Matthew 11:11 Jesus says
“the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he
[i.e., greater than John the Baptist].”
Why are you and I
“greater” than John the Baptist?
The answer is that, as great as John was,
he never experienced the fullness of the
blessings of the
kingdom of heaven
which came through the death and especially
the
resurrection of Jesus.
John's ministry came too early in redemptive history to
permit him to participate in the
glory of the new age, which Jesus inaugurated.
Thus, the works performed
after Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father and sends the Spirit are “greater” since they will
occur in a different and more advanced phase of
God's plan of salvation, being based on
Jesus' finished work of redemption.
There Jesus appears to attribute the ability of his followers to do “greater” works to the fact that he is going “to the Father.” In the context of the Upper Room discourse (John 13-17) this clearly points us to the gift of the Holy Spirit that was dependent on his ascension to the Father's right hand
(see John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).
Up until the time that Jesus spoke these words in the upper room, no one had been forgiven of their sins based on the finished work of Jesus on the cross and the empty grave. All salvation up to this point had been in anticipation of what would eventually occur. Salvation was based on faith in the promise of a coming atonement that would forever put away sin. But once Jesus dies and rises from the dead and goes to his Father and sends the Holy Spirit, salvation is based on faith in the finished historical fact of the atonement for sin.
So, what makes the works we do “greater” is that they are done in the aftermath of the final accomplishment of redemption and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They are “greater” because they are done in an era or age that doesn’t look forward to the payment of a ransom for sin but looks backward at it. The message you preach will be the message not of a promised ransom but a paid ransom, not of a future payment for sin but a finished payment for sin. The works are “greater” because they are performed in the age of fulfillment, the age of the New Covenant, an age that transcends anything that has come before in God’s redemptive purposes.
Unlike anything that has happened up until now, says Jesus, you will do “works” that point people to a finished work of atonement and an empty grave and a risen and glorified Savior and you will do it in the fullness of the Spirit’s presence and power. On this view, these works are “greater” because of when they take place, not because of what they are. They occur in the age of the Spirit. They belong to an age of clarity and power with the ascension of Jesus and the descent of the Spirit and the institution of the New Covenant.
WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL ASK CERTAIN DISCIPLES IF THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON BELIEVING?
(ACTS 19)Baptism with the Holy Spirit – Question 22
In Acts 19, we find the Apostle Paul asking certain disciples about their reception of the Holy Spirit. The question reads as follows.
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples there and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:1, 2 NET).The King James Version translates the verse in this manner.
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1,2 KJV).Notice the first translation says “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The King James Version translates it: Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
The King James translation is not necessarily the best translation of the Greek text. It seems better for the text to read, “Having believed did you receive the Holy Spirit?” or “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” This is how most modern translations put it.
It must be admitted, however, that it is not impossible to translate the text, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit after you believed?”
Was There a Period of Time Needed?Does this account indicate that there is a period of time between salvation and the reception of the Holy Spirit? Did Paul find something lacking in their spiritual experience that would cause him to question if they had received the fullness of the Holy Spirit?
We Need to Understand the Historical SituationWhen we understand the historical situation, we find that this is not the case. The background of this episode is found in Acts 18. The Scripture says.
Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately (Acts 18:24-26 NIV).Apollos had an inadequate understanding of Jesus Christ – he knew of Jesus only as far as the ministry of John the Baptist. He knew nothing of the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord. Neither did he know about the events on the Day of Pentecost. The husband and wife team of Priscilla and Aquila explained things more accurately.
Paul Met Other Disciples with the Same BeliefsWhen Paul came to Ephesus he met other disciples who had similar beliefs as Apollos. These disciples were followers of John the Baptist. Indeed, they are not called Christians or believers in Jesus. Paul, noticing something lacking in their knowledge of Jesus Christ, asked them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed.
If they had been baptized into Jesus Christ, they would have been familiar with the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Jesus made it clear how Christian baptism was to occur.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 NKJV).Baptism is to be in the name, or authority, of the three members of the Trinity.
They Were Ignorant of the Events of Pentecost
They confessed that they were ignorant of the work of the Holy Spirit.
We read their response in the Book of Acts.
They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit”
(Acts 19:2 NRSV).
This does not mean they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. This is basically the same phrase that Jesus used in John’s gospel when He said, “the Holy Spirit is not yet given.” These disciples had not heard about the events on the Day of Pentecost that occurred some twenty years earlier. This was when the Holy Spirit was poured out in a unique way upon believers in Jesus Christ.
Paul then asked them about their baptism.
So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. (Now there were about twelve men in all.) (Acts 19:3-7 NET).These disciples had believed John’s message about the coming Messiah. They had heard about the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Yet they had not heard anything after that. While Apollos had heard about Jesus, these disciples were ignorant of the fact that Jesus Christ had even come into the world! They had heard nothing of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they had never heard the gospel message. Thus, the reason they had not received the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament sense, is that they were not Christians.
When Paul then explained to them the facts about Jesus, the One whom John had spoken of, they became believers in Christ. These disciples of John were then baptized in water and immediately received the Holy Spirit. They also spoke with tongues and prophesied. This testified to the fact that they received the Holy Spirit in the New Testament sense – with power to testify of Jesus Christ.
Paul Laid His Hands upon ThemScripture speaks of Paul laying his hands upon these believers when the Holy Spirit came upon them. This could have been when they were experiencing the act of being baptized in water or it might have happened after they were baptized. We are not told. In any case, Paul identified with these believers when he placed his hands upon them – they were now one in Jesus Christ.
Why Did Paul Ask the Question?
It is sometimes said that Paul asked these men the question about their reception of the Holy Spirit because he found something lacking in their spiritual life. Because they did not seem to have the power of the Spirit, Paul was prompted to ask them when they had received the Holy Spirit.
This Is Not an Indication of a Second BlessingHowever this is not the case at all. The fact that Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit is not an indication that the Holy Spirit comes after salvation. To the contrary, Paul knew that the lack of the Holy Spirit in their lives meant they had not come to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
To Paul, the lack of the Holy Spirit meant the lack of salvation. Paul could tell from conversing with them that they did not know about Jesus – they needed to become Christians. Therefore, the fact that Paul asked the question about the reception of the Holy Spirit refutes the idea that the Holy Spirit is given sometime after a person believes.
