APOSTLES AND PROPHETS

THIS STATEMENT ON APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WAS APPROVED AS THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD ON AUGUST 6, 2001

Apostles and Prophets

Modern church statisticians cite the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal movement and report that Pentecostals and charismatics now make up the second largest Christian group in the world. Pentecostals stand in awe of what God has done and attribute such amazing expansion to their simple trust in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, which continues to be at work in the church today.

The rapid advance of the Pentecostal revival has also been accompanied by a new openness to the gifts of the Spirit. The evangelical world increasingly has turned from cessationism, the belief gifts of the Spirit ceased at the end of the New Testament era, to an understanding that New Testament gifts of the Holy Spirit are vital for ministry today.

With the restoration of the miraculous gifts to the Church has also come the question of whether God is restoring the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.”¹ Bible scholars differ on whether the gifts of pastor and teacher are separate in Ephesians 4 (yielding a total of five), or whether a better translation might be “ . . . and some to be pastor-teachers” (yielding a total of four). Greek grammar would seem to dictate four, but the New Testament often discusses pastoral and teaching roles separately.

However, the best designation for ministry is neither fivefold nor fourfold but manifold. Ephesians 4:12 gives to all saints the work of ministry, while 1 Corinthians 12:28–30 and Romans 12:6–8 provide aspects of ministry beyond the designations in Ephesians 4:11,12.

Relatively few questions are raised about the validity of contemporary evangelists, pastors, and teachers. However, there are a number of voices in the church today calling for the restoration of apostles and prophets, thinking these offices are the key to continued growth and vitality. The issue is important, and this paper is an effort to seek scriptural guidance.

The Apostolic Church

Some advocate the recognition of contemporary apostles and use the term apostolic. They believe church bodies that do so have moved closer to the New Testament ideal of ministry.

Historically, the adjective apostolic has been used to signify (1) church bodies that attempt to trace a succession of their clergy back to the original 12 apostles, as do the Catholic and Episcopal churches; (2) Oneness, or Jesus-Only, Pentecostal churches, who since the early 20th century have used the description “Apostolic Faith” (previously used by Trinitarian Pentecostals such as Charles F. Parham and William J. Seymour) to designate their distinctive doctrines; (3) churches that claim God has raised up present-day apostles in their midst (“New Apostolic” and “Fivefold” churches); or (4) churches, including most Protestant groups, that claim to be apostolic because they teach what the apostles taught; that is, New Testament doctrine. Therefore, most Christian denominations think of themselves, in one sense or another, as apostolic.

Pentecostal churches believe they are apostolic because (1) they teach what the apostles taught, and (2) they share in the power of the apostles through the baptism in and fullness of the Holy Spirit, who empowers their lives and ministries. They believe what matters is not a contemporary apostolic office but apostolic doctrine and power.

The New Testament Apostles

The origin of the apostolic office is traced in the Gospels to Jesus. The Gospel of Mark reads, “[Jesus] appointed twelve—designating them apostles—that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons” (Mark 3:14,15). Matthew and Luke contain similar attributions (cf. Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13). The number 12 seems to have had significance, so the most common title for this group in the Gospels is “the Twelve” rather than “the Apostles” (cf. Matthew 26:14,20,47; Mark 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; Luke 8:1; 9:1; 18:31; John 6:67; 20:24). The designation “the Twelve” also continued in the life of the Early Church through the writings of Luke (Acts 6:2) and the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5). In addition, Jesus himself is called by the writer to the Hebrews “the apostle and high priest whom we confess,” (Hebrews 3:1).

The word apostle comes from the Greek apostolos² and may be translated by such terms as delegate, envoy, messenger, or agent.³ Since Jesus probably spoke Hebrew or Aramaic rather than Greek, it is possible the Hebrew/Aramaic shaliach also means much the same as apostolos. This is the actual word used by Jesus and His earliest followers and provides much of the conceptual background. The rabbis of Jesus’ day regarded it as an important legal principle: “A man’s agent (shaliach) is like unto himself.”⁴ This meant if a man’s agent made a deal, it was the same as the man himself making the deal. The modern concept of power of attorney is very similar.

