simple dative. Instead, John opts for “in the darkness” (en to skotei and “in the light” (en to photei) to describe two opposing walks of the believer’s experience (1 John 1:6, 7). However, do these clauses indicate sphere or instrumentality? Both are grammatically possible. The comparison, as He is in the Light, uses the same Greek construction and suggests the interpreter should treat them the same. Further, John’s use of “in” (en) makes it clear that he has a locative connotation in mind (1 John 2:9–11). [20]

As with Paul’s mutually exclusive categories of walking by the Spirit or walking according to the sin nature, John expresses the mutually exclusive walks of life as either darkness or light (1 John 1:6, 7). Having fellowship with God is impossible in the darkness.

Commentators with a framework grounded in replacement theology attempt to identify walking in darkness with the unbeliever and walking in the light with the believer. However, as we have demonstrated, walking in the light is connected to fellowship in these verses, and fellowship is synonymous with abiding in 1 John. This connects 1 John 1:6, 7 to the hermeneutical issue in John fifteen. If abiding means believing (as most replacement theologians argue), then the interpretation of walking in the light in 1 John is radically altered. Yet, since abiding is fellowship, then walking in the light must also be fellowship. The believer can either walk in darkness or walk in light. Paul’s development of walking in Ephesians 4–6 supports this.

As children of light (Ephesians 5:8). The Christian life is covered extensively in Ephesians under the metaphor of walking. Five times the apostle uses the verb “to walk” (peripateō), three times in Ephesians chapter five. The first is to walk in love (Ephesians 5:2). The Greek preposition “in” (en), one may translate as a locative or instrumental. If locative, then the idea would be in the state or sphere of love, a more passive idea. Yet, the remainder of the verse suggests a more instrumental idea. The standard for the believer is Christ’s love demonstrated at the cross. The active voice of the verb suggests that Christ’s active love for God the Father, to fulfill His plan and to provide salvation for mankind, was the motive that kept him on the cross (Hebrews 12:3). Thus, he endured not “in love,” but “by means of love.” Love for God the Father enabled Him to endure the indescribable suffering for our sins on the cross.

This shows that certain means or instruments aid the believer’s walk. The Holy Spirit is one; the active application of love toward fellow believers is another.

Walking by means of love is then parallel with the next command to: walk as children of light (Ephesians 5:8). This mandate follows the statement about the believer’s former position as darkness with their new position as light in the Lord. Believers are born in the realm of darkness and only become sons of the light at the instant of faith alone in Christ alone (John 12:36). Walking in the light, as John observed, is not automatic. The new believer can surely continue walking in darkness instead of living on the basis of who he now is as a member of God’s family, possessing a new nature, and indwelt by God the Holy Spirit.

The metaphor of light is used two ways in Scripture: 1) to portray the holiness, righteousness, and absolute perfection of God (1 John 1:5) and 2) the revelation of God, His Person, Perfections, and plan (Psalm 36:9; 119:105, 130; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6). In Him there is no darkness. John emphasizes that the walk in darkness breaks fellowship with God. Some suggest that only known sin breaks fellowship with God, or sin revealed to the individual by the Holy Spirit. [21] Yet, how much sin violates the absolute standard of God’s perfection? Does sin only violate that righteous standard when one is aware of it, or he does it intentionally? The answer is that any sin, known, unknown, intentional or not, violates the standard of God’s absolute perfection. The light of God’s Word and the Light, His Son, reveals the standard. The believer is to walk consistently with God’s Person and perfections as revealed in the light of His Word. Whenever he sins, he paralyzes his walk.

In Ephesians chapter five Paul, again, juxtaposes the mutually exclusive walks of the believer. These are absolute states. Other contrasts are also present in Ephesians chapter five. The believer may imitate God or not (5:1), walk by means of love or not (5:2), have improper conduct or not (5:3, 4), be disobedient or not (5:6), and walk as children of light or as approving deeds of darkness (5:7–13). Paul shifts the metaphor of light from light as divine perfection to light as the revelation of that perfection that exposes sin (5:13–14). This introduces the informational aspect of one’s walk—the revelation of God’s Word—that informs the believer of divine absolutes, mandates, and methods for living the Christian life. Only through His Word and as the Holy Spirit teaches him, can a believer learn of God’s plan and procedures.

The Holy Spirit is crucial in this process. Jesus called Him the Spirit of truth (14:17) and the Helper (paraklētos, John 14:26). Then, our Lord used the title the Spirit of truth in apposition to the Helper (John 15:26) showing that the Holy Spirit would help the believer with his understanding of truth. The role of the Holy Spirit would be in the revelation, communication, understanding, retention, and recall of the principles of the Word of God (John 16:13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:9–14). As the believer learns under the teaching ministry of God the Holy Spirit, he develops wisdom. Wisdom is application of the Word. So again, Ephesians 5:15–17 reveals an absolute contrast, wisdom as opposed to foolishness.