This Is a Case of Receiving the Holy Spirit upon Belief in JesusConsequently this was not a case of receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit after salvation; it is rather an episode of the reception of the Holy Spirit at time of salvation. There was no delay in their experience with the Holy Spirit. He indwelt them as soon as they believed in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.
Summary – Question 22
Why Did the Apostle Paul Ask Certain Disciples If They Received the Holy Spirit upon Believing?
(Acts 19)Two believers, Priscilla and Aquila, encountered a believer in the city of Ephesus named Apollos who was a follower of John the Baptist. While mighty in the Scriptures, Apollos was ignorant of all of the facets of the ministry of Jesus Christ. They took him aside and explained to Him more completely what Jesus had accomplished.
Later, Paul encountered other men in Ephesus who were disciples of John the Baptist. These disciples had not heard the message of Jesus. This caused Paul to ask them about their baptism. When they confessed they had not heard of the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ, Paul explained to them the message of salvation. Upon hearing the message they believed in Christ; the One whom John the Baptist said was to come. They are examples of people who lived in the Old Testament age that believed the promises of God but had not heard about Jesus Christ. They do not represent any example of a second work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Indeed, these men were not New Testament Christians until they met Paul. Once these individuals heard the gospel message and responded they became believers in Jesus.
Consequently, their story should not be viewed as a pattern of how the power of the Holy Spirit is received for modern-day believers. Theirs was a unique situation.
Paul describes a time when he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). He mentions himself in the third person: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.”
The word heavens can be used to refer to different realms. Heavens can refer to the sky and the earth’s atmosphere, making it the “first heaven” (Deuteronomy 11:11; Psalm 104:12; Isaiah 55:10). It can also refer to outer space, where the stars and planets are—the “second heaven” (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 13:10). And it can refer to God’s dwelling place, which is beyond the other “heavens,” a place known as the “third heaven” (Psalm 33:13–14; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 7:26; Revelation 11:19). When Paul says that he went to the third heaven, he means that he went to the place where God dwells.
Interestingly, Paul uses the phrase caught up to refer to how he was transported to heaven; it’s the same Greek word used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to refer to the rapture of the church. Following his list of “boasts” in 2 Corinthians 11:22–33, Paul further verifies his apostolic office by including his “visions and revelations from the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1). The apostle is unsure whether he was physically in the body or apart from the body when he experienced heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–3). While there, he heard and saw things that he couldn’t describe and was forbidden to relate (verse 4). Some believe this event occurred during Paul’s first missionary journey, when he was stoned and left for dead in Lystra, but we can’t be sure. The privilege of seeing heaven no doubt gave Paul courage to face his later trials and suffering (2 Corinthians 4:17).
Christians today may have not seen the third heaven as Paul did, we can be just as confident of our future in heaven because we are in Christ. The Bible does not tell us everything we might like to know about heaven, but we know that it will be a wonderful place where we will dwell with Christ (John 14:3). Paul knew that being with Christ is far better than anything he could experience on earth (Philippians 1:21–23). Until the day we eternally enter God’s presence, we can state with confidence along with the apostle Paul, “For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:7–8).
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God because of me.
The first thing to notice today is the similarity between verse 1 and verse 12 of Galatians 1. In verse 1 Paul defends his apostleship: "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead." In verse 12 he defends his gospel: "I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul's apostleship is not from man, and his gospel is not from man. On the contrary, the risen Christ—who is much more (though not less) than a man—had commissioned Paul as an apostle and had revealed to him the gospel.
The two verses are similar because for Paul the truth of his apostleship and the truth of his message stand or fall together. If Paul was no apostle, then his claim to authority and truth collapses. Likewise, if his gospel proves to be a human concoction, then he forfeits the right to be called an apostle.
Paul's Defense of His Apostleship and His GospelWhy is Paul on the defensive like this? Because, according to verse 7, "there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel." But in order to change the gospel, they had to discredit Paul's gospel, who had founded these churches and taught them the gospel in the first place. It doesn't take too much reading between the lines to see that the people in verse 7 were calling into question Paul's apostleship. Since they basically were emphasizing circumcision (5:2) and the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (4:10), they were probably Jewish Christians (in the loose sense) who had come from Jerusalem (like the men in 2:12) and who claimed to have James and Peter and John (the pillars of 2:9) as their authority. For them Paul was just a Johnny-come-lately to the apostolic band. He had not been with Jesus in his earthly ministry; and now here he was starting churches in the name of the Messiah but telling Gentiles they don't have to be circumcised or keep the feasts.
So these people (whom we will call Judaizers now) have gone out to set the Galatian churches straight. Paul may claim to be an apostle, but he is not really one; he may claim to preach the true gospel, but he only has it secondhand from the true apostles, and his version is seriously flawed. That is the situation that seems to make sense out of Paul's double defense in chapter 1: verse 1, I am an apostle, just as much as Peter, because I have seen the risen Christ, and it is he, not any mere man, who sent me to preach in his name. Verse 12, my gospel is true, as true as Peter's, because I did not learn it from any mere man secondhand, but received it just as much from Jesus as the first apostles did.
Now notice that verse 12 is an argument for verse 11. "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel (or: is not according to man). For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul is arguing in verse 12 for the truth of his preaching. His gospel is not a human concoction. It is not his own private version of something he picked up secondhand from the Jerusalem apostles. It is not, verse 11 says, "according to man." That probably means, first, that it didn't originate with man but with God. It didn't come out of Paul's head; it came out of God's heart.
In Romans 1:1 Paul identifies himself and his gospel like this: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God." Paul's gospel is from God not from man. But when verse 11 says Paul's gospel is not "according to man," it probably also means that his gospel doesn't square with natural human desires. The implication is that the Judaizers have adjusted the gospel to make it fit better with their own proud inclinations. Galatians 6:12 says, "It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ." In other words, their version of the gospel was very much "according to man." It catered to the self-assertive and self-defendant yearnings of their flesh.
Truth MattersNow pause a moment and let what's happening here sink in. Authority and truth are the central issues here. Two messages are vying for our allegiance: Paul's and the Judaizer's. According to verses 8 and 9, heaven and hell are at stake. Only one of these gospels is true. Believing the true one is the most important thing in the world for every one of us. Paul is forcing upon us the issue of truth.