When it comes to apostles or other kinds of agents, it is of crucial importance whom the agent represents. The Gospels make it clear the apostles were appointed by Jesus to act on His behalf. Mark’s tersely stated record of their initial commission is “that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons” (Mark 3:14,15). It has to do with personal fellowship with Jesus, preaching the good news of the kingdom of God on Jesus’ behalf, and participation in the power of Jesus to cast out demons. Jesus apparently sent them out early in the Galilean ministry with instructions to preach and heal the sick (cf. Matthew 10:5–14; Mark 6:7–11; Luke 9:1–5). Like the Seventy dispatched later, their immediate scope of ministry was to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 10:6).

The Apostles and Pentecost

The commission of the Twelve was dramatically expanded following the death and resurrection of Jesus. In John’s Gospel, Jesus anticipated that those who had faith in Him would do “greater things” than He had done by asking in His name (John 14:12–14). The Counselor, identified as the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of truth, who was “with” them during the time of His earthly ministry, would soon be “in” them (14:16,17).

The Spirit would also teach them all things and remind them of everything He had said to them (14:26). John noted that Jesus appeared to the “disciples” after His resurrection and said, “‘As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven’” (John 20:21–23). Luke makes it clear Jesus “opened” the minds of “the Eleven and those with them” (24:33) to “understand the Scriptures” to the end that “the Christ [would] suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins [would] be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:45–47). Jesus then reminded the disciples they were “to stay in the city [i.e., Jerusalem] until [they had] been clothed with power from on high” (24:49).

This promise was so important that Luke recorded it again in Acts 1:4 with an explanatory word from Jesus: “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (1:5). The reason for the promise is couched in Jesus’ words, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The promise was fulfilled in the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:4) and identified in Peter’s prophetic message as the “last days” gift of God’s Spirit enabling all his “sons,” “daughters,” and “servants, both men and women” to “prophesy” (Acts 2:14–17).

Although earlier trained, called, and commissioned by the Lord Jesus, the apostles needed the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the final preparation for their mission. They were granted spiritual giftings and empowerment required for the apostolic office. Previously anxious and insecure, they were transformed and energized by the Holy Spirit.⁵

The apostles began to speak as those who were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:8) and were instrumental in others receiving the gift of the Spirit (8:14–17; 10:44–46; 19:6). When Paul was converted and called to apostolic ministry, he also received the gift of the Spirit and was similarly transformed (9:17). Barnabas was said to be “full of the Holy Spirit and faith” (11:24). The Holy Spirit guided the mission activities of the apostles, sovereignly selecting Paul and Barnabas (13:2) and sending them on their way (13:4). Later the Spirit prevented Paul and his companions from entering the province of Asia and Bythinia but directed them toward Troas and Macedonia (16:6–10). Paul was the recipient of prophetic guidance by Spirit-directed prophets as to his fate upon his return to Jerusalem (20:22,23). Whatever the natural ability of these early apostles, the genius of their ministry is found in the power and wisdom of the Spirit given to them.

The Place of the Twelve

The opening chapter of Acts reflects a concern to maintain the number of the Twelve. Peter and the other members of the original Twelve, with the 120, looked to the Scriptures and determined that the vacancy created by the defection and death of Judas should be filled. It was important that the full complement of 12 be maintained for the effusion of the Spirit. Luke had previously recorded the promise of Jesus to the Twelve: “I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:29,30). The importance of maintaining 12 apostles as a symbol of the 12 tribes of Israel is unmistakable. The apostolate was to be intact for the coming of the Spirit and the launching of a fully equipped church on its worldwide mission.

The way the vacancy was filled is highly instructive. Jesus had personally appeared and given “instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen” (Acts 1:2). Two qualifying issues stand out: (1) personal commissioning by the Lord, and (2) thorough familiarity with the teachings of Jesus. Careful attention was given to both in Peter’s proposal. Any candidate had to have been with them for Jesus’ entire ministry, “beginning from John’s baptism” (Acts 1:22). Two qualified candidates, “Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias,” were presented and prayer was offered. “Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).⁶ After Pentecost, however, there was no effort to replace any of the original 12 apostles nor to perpetuate the number 12 (cf. Acts 12:2).

The Special Case of the Apostle Paul

Paul’s status as an apostle is unique. He was neither a member of the Twelve nor present for Christ’s post- Resurrection appearances; his calling as an apostle came in a later and separate vision of the risen Lord.