Abiding, walking by the Holy Spirit, walking by means of love, walking in the light and walking as a child of the Light, and walking with wisdom—all represent the believer who is growing and advancing in the spiritual life. However, how does the believer come to understand these mechanics and the doctrines they represent? Can he do that on his own? When Ephesians 5:18 is compared with Colossians 3:16 then the crucial dynamic for the spiritual life is readily apparent. The context of Ephesians chapter five reveals a dynamic that is both parallel with the absolute state of walking in the Light and, in itself, tantamount to walking by means of the Holy Spirit. Since the walk by means of the Holy Spirit is parallel to abiding in Christ and fellowship, we discover that the filling of the Spirit characterizes abiding in Christ. Thus, a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church in John 15 ultimately leads to recognition of absolute states in the Christian life. Lewis Sperry Chafer, that dean of dispensational theologians, recognized this years ago:

By various terms the Bible teaches that there are two classes of Christians: those who “abide in Christ,” and those who “abide not”; those who are “walking in the light,” and those who “walk in darkness”; those who “walk by the Spirit,” and those who “walk as men”; those who “walk in newness of life,” and those who “walk after the flesh”; those who have the Spirit “in” and “upon” them, and those who have the Spirit “in” them, but not “upon” them; those who are “spiritual” and those who are “carnal”; those who are filled with the Spirit,” and those who are not. All this has to do with the quality of daily life of saved people and is in no way a contrast between the saved and the unsaved. [22]

Be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18). Many have written on this verse, including its background and interpretation. We should note two salient points. First, Paul’s imperative directed toward the believer’s volition indicates the possibility of only two options, either obedience or disobedience. Once again this mandate fits the scenario of absolute states: one is either filled, or not. Second, Paul draws his contrast with wine. The issue is not control, but instrumentality. [23] The Greek mystery religions, including that of Dionysus, proposed certain means for uniting with the gods, wine being one of those means. The use of the simple dative suggests wine as the means of drunkenness, which filled the devotee with the spirit of Dionysus. [24] The parallel with the Spirit indicates a filling by means of the Spirit. The dative of “Spirit” (pneuma) rules out content, which would require a genitive of content. The Holy Spirit is not the content of the filling, the believer does not get more of the Spirit in the filling, but rather the Holy Spirit fills the believer with something. [25]

We discover the content of the filling in Colossians 3:16, a parallel passage. The apostle Paul mandates, Let the Word of Christ richly dwell within you. The results are teaching, admonishing, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, thankfulness, and transformed relationships in the home and at work (Colossians 3:16–24). Identical consequences follow the filling by means of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:19–6:9). Paul gives two seemingly distinct commands which in turn produce identical results. Comparison of these two passages yields the following.

The Holy Spirit fills the believer with the Word of God. The believer, then, walking by means of the Holy Spirit, applies the Word that transforms his thinking and life. However, the believer can choose to reject the filling of the Spirit. This is synonymous with not walking by the Spirit, at which point sin ensues. The believer is no longer abiding, having fellowship with God, walking in the light, walking by means of love, and advancing in wisdom. Instead, the believer walks according to the flesh, as a fool, and in darkness. No longer does the Holy Spirit lead him, nor does he follow in the Spirit’s footsteps. The results of this walk are the works of the flesh. Such a believer stymies the production of the fruit of the Spirit.

There is nothing mystical or magical about this process. Any believer may learn doctrine that is useable in his spiritual growth, but it has value for spiritual growth only when in right relationship with the Holy Spirit. [26] This does not involve some mystical takeover of the believer’s volition, or “letting go and letting God.” That indeed would be the result, if Paul used a genitive of content in Ephesians 5:18. However, the instrumental dative emphasizes the Holy Spirit as the ultimate means of sanctification. The idea is not control, but influence. The Spirit does not operate in a vacuum, but always in conjunction with the Word of God, the light of divine revelation. Neither works apart from the other. Emphasis on the Holy Spirit without equal emphasis on learning and applying the principles of revelation would inevitably lead the believer to a subjective mystical approach. In contrast, emphasis on study apart from the indispensable role of the Holy Spirit leads to knowledge for knowledge’s sake, a merely academic emphasis confusing human morality with spiritual growth produced by the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

This second article has built on the conclusions of the first. In the first we established from John 15 that three types of Christians exist: 1) those abiding in Christ who are young and have not yet produced fruit, 2) those abiding in Christ and in whom fruit is produced, and 3) those who do not abide in Christ and are removed in divine discipline. We demonstrated that abiding is synonymous with fellowship. In broad terms, there are only two categories of Christians, those who abide and those who do not. Paul describes the latter as carnal Christians (1 Corinthians 3:1–3).

Knowingly or not, those who interpret abiding as tantamount to believing, erect their position on a view using the vine analogy for Israel in the Old Testament as the hermeneutical grid for understanding the vine of John fifteen. This view is inconsistent with a main tenant of dispensationalism. Moreover, this interpretation rejects the notion of a permanently carnal believer. Thus, an ‘abiding is fellowship’ view and an understanding of two categories of believers is more consistent with dispensational distinctives. Dispensationalists who reject the doctrine of the carnal Christian are inconsistent with their own theological system.