So there's a lesson for us already. We should be the kind of people for whom truth matters. I stress this because I think our culture communicates just the opposite. Everywhere you turn in the media or in your personal life people are expressing opinions. Almost everybody has some gospel to share. It may be "sex over sixty" or "the joy of jogging" or "the delight of organic dieting" or "the power of intimidation and self-assertion" or a hundred other things that people get interviewed about on the radio. The world is rife with opinions about the good life.
But how often do you hear a solid statement about the basis of those opinions? Does not this barrage of unfounded opinions communicate that truth does not really matter? That one opinion is as good as the next? When was the last time you heard someone make an effort to clarify and defend his foundational understanding of reality which might make his convictions plausible? Most people probably regard this concern for well-founded truth as a stage in later adolescence that you get over after a few philosophy classes and perhaps some sleepless nights. Real adult daily life doesn't have much to do with questions of solid truth; and so most people aren't driven bananas by the thousands of unsupported opinions that pass for gospel in the media.
Let it not be so among the people of God. At least for us the question of truth must matter terribly. It must not sit well with us when people give their opinions with no concern to show that they are true because they conform to ultimate reality. You are the light of the world because you care about truth in all areas of life. You are the salt of the earth. And the tang of your seasoning is a life based on the rock of truth and not the sands of opinion.
I know that this sounds threatening, because it sounds intellectual. It sounds as if you are going to have to be able to answer every question someone asks you about your faith. But I want to encourage you that you are in a better position than you think. We have let the world intimidate us too long. You see, the world knows that we Christians believe we are in touch with ultimate truth. That is very offensive. So as soon as we begin to make claims about truth (no matter how humbly), they start doing something that they almost never do with their own philosophy of life—they start asking us critical questions. Now that's okay. We ought to try to answer them.
But here's a suggestion to keep you from feeling like they've got it all together intellectually while you are full of uncertainties. Make sure that if they probe your view of reality, you probe their view of reality. And if they ask you how you know your view is true, you ask how they know their view is true. What you will find, I think, is that as a Christian you have a grasp of reality that is more comprehensive and more coherent than theirs is. Most unbelievers (except in a tiny intellectual subculture) have never thought through the ultimate questions of life and formulated a comprehensive view of reality that governs their thought and action. And not only that, but you will find that those who have an integrating philosophy of life cannot give the kind of objective evidences for its truth that they so boldly demand from us Christians.
What I'm saying is this: just make sure that your non-Christian friend plays fair with you. It is not fair to take pot shots at life commitments from the grandstand of agnosticism and indifference. Let them come down onto the field and state their commitments (O, yes, they have commitments!) and state their underlying world view and then give the evidences. Then you will see that what you thought were only your difficulties are shared by everyone who is serious about the question of truth. In fact, you will confirm that the best reason for being a Christian is that we have fewer difficulties making sense out of all reality than does the unbeliever. So be the light of the world. Raise the question of truth when the piling up of opinions starts to darken an issue.
Paul's Former Manner of Life
Now in our text the big question is: Will Paul just fling his authority against that of the Judaizers and let the Galatians shoot in the dark about which is true? Or will he give evidence and make his case? It's clear, I think, that verses 13–24 are Paul's argument for the truth of his apostleship and his gospel. I want to spend the rest of our time looking at how he makes his case. I think you will find it relevant to your situation.
Verse 12 has said that the gospel had come to Paul by a revelation of Christ.
He stakes the truth of his gospel on the fact that the risen Christ appeared to him and commissioned him personally to preach the gospel. He begins his argument in verses 13 and 14 by recounting how unremittingly anti-Christian he was before his conversion. "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism
[NOTE: THIS IS COMMON GROUND; ANYONE COULD CHECK OUT WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO SAY],
how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers." Negatively, Paul ravaged the church ("breathing out threats and murder," says Acts 9:1, throwing men and women into prison). Positively, he was one of the most rigorous Pharisees of his day. Behind both achievements was the unsurpassed zeal for the Pharisaic traditions inherited from the fathers. Christianity offered salvation by faith in Christ and so relativised the ordinances that Paul was devoting his life to. For example, circumcision was optional. The very meaning of his existence was at stake. So he lashed out with all his might.
Now why does he tell this to the Galatians here? What's the point of this little piece of ugly biography? Notice verse 13 begins with "for." This account in verses 13 and 14 is an argument that his gospel came from Christ, not man. How does the argument work? There is a clue in verses 22–24, "I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.' And they glorified God because of me." Paul closes the unit by pointing out how complete and astonishing his conversion was. From persecutor, to preacher. From one ready to kill Christians, to one ready to be killed as a Christian. From one who heard in the Christian message a threat to everything he stood for, to one who now had a vision of the gospel that blew his Pharisaism to smithereens. What happened? How do we account for such an astonishing reversal? Or to be more precise, as Paul put the question, was the grasp of the gospel that revolutionized Paul's life a work of man or a work of God? Did Paul somehow in those days of persecution get attracted to the apostles in Jerusalem and then go off on his own and botch their message? Or did Jesus Christ, alive from the dead, meet Paul on the Damascus road, manifest to him the truth of the gospel, and call him into service as an apostle?
The reason Paul describes his pre-conversion life is to show how utterly improbable it is that he could ever have been allured into the ranks of the apostles by any human effort. The apostles were his arch-enemies. Paul argues that there is only one adequate explanation of how he came to devote his life to the Christ he hated and how he came to preach a gospel that overturned his whole life of Pharisaic pride: verse 15, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles . . . " Paul's explanation is that Christ appeared to him. "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4). "Rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and to bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:16–18).
Every effect in the world must have an adequate cause. And Paul argues that to try to explain the change from his pre-conversion persecution to his post-conversion passion for the gospel merely by the work of men is to grasp at a straw. He knew that he had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned to preach; and the only way he could verify that experience for others is to point to its effects. They are remarkable, indeed. In fact, all things considered, the argument should persuade the Galatians and us that Paul's gospel did come by revelation and is not "according to man" (v. 11).