Recorded three times in Acts (9:1–19; 22:4–16; 26:9–18) and often intimated in his letters (Galatians 1:12), the account of Paul’s conversion demonstrates the authenticity and power of his call to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Like the Twelve, he recognized the apostolic office was conferred in the personal call of Christ through post-Resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5–7). Paul acknowledged he was “as . . . one abnormally born [ektroma⁷]” (1 Corinthians 15:8). The word is usually used for miscarriages. But rather than Paul saying he was “born” unnaturally early, he is saying that as a witness to the Resurrection and as an apostle he was “born” unnaturally late. His apostolic calling was thus without parallel and made his credentials vulnerable to attack from enemies who sought to discredit him (1 Corinthians 9:1,2; 2 Corinthians 12:11,12).

Despite the unusual nature of his encounter with Christ, Paul did not consider his apostolic status to be less than that of the other apostles. They had seen the resurrected Lord; so had he. He regularly appealed to his having seen “Jesus our Lord” (1 Corinthians 9:1). While he referred to himself as “the least of the apostles,” apparently because of his earlier persecution of the Church, he “worked harder than all of them” (1 Corinthians 15:9,10). Though insisting on a continuity of the message (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3), he nonetheless distinguished his apostolic authority from the other apostles, even to the point of a public rebuke to Peter (Galatians 1:11–2:21). To his critics at Corinth he pointed out, “I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles’”⁸ (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11) and rehearsed his Jewish heritage (11:22), hardships (11:23–33), and his “surpassingly great revelations” (12:1–7). He reminded the Corinthians, “[T]he things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance” (2 Corinthians 12:12).

Apostles of Christ

Paul’s sense of his own calling is reflected in the introduction to most of his letters: “Paul . . . an apostle of Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:1; cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1, et al.). The letters of Peter begin similarly: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:1; cf. 2 Peter 1:1). Paul used this designation in the text of 1 Thessalonians: “As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you . . . ” (2:6). Jude 17 refers to what “the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.” These references make it appear that the title “apostle of Christ (Jesus Christ/Lord Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus)” was standard nomenclature for all the apostles Christ had personally appeared to and appointed. It is almost always this group to whom the title “apostle” is applied in the New Testament.

Apostles of the Churches

Scholars occasionally point out a distinction between the “Apostles of Christ” and the “Apostles of the Churches.”⁹ Paul spoke of unnamed “brothers” who are “representatives [apostoloi] of the churches and an honor to Christ” (2 Corinthians 8:23). He also wrote to the Philippians about “Epaphroditus . . . who is also your messenger [apostolon], whom you sent to take care of my needs” (2:25). These references provide ample evidence the early churches did use the word apostle from time to time for other than those who had witnessed the Resurrection. However, the term is used in these cases in its generic sense of dispatching representatives on an official mission on behalf of the senders. For that reason, English translations of the Bible normally render the word apostolos in the two instances above as “messenger” or “representative.”¹⁰

False Apostles

Not all persons in the New Testament era who called themselves apostles or were accorded that status by star-struck followers were, in fact, apostles. Just as the Old Testament had its false prophets, so the New Testament had its false apostles. Much of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians reflects this very issue. Teachers, possibly itinerant Hellenistic Jews from the church at Jerusalem, had come to Corinth apparently with letters of commendation. They seem to have boasted of equality with, or even superiority to, Paul in an effort to wrest the leadership of the church away from him. Thus his references to such issues as “letters of recommendation” (2 Corinthians 3:1), his appearance and speech (10:10), “the one who commends himself” (10:18), his Jewish heritage (11:22), his extensive suffering on behalf of the church (11:23–33), and his visions and revelations (12:7)—all seem to have been an effort to deal with the threat.

Paul identified such people as “false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). Jesus himself commended the church in Ephesus because they “tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false” (Revelation 2:2). These references and others make it clear that many who either claimed for themselves the title of “apostle” or had the title wrongly conferred upon them by others were circulating among the early Christian churches. Discernment was necessary. Paul called for careful evaluation of spiritual phenomena: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good” (1 Thessalonians 5:19–21).