Building on this understanding of ‘abiding as fellowship’ with Christ, this current article links abiding to walking by the Spirit and walking in the light. A comparison of Galatians 3:3 with Galatians 5:16 has also revealed that the believer’s post-salvation life develops or advances by dependence on the Holy Spirit. Though the Word commands each believer to walk by means of the Holy Spirit, yet one can still sin and even remain in sin for the remainder of his life.

Walking by the Holy Spirit and walking according to the flesh are mutually exclusive states. The believer either walks by means of the Spirit or not. Walking by means of the Spirit happens when the believer fills his soul with Scripture, which the Holy Spirit can recall to mind for application. Application of the truth then leads to transformed lives in which the Spirit produces the fruit of the character of Christ.

Part three of this series will investigate how a Christian disrupts his fellowship with the Holy Spirit, and how the believer recovers from walking in darkness.

--To be continued--

Notes

Free grace advocates affirm that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, that assurance of salvation can be certain in this life based on the knowledge that one has believed that Christ has died as a substitute for one’s sins. Moreover, failure to persevere does not indicate a person’s saved status. Lordship salvation is the consistent development from the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Lordship advocates affirm that salvation is by faith in Christ, but then add that genuine faith manifests discernible works in the life of the believer, the absence of which suggests a non-saving faith. Thus, one cannot truly know he has eternal life until death, since a person might eventually fall away from faith, reject Christ, and not persevere, thus indicating a non-genuine or non-saving faith.
The threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism is: a distinction between God’s plan for Israel and the Church, a consistent literal hermeneutic, and the purpose of God in human history is doxological. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 39–41.
John F. Walvoord, “The Augustinian-Dispensational View,” in Melvin E. Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, and John F. Walvoord, Five Views of Sanctification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 199–226.
Friedrich Hauck, Koinoneō, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74), 3:797.
John Niemelä, “Finding True North in 1 John,” CTS Journal 6 (July-September 2000): 39-40, shows why the first person plural of 1 John 1 relates first to John himself, then the apostolic community.
Unless otherwise noted all Scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977).
S. Lewis Johnson, “Role Distinctions in the Church, Galatians 3:28, ” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 150.
The preposition dia (“through”) with the genitive has an instrumental meaning, not a causal one in Ephesians 2:8–9. This indicates that faith is the means, not the cause of salvation.
Gerhard Delling, Epiteleō, TDNT, 8:61.
Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. Ralph P. Martin, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 103–4.
Romans 7:5 makes it clear that even the attempt to live a moral life on the basis of the Law, arouses the passions of the sin nature. Morality, therefore, is not enough to control the sin nature.
An a fortiori argument is implied. An a fortiori argument is a logical argument that reasons from an accepted greater truth to conclude the veracity of a lesser truth. If no one on the basis of the Law (human morality alone) could apply the lesser mandate of loving others as themselves, then no one on the basis of human morality can apply the superior mandate of John 13:34–35.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 721.
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 722.
“The dative of pneuma (“Spirit”) suggests both origin and instrumentality (“by the Spirit”) and, therefore, a quality of life that differs from both a nomistic and a libertine lifestyle.” Longenecker, Galatians, 244–45.
The grammatical category, dative of personal agency, does not apply here simply because the noun in the dative, the Holy Spirit, is a distinct person. The personality of the noun does not affect the grammatical categories of personal agency and impersonal means, but the noun’s grammatical function within the sentence. See Wallace, Grammar, 165–166.
Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Contrast between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5, ” BSac 123 (October-December 1966): 314.
James 1:14–15 suggests the process of sin. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Once the believer chooses to stop walking, then, and only then, does lust conceive sin.
Toussaint, “Contrast,” 312.
As stated earlier when discussing the simple dative of pneuma (“Spirit”) in Galatians 5:16, walking suggests the idea of instrumentality, but Galatians clearly presents the Spirit as the enabler, the One who produces fruit, thus instrumentality. In 1 John the idea of Light, suggests sphere, not enablement.
Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 60–62.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual: A Classic Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Spirituality, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 41.
Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18, ” BSac 136 (July-September 1979): 256. Cf. T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, ICC, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 161, for further documentation on this unexpected instrumental usage. He also comments, “But the use of en with pleroō to express the content with which a thing is filled would be quite unexampled.”
W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greeks and Their Gods (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 148–202.
For a sound discussion explaining the inadequacies of the position that this is locative, i.e., “in the [human] spirit,” see, Clifford Rapp, Jr., “Ephesians 5:18—Holy Spirit or Human Spirit?” CTS Journal 2 (Spring/ Summer 1996).
When the believer is out of fellowship, the doctrine learned is only academically perceived, and, apart from the walk by the Spirit, is not profitable for spiritual growth. To become profitable for spiritual growth the believer must first return to a walk by means of the Spirit, which is tantamount to abiding, or restoration of fellowship.