Paul Did Not Confer with Flesh and BloodBut to tighten the case further, Paul sketches in verse 16ff. what he did after his encounter with Christ. No one should get the idea that the vision of Christ simply said: "Go study with the apostles." Paul says he did not confer with flesh and blood or go up to study with the apostles. He went to Arabia! Then he returned to Damascus. Then, only after three years, after his gospel had probably taken definitive shape, Paul went up to Jerusalem to get to know Peter. During his fifteen-day stay in Jerusalem he did not see the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Paul's point is that three years of meditation and ministry on his own immediately after his revelation from Christ, followed by a mere fifteen-day visit to Peter cannot possibly support the Judaizers' apparent contention that he was a secondhand disciple of the Jerusalem apostles. The point is that he was an independent witness.
Even more, in verse 22 Paul says that the churches in Judea do not know him personally. The point here is: If Paul had been an understudy of the apostles in Jerusalem, these are precisely the churches where he would have worked. But they don't even know him. Therefore, the whole attempt of the Judaizers to discredit Paul's independent apostleship is a failure. On the basis of evidence which the Galatians could check out, Paul makes a compelling case that his amazing 180° turn from persecutor to apostle can only be explained by a revelation and commission from Jesus Christ. Therefore, his apostleship is "not from men or through man" (as verse 1 says), and his gospel (as verse 12 says) "he did not receive from man, nor was he taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Therefore, the point of verse 11 is well established: "This is not man's gospel." It is God's gospel: good news that comes from God and accords with his great heart of holiness and love.
I close with a story from Jesus' life (Matthew 21:23–27). In the last week of his life in Jerusalem the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him and asked, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" And Jesus answered, "I will ask you a question, and if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?" This morning Jesus puts it like this: "The gospel Paul preaches—is it from heaven or is it from men?" Jesus is asking you that question as personally as though it were just him and you in this room.
The chief priests and elders said to themselves, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say, 'Why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' we are afraid of the multitude, because they think John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Some of you do not come to Christ because you have a question for God he must answer first. But God will not be badgered from the grandstand of agnosticism and indifference. This morning he says, Come down on the field and get serious with me. I have a question for you. Tell me the answer to my question, and I will answer yours. The gospel which Paul preaches—salvation by grace through faith in Christ to the glory of God—is it from heaven or from men?
It is surprising to me that Paul would say, "Christ did not send me to baptize," when, in fact, one of the last things Jesus said to his disciples was, "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In order to understand what Paul meant by denying he was sent to baptize, we need to answer four questions:
Here Paul assumes that all believers have experienced baptism and that they have been instructed about its meaning. Another example is Paul's letter to the Colossians, chapter 2, verse 12, when he says to all the Christians, "You were buried with Christ in baptism in which you were also raised through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead." Here again Paul does not treat baptism as an option that some believers choose and others don't. He assumes that this was the act by which people expressed their faith and entered into salvation. (I should mention in passing that the phrase "through faith" in Colossians 2:12 is one of the main reasons I practice believer's baptism and not infant baptism.) It appears, therefore, from Paul's letters that he did not oppose but approved baptism and based some of his teaching on it.
The same thing turns up in the book of Acts which records Paul's missionary work. First of all, Paul himself was baptized after his conversion. Acts 9:18 says: "Paul regained his sight; then he rose and was baptized and took food and was strengthened." The several incidents from Paul's missionary journeys show that Paul did not discourage his converts from being baptized, but on the contrary encouraged them. In Acts 16 Paul preaches in Philippi, and verses 14 and 15 describe what happened to a woman named Lydia: "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul, and she was baptized and also her household."
The same chapter records how Paul was soon thrown into prison in Philippi and how there was an earthquake that opened the doors and gave Paul and Silas an occasion to lead the jailer to Christ right there in the middle of the night. Listen to the way it happened (verses 30–33): "'Men, what must I do to be saved?' (the jailer said). And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And the jailer took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds and was baptized at once with all his family." This event shows that Paul believed quite strongly in seeing that his converts were baptized—and quickly too.
But could it be that the church Paul started in Corinth was different, and that's why Paul wrote them and said, "I baptized hardly any of you"? In Acts 18:11 we learn that Paul worked in Corinth about a year and a half, and verse 8 says, "Many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized." So Corinth was not different from all the other places Paul went: his converts were always baptized.
But the interesting thing in Acts is that never do we read that Paul himself did the baptizing. This fits with what he tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:14, namely, that he baptized only a handful of his many converts. He is thankful that he did not make a practice of baptizing his converts.
Why Didn't Paul Baptize His Own Converts?
2) This brings us to our second question: Why, did Paul not make it a practice to baptize all his new converts? Why did he evidently let Timothy, or Silas, or Luke do the actual immersing in water? The answer Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 1:15 is this: I avoid doing the baptizing myself, so that none of my converts will be tempted to say they were baptized in my name. What lies behind this concern?
Paul had a tremendous authority in the early church. He had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned by him to teach the churches. There was a risk, therefore, that he be idolized and that people become proud of being Paul's converts. And apparently this misplaced pride had begun to spread in the Corinthian church, and factions formed saying, "'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas.'" The body of Christ at Corinth was being torn asunder by the boasting of different factions in their favorite teacher.
Paul wants to stop this boasting and the divisions it was causing. So he says in 3:5, "What is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." Then in 3:21 he draws the inference.
"So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." In other words, as he says in 1:31,
"Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Paul tried hard not to do anything that would distract
attention from the Lord Jesus Christ
and from the power of his cross (1:17).
And it may be that he discovered early in his ministry that when he baptized his own converts, they were tempted to boast about that. So he left almost all the baptizing for his associates to do, in order to direct attention away from himself to Christ.
What Was the Goal of Paul's Mission?
3) And that brings us to our third question:
What was the goal of Paul's mission? He said,
"Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
and not with eloquent wisdom,
lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
Baptism Paul could hand over to an associate,
but not
The preaching of the
Its the receiving of the
Gospel Message
that is the gateway
for
Christs Sanctifying Work
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe;
which is ACT of belief Conversion, not a Word or statement
of acknowledgment
baptism is a symbolic expression of that belief.
The gospel is the good news that anyone who receives Christ as Savior and Lord will be saved. Baptism is an appeal to God for that salvation.
Therefore, the preaching of the gospel is primary,
and the work of Christ on the cross is vastly more important than the
work of any man in baptism.
Paul's mission was to magnify Christ and to save men by
preaching the gospel.
And he was willing to give up anything that hindered that mission.
“the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he
[i.e., greater than John the Baptist].”
Why are you and I
“greater” than John the Baptist?