Apostolic Succession

A crucial issue is whether the apostolic office is to be passed on as an institutionalized office of the church. It is clear from both Acts and the letters of the New Testament that certain offices were instituted and maintained. For example, the apostles led the church in the selection of seven men, often called “deacons” though that noun is not in the text, to administer the charitable ministries of the church (Acts 6:3). Early in the Acts record the Church, probably operating with familiar Jewish models, is observed to have elders who are functioning in leadership roles along with the apostles (Acts 11:30; 15:2; 16:4). As Paul and Silas established missionary churches, they were careful to appoint “elders” (presbyteros) for the leadership of those churches (Acts 14:23). Paul also summoned “elders” (presbyteros) of the church at Ephesus and then addressed them as “overseers” (episkopos) who were also to be “shepherds” (poimaino), or “pastors,” of the church of God (Acts 20:17,28).

The letter to the church at Philippi indicates the presence of “overseers” (episkopos) and “deacons” (diakonos) among them. The pastoral letters, usually assumed to have been written somewhat later, reveal great concern for the appointment of carefully qualified elders/overseers and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–12; Titus 1:3–9). As can be seen, the names for the office are somewhat flexible and interchangeable. Nevertheless, it is certainly accurate to say the New Testament provides—by such names, qualifications, and selection—for the careful appointment and continuation in office of such leaders as overseers, elders, and deacons.

It is also clear that while the apostles (with the elders) were established leaders in the Early Church, there was no provision for their replacement or continuation. To be sure, with the defection of Judas from his apostolic office, the Eleven sought divine guidance to fill the gap. Other apostles also emerged, including Paul who in his first letter to the Corinthians gave insight into their selection. After Christ’s resurrection He appeared to the Twelve and later appeared to more than “five hundred of the brothers at the same time. . . . Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born” (1 Corinthians 15:6–8, emphasis added). Thus Paul seems to limit the office of apostle to those who had actually seen the risen Lord in the 40 days after His resurrection and to himself as having seen Him in a dramatic vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–9). There is some uncertainty about the exact number and identity of the apostles. However, besides the Twelve, the New Testament text appears to clearly designate such persons as Paul, James the brother of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junias (probably a woman) who were “outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7).

It is instructive, however, that nowhere in the New Testament after the replacement of Judas is any attention given to a so-called apostolic succession. No attempt was made to replace James son of Zebedee (John’s brother), executed by Herod (Acts 12:2). Other than the original appointments by Christ himself, there is nothing concerning the appointment of apostles. And apart from the criteria set for the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:21–26) and the criteria implied in the actions of Jesus and the account of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3–11), there are no directions for making such an appointment. By contrast, there are clear qualifications and instructions for the appointment of elders/overseers and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9). It seems strange that apostles of Jesus Christ, concerned about faithful preservation of their message (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2), would provide for the appointment of overseers/elders while ignoring their own succession if such were indeed to be maintained.

In fact, there are certain exegetical hints the apostles of Jesus Christ are not to have successors. In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul listed all the Resurrection and post-Resurrection appearances of Christ and noted “last of all he appeared to me.” While some disagree, the statement is most commonly understood to mean Paul looked upon himself as the last apostle to whom Christ appeared.¹¹ If this is the correct understanding, only the Twelve whom Jesus personally called and those He commissioned in His post-Resurrection appearances made up His original apostles. Apostles are named first among the offices of the church (1 Corinthians 12:28) and the ministry gifts of Ephesians 4:11 because they are foundational, not necessarily because they are continuous leaders in the church. The Ephesians 4:11 passage must be interpreted in the context of the Ephesians letter itself, wherein Paul had already described the church as “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20), and the form of leadership instituted by Paul in the Ephesian church itself and the other churches he founded (Acts 14:23). Writing to Timothy at Ephesus, Paul entrusts the oversight of the church to “elders” (synonymous with bishop or pastor or overseer) and deacons, not apostles and prophets. When he bids an emotional farewell to the leaders of the Ephesian church, which he himself had established, his meeting is with the elders (not apostles or prophets), to whom he entrusts the responsibility of bishop (or overseer) and pastor (or shepherd) (Acts 20:28).

It is difficult to escape the conclusion of Dietrich Müller: “One thing is certain. The N[ew] T[estament] never betrays any understanding of the apostolate as an institutionalized church office, capable of being passed on.”¹²

The Authority of the Apostles

The authority of the apostles was modeled by the chief Apostle, the Lord Jesus Christ, who taught them that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,” (Mark 10:45). Jesus, on occasion, acted sharply and decisively against certain sins, such as the desecration of His Father’s house (Mark 11:15–17; John 2:13–16) and the exploitative hypocrisy of the teachers of the Law and Pharisees (Matthew 23).

However, He carefully avoided the trappings of political and institutional power and modeled extraordinary humility and patience for His apostles. His divine attributes were cloaked in human flesh and He was the exposition and example of His Father’s word and work.

Even a cursory reading of the New Testament demonstrates the apostles of Christ possessed authority. The Early Church was formed around their teaching, which was in turn confirmed by the “wonders and miraculous signs” they did (Acts 2:42,43). They were the recognized spokesmen before the rulers (Acts 4:8ff.), and their authority was demonstrated in such events as the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11). In writing to the Corinthians, a church he founded, Paul threatened to come to them “with a whip” (1 Corinthians 4:21) and did not hesitate to give stern directions for discipline in a case of incest (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). Writing to the church in Rome, which he did not found, he stated his apostolic credentials (Romans 1:1), assumed the prerogative of imparting to them spiritual gifts (1:11), and planned to “come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ” (15:29). He laid out for their belief and practice the most systematic exposition of doctrinal and ethical truth in all of Scripture. He did not hesitate to give directions for their local ethical dilemmas such as relations between the weak and the strong (chapters 14,15). Peter also, claiming apostolic standing, wrote authoritatively to apparently Gentile churches that he did not pioneer (1 Peter 1:1).

Some modern interpreters insist apostolic authority was merely local, not universal, and exercised only in churches the apostles founded.¹³ To be sure, apostles seem to have been aware of certain protocol in churches they did not pioneer (Romans 15:20; 1 Corinthians 3:10). However, they did cross geographical boundaries. The pattern of evidence throughout the New Testament indicates their authority was universal in doctrinal and ethical matters, binding in some sense upon all the churches. However, that authority must not be construed in political or bureaucratic terms. There is little evidence of their involvement in local administrative matters.

When they worked together, one of the apostles usually took the lead, as in Peter’s early activity in Jerusalem and Paul’s direction of his missionary teams. However, in dealing with the practical and doctrinal problems of the churches, the apostles often exercised a shared leadership among themselves and with the elders, a group that appears to have been added quickly to the leadership rolls. For example, the Twelve called upon the church of Jerusalem to select the Seven (Acts 6). When the Jerusalem Council resolved the schismatic debate over whether the Gentiles should keep the Jewish law, the issue was decided by “the apostles and elders” (Acts 15:4,6,22). On this or some similar issue, even the two apostles Paul and Peter initially came to conflicting opinions (Galatians 2:11–14). James Dunn aptly observes, “Apostolic authority is exercised not over the Christian community, but within it; and the authority is exercised . . . ‘to equip the saints for the work of their ministry, for the building up of Christ’s body’” (Ephesians 4:12).¹⁴

Since apostles were frequently mobile, local rule in the maturing churches seems to have been exercised largely by elders. In the Jerusalem church, the apostles were the sole authority figures early on (Acts 2:42; 4:37); but perhaps because of persecution and travel, they appear to have been less prominent over time. Peter reported the conversion of Cornelius and his household to the “apostles and the brothers” (11:1). The “apostles and elders” made up the Jerusalem council (15:6). When Paul returned to Jerusalem after his third journey, he called on “James, and all the elders” (21:18). Elders were certainly key authority figures in Jerusalem, as seen in Acts, and elsewhere as seen in New Testament letters. The absence of apostles on Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:18) is further evidence that as the Twelve dispersed, the Jerusalem church did not provide for further apostolic replacement as they had at the defection of Judas (Acts 1:12–26).

None of the New Testament letters are addressed to an apostle, as would be expected if each city had its own ruling apostle. One of the few letters that includes church officers in the title, Philippians, is addressed to “overseers [episkopos] and deacons [diakonos]” (1:1)—not to a local or city apostle. There seems to be no concern to place recognized apostles in residence in the various churches or regions.

The Marks of an Apostle

Striving to protect the Corinthians from the seduction of “false apostles,” Paul pointed out characteristics (semeion, “sign,” 2 Corinthians 12:12) that identified a genuine apostle. From that context and the larger New Testament background, the following are apparent:

1. The first and most important mark of true apostles of Christ was that they had seen the risen Lord and been personally commissioned by Him as witnesses to His resurrection (Acts 1:21,22; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:7,8). They were thus appropriately called “apostles of Christ.”