The answer is that, as great as John was,
he never experienced the fullness of the
blessings of the
kingdom of heaven
which came through the death and especially
the
resurrection of Jesus.
John's ministry came too early in redemptive history to
permit him to participate in the
glory of the new age, which Jesus inaugurated.
Thus, the works performed
after Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father and sends the Spirit are “greater” since they will
occur in a different and more advanced phase of
God's plan of salvation, being based on
Jesus' finished work of redemption.
There Jesus appears to attribute the ability of his followers to do “greater” works to the fact that he is going “to the Father.” In the context of the Upper Room discourse (John 13-17) this clearly points us to the gift of the Holy Spirit that was dependent on his ascension to the Father's right hand
(see John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).
Up until the time that Jesus spoke these words in the upper room, no one had been forgiven of their sins based on the finished work of Jesus on the cross and the empty grave. All salvation up to this point had been in anticipation of what would eventually occur. Salvation was based on faith in the promise of a coming atonement that would forever put away sin. But once Jesus dies and rises from the dead and goes to his Father and sends the Holy Spirit, salvation is based on faith in the finished historical fact of the atonement for sin.
So, what makes the works we do “greater” is that they are done in the aftermath of the final accomplishment of redemption and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They are “greater” because they are done in an era or age that doesn’t look forward to the payment of a ransom for sin but looks backward at it. The message you preach will be the message not of a promised ransom but a paid ransom, not of a future payment for sin but a finished payment for sin. The works are “greater” because they are performed in the age of fulfillment, the age of the New Covenant, an age that transcends anything that has come before in God’s redemptive purposes.
Unlike anything that has happened up until now, says Jesus, you will do “works” that point people to a finished work of atonement and an empty grave and a risen and glorified Savior and you will do it in the fullness of the Spirit’s presence and power. On this view, these works are “greater” because of when they take place, not because of what they are. They occur in the age of the Spirit. They belong to an age of clarity and power with the ascension of Jesus and the descent of the Spirit and the institution of the New Covenant.
WHY DID THE APOSTLE PAUL ASK CERTAIN DISCIPLES IF THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON BELIEVING?
(ACTS 19)Baptism with the Holy Spirit – Question 22
In Acts 19, we find the Apostle Paul asking certain disciples about their reception of the Holy Spirit. The question reads as follows.
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples there and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:1, 2 NET).The King James Version translates the verse in this manner.
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1,2 KJV).Notice the first translation says “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The King James Version translates it: Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
The King James translation is not necessarily the best translation of the Greek text. It seems better for the text to read, “Having believed did you receive the Holy Spirit?” or “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” This is how most modern translations put it.
It must be admitted, however, that it is not impossible to translate the text, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit after you believed?”
Was There a Period of Time Needed?Does this account indicate that there is a period of time between salvation and the reception of the Holy Spirit? Did Paul find something lacking in their spiritual experience that would cause him to question if they had received the fullness of the Holy Spirit?
We Need to Understand the Historical SituationWhen we understand the historical situation, we find that this is not the case. The background of this episode is found in Acts 18. The Scripture says.
Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately (Acts 18:24-26 NIV).Apollos had an inadequate understanding of Jesus Christ – he knew of Jesus only as far as the ministry of John the Baptist. He knew nothing of the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord. Neither did he know about the events on the Day of Pentecost. The husband and wife team of Priscilla and Aquila explained things more accurately.
Paul Met Other Disciples with the Same BeliefsWhen Paul came to Ephesus he met other disciples who had similar beliefs as Apollos. These disciples were followers of John the Baptist. Indeed, they are not called Christians or believers in Jesus. Paul, noticing something lacking in their knowledge of Jesus Christ, asked them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed.
If they had been baptized into Jesus Christ, they would have been familiar with the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Jesus made it clear how Christian baptism was to occur.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 NKJV).Baptism is to be in the name, or authority, of the three members of the Trinity.
They Were Ignorant of the Events of Pentecost
They confessed that they were ignorant of the work of the Holy Spirit.
We read their response in the Book of Acts.
They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit”
(Acts 19:2 NRSV).
This does not mean they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. This is basically the same phrase that Jesus used in John’s gospel when He said, “the Holy Spirit is not yet given.” These disciples had not heard about the events on the Day of Pentecost that occurred some twenty years earlier. This was when the Holy Spirit was poured out in a unique way upon believers in Jesus Christ.
Paul then asked them about their baptism.
So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. (Now there were about twelve men in all.) (Acts 19:3-7 NET).These disciples had believed John’s message about the coming Messiah. They had heard about the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Yet they had not heard anything after that. While Apollos had heard about Jesus, these disciples were ignorant of the fact that Jesus Christ had even come into the world! They had heard nothing of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they had never heard the gospel message. Thus, the reason they had not received the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament sense, is that they were not Christians.
When Paul then explained to them the facts about Jesus, the One whom John had spoken of, they became believers in Christ. These disciples of John were then baptized in water and immediately received the Holy Spirit. They also spoke with tongues and prophesied. This testified to the fact that they received the Holy Spirit in the New Testament sense – with power to testify of Jesus Christ.
Paul Laid His Hands upon ThemScripture speaks of Paul laying his hands upon these believers when the Holy Spirit came upon them. This could have been when they were experiencing the act of being baptized in water or it might have happened after they were baptized. We are not told. In any case, Paul identified with these believers when he placed his hands upon them – they were now one in Jesus Christ.
Why Did Paul Ask the Question?
It is sometimes said that Paul asked these men the question about their reception of the Holy Spirit because he found something lacking in their spiritual life. Because they did not seem to have the power of the Spirit, Paul was prompted to ask them when they had received the Holy Spirit.
This Is Not an Indication of a Second BlessingHowever this is not the case at all. The fact that Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit is not an indication that the Holy Spirit comes after salvation. To the contrary, Paul knew that the lack of the Holy Spirit in their lives meant they had not come to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
To Paul, the lack of the Holy Spirit meant the lack of salvation. Paul could tell from conversing with them that they did not know about Jesus – they needed to become Christians. Therefore, the fact that Paul asked the question about the reception of the Holy Spirit refutes the idea that the Holy Spirit is given sometime after a person believes.