 

2. The personal call and commission of the risen Christ had to be consummated in the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1–4 [for Paul, see Acts 9:1–17]), at which time the spiritual gift, or charisma, of apostleship was granted. This understanding is reflected, for example, in Paul’s statements: “It was he who gave some to be apostles . . . ” (Ephesians 4:11) and “I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power” (Ephesians 3:7). The Spirit with His power and anointing set apostles first among the leaders of the church (1 Corinthians 12:28).

 

3. Apostles were supernaturally equipped for prophetic preaching and teaching. To illustrate, when the Spirit fell at Pentecost, the disciples spoke “in other tongues as the Spirit enabled [apophthengomai] them” (Acts 2:4). Confronted with the confused and contradictory opinions of the watching crowd, Peter “stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed” (apophthengomai) them (2:14) in a masterful explanation resulting in 3,000 conversions. The Greek verb apophthengomai is used to denote prophetic inspiration, which in this context is the immediate result of the Spirit’s enablement.¹⁵Paul reflected much of the same awareness: “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:4).

 

4. With the apostolic gift came miraculous spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8–10). “The things that mark [semeia, “signs”] an apostle[¹⁶]—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance” (2 Corinthians 12:12). The Book of Acts attributes numerous miracles to Peter, Paul, and the other apostles (Acts 5:12; 9:32–43; 13:6–12; 14:3; 16:16–18; 19:11; 28:7–9). Paul evidently regarded such miraculous ministry as an essential mark of a true apostle. He also taught and preached among them “with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” so their “faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:4,5).

 

5. The apostles were the authoritative teachers of the Early Church in both belief and practice. They were charged above all with the accuracy and purity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Paul wrote, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3,4; cf. Acts 2:42; Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:8; Titus 1:9). The intent of their preaching and teaching is expressed in Ephesians 4:12,13: “so that the body of Christ may be built up . . . and become mature.” The apostolic doctrine became the content of the New Testament canon. The apostles were understood either to have written the canonical books or to have been the primary sources and guarantors of their inspired character.
6. Apostles were commissioned as missionaries and church builders. Those the New Testament speaks about did this successfully. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16–20) was given specifically to the Eleven, perhaps in the company of the “more than five hundred” (1 Corinthians 15:6). The missionary impulse breathes through the accounts of apostolic commissioning (cf. Luke 24:47; John 20:21; Acts 1:8; 9:15; 22:15; 26:17,18; Galatians 1:15–17; et al.).

 

7. Suffering for Christ’s sake seems to have been a major mark of the apostolic office. Paul validated his ministry and armed the Corinthian church against the seduction of false apostles with a lengthy personal history of sufferings on behalf of the gospel. “That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10). “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body which is the church” (Colossians 1:24).

 

8. Apostles were pastoral and relational. Paul’s love for his parishioners and his ministry associates flows through his letters. The warm and extended greetings at the conclusion of Romans are striking (16:1–16). He repeatedly uses parenting language (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15; 2 Corinthians 12:14,15). On behalf of the Corinthians, he is “jealous . . . with a godly jealousy” (2 Corinthians 11:2). To the Thessalonians, Paul wrote that he loved and cared for them gently as “a mother caring for her little children” (1 Thessalonians 2:7). The language in the letters of Peter (1 Peter 4:12; 2 Peter 3:1, NRSV) and John (1 John 2:7, NRSV, et al.) emphasizes the same pastoral instincts.

The New Testament Prophets

“Prophets” are found immediately after “apostles” in one list of ministry gifts (Ephesians 4:11). and their activity is closely linked to that of apostles throughout the New Testament. Paul had a high view of their role: “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets . . . ” (1 Corinthians 12:28). Further, the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). Along with the apostles, prophets were complementary gifts to the foundational era of the church.

The historical accounts in the New Testament affirm these complementary roles. New Testament prophets first appeared by name in Acts when a group, apparently residing in Jerusalem, went to Antioch and one of their number, Agabus, accurately predicted the coming great famine (Acts 11:27–30). Antioch soon had its own group of resident prophets—Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul (Paul) (Acts 13:1). Two other Jerusalem leaders and prophets were chosen to bear the council letter to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and along the way “said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers” (Acts 15:22,32). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after the third missionary journey, he stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, who “had four unmarried daughters who prophesied,” and we learn women were active and recognized as prophets. At that time Agabus made his way down from Jerusalem to Caesarea and prophesied that the Jews of Jerusalem would bind Paul and hand him over to the Gentiles (Acts 21:10,11).

Paul’s letters, written earlier than the Book of Acts, indicate the presence of prophets in the churches he had established as well as those he did not (e.g., the church at Rome). For example, he provided instruction on their activities in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:29–32), saying their prophecies were to be tested by apostolic doctrine (1 Corinthians 14:37). Women prophets were active in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:5,6). The Romans were to exercise the gift of prophecy “in proportion” to their faith (Romans 12:6). The Thessalonians were cautioned not to “treat prophecies with contempt” (1 Thessalonians 5:20). The Ephesians letter stated Paul’s understanding that, with the apostles, the prophets were foundational to the church (Ephesians 2:20). In that capacity they were, with the apostles, recipients of divinely given revelation (Ephesians 3:5) and a ministry gift to the church (Ephesians 4:11). To Timothy, Paul noted a prophetic message had accompanied the laying on of hands by the elders (1 Timothy 4:14).

The Book of Revelation is apparently to be understood as a prophecy, thus according John prophetic status (Revelation 1:3). Revelation also says the church was to be on guard against false prophets, in this case “Jezebel,” who by their teaching and conduct perverted the apostolic gospel (Revelation 2:20).

These accounts make clear that (1) there were recognized groups of prophets in the early churches often closely associated with the apostles; (2) the apostles themselves (as Barnabas, Silas [both of whom on occasion appear to be recognized as apostles], Saul [Paul], and John) also functioned as prophets (Acts 13:1; 15:32; Revelation 1:3); (3) these prophets did travel on occasion from church to church; (4) both men and women were recognized as prophets; (5) prophets, while never appointed to ruling functions in their capacity as prophets like overseers/elders did exercise spiritual influence with the apostles and elders in the belief and practice of the Early Church; (6) the integrity of the prophet was maintained by authentic inspired utterance that was true to the Scriptures and apostolic doctrine; and (7) there is no provision for qualifying or appointing prophets as a part of a church leadership hierarchy for succeeding generations.

The Gift of Prophecy

While there were recognized prophets in the New Testament era, even more pervasive was the gift of prophecy that energized the apostolic church. The Old Testament prophet Joel, moved by God, prophesied, “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28,29). Significantly, Peter, when explaining the Pentecost event and its evidential tongues, identified them with Joel’s prediction of the outpouring of the Spirit and twice repeated that both sons and daughters, men and women, would prophesy (Acts 2:17,18). Peter’s sermon was clearly a prophecy immediately inspired by the Spirit, as the verb “addressed [apophthengomai]” (Acts 2:14), which means “to speak as a prophet,”¹⁷ denotes. When one examines closely the witness to Christ given by the early Christian leaders in Acts, the prophetic impulse is apparent—and doubtlessly intended by Luke. Peter’s words to the crippled beggar (Acts 3:6), the temple crowds (Acts 3:12ff.), the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8), and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11), to list a few, are filled with prophetic import. Stephen’s eloquence and power are prophetic (Acts 7). The impact of the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:4–8) and other unnamed believers (Acts 11:19–21) was likewise Spirit-enabled. And so it is throughout the Acts account.

While it is too much to say every utterance of a believer is a prophecy, nonetheless, the theme of Acts is that every believer receives the power of the Holy Spirit to be a prophetic witness to the risen Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8). Interestingly, John noted, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). All believers are inducted into a universal “prophethood”¹⁸ and are endowed with one or more spiritual gifts, many of which have directly to do with wise, instructive, and edifying utterances (Romans 12:6–8; 1 Corinthians 12:8–10; Ephesians 4:7–13; 1 Peter 4:10).

Paul makes it clear not every believer will be a prophet in terms of filling a recognized “office,” or, perhaps, even being regularly used by the Spirit in that way (1 Corinthians 12:28,29). The very identification of a separate gift of prophecy implies that. However, at the same time, he encourages all believers to “desire . . . especially the gift of prophecy” (1 Corinthians 14:1), for the person who prophesies does so for the “strengthening, encouragement and comfort” (1 Corinthians 14:3) of others. There is no statute of limitations on the Spirit of prophecy. In the words of Peter’s prophetic sermon, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39).