This Is a Case of Receiving the Holy Spirit upon Belief in JesusConsequently this was not a case of receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit after salvation; it is rather an episode of the reception of the Holy Spirit at time of salvation. There was no delay in their experience with the Holy Spirit. He indwelt them as soon as they believed in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.
Summary – Question 22
Why Did the Apostle Paul Ask Certain Disciples If They Received the Holy Spirit upon Believing?
(Acts 19)Two believers, Priscilla and Aquila, encountered a believer in the city of Ephesus named Apollos who was a follower of John the Baptist. While mighty in the Scriptures, Apollos was ignorant of all of the facets of the ministry of Jesus Christ. They took him aside and explained to Him more completely what Jesus had accomplished.
Later, Paul encountered other men in Ephesus who were disciples of John the Baptist. These disciples had not heard the message of Jesus. This caused Paul to ask them about their baptism. When they confessed they had not heard of the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ, Paul explained to them the message of salvation. Upon hearing the message they believed in Christ; the One whom John the Baptist said was to come. They are examples of people who lived in the Old Testament age that believed the promises of God but had not heard about Jesus Christ. They do not represent any example of a second work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Indeed, these men were not New Testament Christians until they met Paul. Once these individuals heard the gospel message and responded they became believers in Jesus.
Consequently, their story should not be viewed as a pattern of how the power of the Holy Spirit is received for modern-day believers. Theirs was a unique situation.
Paul describes a time when he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). He mentions himself in the third person: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.”
The word heavens can be used to refer to different realms. Heavens can refer to the sky and the earth’s atmosphere, making it the “first heaven” (Deuteronomy 11:11; Psalm 104:12; Isaiah 55:10). It can also refer to outer space, where the stars and planets are—the “second heaven” (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 13:10). And it can refer to God’s dwelling place, which is beyond the other “heavens,” a place known as the “third heaven” (Psalm 33:13–14; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 7:26; Revelation 11:19). When Paul says that he went to the third heaven, he means that he went to the place where God dwells.
Interestingly, Paul uses the phrase caught up to refer to how he was transported to heaven; it’s the same Greek word used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to refer to the rapture of the church. Following his list of “boasts” in 2 Corinthians 11:22–33, Paul further verifies his apostolic office by including his “visions and revelations from the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1). The apostle is unsure whether he was physically in the body or apart from the body when he experienced heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–3). While there, he heard and saw things that he couldn’t describe and was forbidden to relate (verse 4). Some believe this event occurred during Paul’s first missionary journey, when he was stoned and left for dead in Lystra, but we can’t be sure. The privilege of seeing heaven no doubt gave Paul courage to face his later trials and suffering (2 Corinthians 4:17).
Christians today may have not seen the third heaven as Paul did, we can be just as confident of our future in heaven because we are in Christ. The Bible does not tell us everything we might like to know about heaven, but we know that it will be a wonderful place where we will dwell with Christ (John 14:3). Paul knew that being with Christ is far better than anything he could experience on earth (Philippians 1:21–23). Until the day we eternally enter God’s presence, we can state with confidence along with the apostle Paul, “For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:7–8).
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God because of me.
The first thing to notice today is the similarity between verse 1 and verse 12 of Galatians 1. In verse 1 Paul defends his apostleship: "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead." In verse 12 he defends his gospel: "I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul's apostleship is not from man, and his gospel is not from man. On the contrary, the risen Christ—who is much more (though not less) than a man—had commissioned Paul as an apostle and had revealed to him the gospel.
The two verses are similar because for Paul the truth of his apostleship and the truth of his message stand or fall together. If Paul was no apostle, then his claim to authority and truth collapses. Likewise, if his gospel proves to be a human concoction, then he forfeits the right to be called an apostle.
Paul's Defense of His Apostleship and His GospelWhy is Paul on the defensive like this? Because, according to verse 7, "there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel." But in order to change the gospel, they had to discredit Paul's gospel, who had founded these churches and taught them the gospel in the first place. It doesn't take too much reading between the lines to see that the people in verse 7 were calling into question Paul's apostleship. Since they basically were emphasizing circumcision (5:2) and the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (4:10), they were probably Jewish Christians (in the loose sense) who had come from Jerusalem (like the men in 2:12) and who claimed to have James and Peter and John (the pillars of 2:9) as their authority. For them Paul was just a Johnny-come-lately to the apostolic band. He had not been with Jesus in his earthly ministry; and now here he was starting churches in the name of the Messiah but telling Gentiles they don't have to be circumcised or keep the feasts.
So these people (whom we will call Judaizers now) have gone out to set the Galatian churches straight. Paul may claim to be an apostle, but he is not really one; he may claim to preach the true gospel, but he only has it secondhand from the true apostles, and his version is seriously flawed. That is the situation that seems to make sense out of Paul's double defense in chapter 1: verse 1, I am an apostle, just as much as Peter, because I have seen the risen Christ, and it is he, not any mere man, who sent me to preach in his name. Verse 12, my gospel is true, as true as Peter's, because I did not learn it from any mere man secondhand, but received it just as much from Jesus as the first apostles did.
Now notice that verse 12 is an argument for verse 11. "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel (or: is not according to man). For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul is arguing in verse 12 for the truth of his preaching. His gospel is not a human concoction. It is not his own private version of something he picked up secondhand from the Jerusalem apostles. It is not, verse 11 says, "according to man." That probably means, first, that it didn't originate with man but with God. It didn't come out of Paul's head; it came out of God's heart.
In Romans 1:1 Paul identifies himself and his gospel like this: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God." Paul's gospel is from God not from man. But when verse 11 says Paul's gospel is not "according to man," it probably also means that his gospel doesn't square with natural human desires. The implication is that the Judaizers have adjusted the gospel to make it fit better with their own proud inclinations. Galatians 6:12 says, "It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ." In other words, their version of the gospel was very much "according to man." It catered to the self-assertive and self-defendant yearnings of their flesh.
Truth MattersNow pause a moment and let what's happening here sink in. Authority and truth are the central issues here. Two messages are vying for our allegiance: Paul's and the Judaizer's. According to verses 8 and 9, heaven and hell are at stake. Only one of these gospels is true. Believing the true one is the most important thing in the world for every one of us. Paul is forcing upon us the issue of truth.
So there's a lesson for us already. We should be the kind of people for whom truth matters. I stress this because I think our culture communicates just the opposite. Everywhere you turn in the media or in your personal life people are expressing opinions. Almost everybody has some gospel to share. It may be "sex over sixty" or "the joy of jogging" or "the delight of organic dieting" or "the power of intimidation and self-assertion" or a hundred other things that people get interviewed about on the radio. The world is rife with opinions about the good life.
But how often do you hear a solid statement about the basis of those opinions? Does not this barrage of unfounded opinions communicate that truth does not really matter? That one opinion is as good as the next? When was the last time you heard someone make an effort to clarify and defend his foundational understanding of reality which might make his convictions plausible? Most people probably regard this concern for well-founded truth as a stage in later adolescence that you get over after a few philosophy classes and perhaps some sleepless nights. Real adult daily life doesn't have much to do with questions of solid truth; and so most people aren't driven bananas by the thousands of unsupported opinions that pass for gospel in the media.
Let it not be so among the people of God. At least for us the question of truth must matter terribly. It must not sit well with us when people give their opinions with no concern to show that they are true because they conform to ultimate reality. You are the light of the world because you care about truth in all areas of life. You are the salt of the earth. And the tang of your seasoning is a life based on the rock of truth and not the sands of opinion.
I know that this sounds threatening, because it sounds intellectual. It sounds as if you are going to have to be able to answer every question someone asks you about your faith. But I want to encourage you that you are in a better position than you think. We have let the world intimidate us too long. You see, the world knows that we Christians believe we are in touch with ultimate truth. That is very offensive. So as soon as we begin to make claims about truth (no matter how humbly), they start doing something that they almost never do with their own philosophy of life—they start asking us critical questions. Now that's okay. We ought to try to answer them.
But here's a suggestion to keep you from feeling like they've got it all together intellectually while you are full of uncertainties. Make sure that if they probe your view of reality, you probe their view of reality. And if they ask you how you know your view is true, you ask how they know their view is true. What you will find, I think, is that as a Christian you have a grasp of reality that is more comprehensive and more coherent than theirs is. Most unbelievers (except in a tiny intellectual subculture) have never thought through the ultimate questions of life and formulated a comprehensive view of reality that governs their thought and action. And not only that, but you will find that those who have an integrating philosophy of life cannot give the kind of objective evidences for its truth that they so boldly demand from us Christians.
What I'm saying is this: just make sure that your non-Christian friend plays fair with you. It is not fair to take pot shots at life commitments from the grandstand of agnosticism and indifference. Let them come down onto the field and state their commitments (O, yes, they have commitments!) and state their underlying world view and then give the evidences. Then you will see that what you thought were only your difficulties are shared by everyone who is serious about the question of truth. In fact, you will confirm that the best reason for being a Christian is that we have fewer difficulties making sense out of all reality than does the unbeliever. So be the light of the world. Raise the question of truth when the piling up of opinions starts to darken an issue.
Paul's Former Manner of Life
Now in our text the big question is: Will Paul just fling his authority against that of the Judaizers and let the Galatians shoot in the dark about which is true? Or will he give evidence and make his case? It's clear, I think, that verses 13–24 are Paul's argument for the truth of his apostleship and his gospel. I want to spend the rest of our time looking at how he makes his case. I think you will find it relevant to your situation.
Verse 12 has said that the gospel had come to Paul by a revelation of Christ.
He stakes the truth of his gospel on the fact that the risen Christ appeared to him and commissioned him personally to preach the gospel. He begins his argument in verses 13 and 14 by recounting how unremittingly anti-Christian he was before his conversion. "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism
[NOTE: THIS IS COMMON GROUND; ANYONE COULD CHECK OUT WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO SAY],
how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers." Negatively, Paul ravaged the church ("breathing out threats and murder," says Acts 9:1, throwing men and women into prison). Positively, he was one of the most rigorous Pharisees of his day. Behind both achievements was the unsurpassed zeal for the Pharisaic traditions inherited from the fathers. Christianity offered salvation by faith in Christ and so relativised the ordinances that Paul was devoting his life to. For example, circumcision was optional. The very meaning of his existence was at stake. So he lashed out with all his might.
Now why does he tell this to the Galatians here? What's the point of this little piece of ugly biography? Notice verse 13 begins with "for." This account in verses 13 and 14 is an argument that his gospel came from Christ, not man. How does the argument work? There is a clue in verses 22–24, "I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.' And they glorified God because of me." Paul closes the unit by pointing out how complete and astonishing his conversion was. From persecutor, to preacher. From one ready to kill Christians, to one ready to be killed as a Christian. From one who heard in the Christian message a threat to everything he stood for, to one who now had a vision of the gospel that blew his Pharisaism to smithereens. What happened? How do we account for such an astonishing reversal? Or to be more precise, as Paul put the question, was the grasp of the gospel that revolutionized Paul's life a work of man or a work of God? Did Paul somehow in those days of persecution get attracted to the apostles in Jerusalem and then go off on his own and botch their message? Or did Jesus Christ, alive from the dead, meet Paul on the Damascus road, manifest to him the truth of the gospel, and call him into service as an apostle?
The reason Paul describes his pre-conversion life is to show how utterly improbable it is that he could ever have been allured into the ranks of the apostles by any human effort. The apostles were his arch-enemies. Paul argues that there is only one adequate explanation of how he came to devote his life to the Christ he hated and how he came to preach a gospel that overturned his whole life of Pharisaic pride: verse 15, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles . . . " Paul's explanation is that Christ appeared to him. "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4). "Rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and to bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:16–18).
Every effect in the world must have an adequate cause. And Paul argues that to try to explain the change from his pre-conversion persecution to his post-conversion passion for the gospel merely by the work of men is to grasp at a straw. He knew that he had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned to preach; and the only way he could verify that experience for others is to point to its effects. They are remarkable, indeed. In fact, all things considered, the argument should persuade the Galatians and us that Paul's gospel did come by revelation and is not "according to man" (v. 11).
Paul Did Not Confer with Flesh and BloodBut to tighten the case further, Paul sketches in verse 16ff. what he did after his encounter with Christ. No one should get the idea that the vision of Christ simply said: "Go study with the apostles." Paul says he did not confer with flesh and blood or go up to study with the apostles. He went to Arabia! Then he returned to Damascus. Then, only after three years, after his gospel had probably taken definitive shape, Paul went up to Jerusalem to get to know Peter. During his fifteen-day stay in Jerusalem he did not see the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Paul's point is that three years of meditation and ministry on his own immediately after his revelation from Christ, followed by a mere fifteen-day visit to Peter cannot possibly support the Judaizers' apparent contention that he was a secondhand disciple of the Jerusalem apostles. The point is that he was an independent witness.
Even more, in verse 22 Paul says that the churches in Judea do not know him personally. The point here is: If Paul had been an understudy of the apostles in Jerusalem, these are precisely the churches where he would have worked. But they don't even know him. Therefore, the whole attempt of the Judaizers to discredit Paul's independent apostleship is a failure. On the basis of evidence which the Galatians could check out, Paul makes a compelling case that his amazing 180° turn from persecutor to apostle can only be explained by a revelation and commission from Jesus Christ. Therefore, his apostleship is "not from men or through man" (as verse 1 says), and his gospel (as verse 12 says) "he did not receive from man, nor was he taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Therefore, the point of verse 11 is well established: "This is not man's gospel." It is God's gospel: good news that comes from God and accords with his great heart of holiness and love.
I close with a story from Jesus' life (Matthew 21:23–27). In the last week of his life in Jerusalem the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him and asked, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" And Jesus answered, "I will ask you a question, and if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?" This morning Jesus puts it like this: "The gospel Paul preaches—is it from heaven or is it from men?" Jesus is asking you that question as personally as though it were just him and you in this room.
The chief priests and elders said to themselves, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say, 'Why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' we are afraid of the multitude, because they think John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Some of you do not come to Christ because you have a question for God he must answer first. But God will not be badgered from the grandstand of agnosticism and indifference. This morning he says, Come down on the field and get serious with me. I have a question for you. Tell me the answer to my question, and I will answer yours. The gospel which Paul preaches—salvation by grace through faith in Christ to the glory of God—is it from heaven or from men?
It is surprising to me that Paul would say, "Christ did not send me to baptize," when, in fact, one of the last things Jesus said to his disciples was, "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." In order to understand what Paul meant by denying he was sent to baptize, we need to answer four questions:
- Did Paul oppose baptism or try to discourage converts from being baptized?
- Why did Paul not make it a practice to baptize all his new converts?
- What was the goal of Paul's mission?
- What does all this imply about our view of baptism?
Here Paul assumes that all believers have experienced baptism and that they have been instructed about its meaning. Another example is Paul's letter to the Colossians, chapter 2, verse 12, when he says to all the Christians, "You were buried with Christ in baptism in which you were also raised through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead." Here again Paul does not treat baptism as an option that some believers choose and others don't. He assumes that this was the act by which people expressed their faith and entered into salvation. (I should mention in passing that the phrase "through faith" in Colossians 2:12 is one of the main reasons I practice believer's baptism and not infant baptism.) It appears, therefore, from Paul's letters that he did not oppose but approved baptism and based some of his teaching on it.
The same thing turns up in the book of Acts which records Paul's missionary work. First of all, Paul himself was baptized after his conversion. Acts 9:18 says: "Paul regained his sight; then he rose and was baptized and took food and was strengthened." The several incidents from Paul's missionary journeys show that Paul did not discourage his converts from being baptized, but on the contrary encouraged them. In Acts 16 Paul preaches in Philippi, and verses 14 and 15 describe what happened to a woman named Lydia: "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul, and she was baptized and also her household."
The same chapter records how Paul was soon thrown into prison in Philippi and how there was an earthquake that opened the doors and gave Paul and Silas an occasion to lead the jailer to Christ right there in the middle of the night. Listen to the way it happened (verses 30–33): "'Men, what must I do to be saved?' (the jailer said). And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And the jailer took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds and was baptized at once with all his family." This event shows that Paul believed quite strongly in seeing that his converts were baptized—and quickly too.
But could it be that the church Paul started in Corinth was different, and that's why Paul wrote them and said, "I baptized hardly any of you"? In Acts 18:11 we learn that Paul worked in Corinth about a year and a half, and verse 8 says, "Many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized." So Corinth was not different from all the other places Paul went: his converts were always baptized.
But the interesting thing in Acts is that never do we read that Paul himself did the baptizing. This fits with what he tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:14, namely, that he baptized only a handful of his many converts. He is thankful that he did not make a practice of baptizing his converts.
Why Didn't Paul Baptize His Own Converts?
2) This brings us to our second question: Why, did Paul not make it a practice to baptize all his new converts? Why did he evidently let Timothy, or Silas, or Luke do the actual immersing in water? The answer Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 1:15 is this: I avoid doing the baptizing myself, so that none of my converts will be tempted to say they were baptized in my name. What lies behind this concern?
Paul had a tremendous authority in the early church. He had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned by him to teach the churches. There was a risk, therefore, that he be idolized and that people become proud of being Paul's converts. And apparently this misplaced pride had begun to spread in the Corinthian church, and factions formed saying, "'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas.'" The body of Christ at Corinth was being torn asunder by the boasting of different factions in their favorite teacher.
Paul wants to stop this boasting and the divisions it was causing. So he says in 3:5, "What is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." Then in 3:21 he draws the inference.
"So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." In other words, as he says in 1:31,
"Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Paul tried hard not to do anything that would distract
attention from the Lord Jesus Christ
and from the power of his cross (1:17).
And it may be that he discovered early in his ministry that when he baptized his own converts, they were tempted to boast about that. So he left almost all the baptizing for his associates to do, in order to direct attention away from himself to Christ.
What Was the Goal of Paul's Mission?
3) And that brings us to our third question:
What was the goal of Paul's mission? He said,
"Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
and not with eloquent wisdom,
lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."
Baptism Paul could hand over to an associate,
but not
The preaching of the
Its the receiving of the
Gospel Message
that is the gateway
for
Christs Sanctifying Work
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe;
which is ACT of belief Conversion, not a Word or statement
of acknowledgment
baptism is a symbolic expression of that belief.
The gospel is the good news that anyone who receives Christ as Savior and Lord will be saved. Baptism is an appeal to God for that salvation.
Therefore, the preaching of the gospel is primary,
and the work of Christ on the cross is vastly more important than the
work of any man in baptism.
Paul's mission was to magnify Christ and to save men by
preaching the gospel.
And he was willing to give up anything that hindered that mission.
RSS Feed