Conclusions

The purpose of this paper has been to study the roles of apostles and prophets within the Ephesians 4:11,12 ministry context and present findings both consistent with Scripture and relevant for this strategic time in the growth of the Pentecostal movement. The intent is not to be argumentative or polemical but to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). With these considerations in mind, the following conclusions are offered:

1. The apostolic nature of the church is to be found in adherence to the Word of God, which has been faithfully transmitted by the apostles of Jesus Christ in their foundational role, and in vita participation in the life and ministry of the Holy Spirit, who baptized, gifted, and led the first apostles.
2. Since the New Testament does not provide guidance for the appointment of future apostles, such contemporary offices are not essential to the health and growth of the church, nor its apostolic nature.
3. While we do not understand it to be necessary, some church bodies may in good faith and careful biblical definition choose to name certain leaders apostles. The word “apostle” (apostolos) is used in different ways in the New Testament: (1) for the Twelve disciples originally appointed by Jesus (and later Matthias); (2) for the Twelve plus Paul and a larger group (1 Corinthians 15:3–8) whose exact numbers are somewhat uncertain; and (3) for others such as Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25) and the unnamed “brothers” Paul wrote about (2 Corinthians 8:23). Groups one and two, personally called and commissioned by the risen Lord, are often referred to in Scripture as “apostles of Jesus Christ” and are foundational apostles (Ephesians 2:20) with unique revelatory and authoritative roles in establishing the church and producing the New Testament. The third group, the “apostles of the churches,” were assigned specific roles and responsibilities as needed by the early churches.Contemporary apostles, of course, will not have seen or been commissioned by the risen Lord in the manner of the “apostles of Jesus Christ,” nor will they be adding their teachings to the canon of Scripture. Presumably they will demonstrate the other marks of an apostle taught in the New Testament.
4. The title of apostle should not be lightly granted or assumed. Historically, apostles have been persons of recognized spiritual stature, stalwart character, and great effectiveness in the work of the church. Paul’s warnings about “those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about,” his assertion that “such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ,” and his further association of them with “Satan [who] himself masquerades as an angel of light,” (2 Corinthians 11:12–14) are sobering—reminders that unfettered human pride in seeking church leadership can blind one to the machinations of the devil. Persons lacking character may attach the title of apostle to themselves in order to assert dominance and control over other believers, while leaving themselves unaccountable to the members in their care or the spiritual eldership of their own fellowship.
5. The function of apostle occurs whenever the church of Jesus Christ is being established among the unevangelized. As Pentecostals, we fervently desire a generation of men and women who will function apostolically: to take the gospel with signs following to people at home and abroad who have not yet heard or understood that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
6. Prophecy is an ongoing gift of the Holy Spirit that will always be broadly distributed throughout a holy and responsive church until Jesus comes. The Spirit sovereignly chooses and directs persons who are open and sensitive to His gifts and promptings and endows them variously with an array of verbal gifts. Paul admonished, “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy” (1 Corinthians 14:1). Many persons of both sexes may be expected to exercise the gift of prophecy in various ways, as seen in the New Testament.

The New Testament does not make provisions for establishing the prophet in a hierarchical governing structure of the church; in fact, the content of prophecy itself should always be tested by and responsible to the superior authority of Scripture. However, the church should long for authentic prophecy with a message, which is relevant to contemporary needs and subject to the authority of Scripture.

Finally, the Ephesians 4:11,12 gifts are both the historical and contemporary heritage of the Church. Some apostolic and prophetic functions flowing from persons directly commissioned by the risen Lord and acting in revelatory capacities seem clearly to belong to the foundational era of the Church. At the same time,

some of those functions having to do with the revitalization, expansion, and nurture of the church ought to be present in every generation. We encourage all believers, led and filled by the Spirit, to allow themselves to be fully utilized as servants of the Lord, since all gifts are needed to edify and complete the body as well as to mobilize the body to reach the world. Then the purpose of all ministry gifts will be realized: “To prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12,13).

Practical Questions Regarding Apostles And Prophets

1. Does the Assemblies of God recognize present-day apostles and prophets?

The Assemblies of God recognizes ministers as certified, licensed, or ordained. The work of district councils and the General Council is overseen by presbyters and superintendents. Local churches appoint deacons. The Assemblies of God believes this practice is consistent with apostolic practice provided in the pastoral letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. The pastoral letters do not make provision for the appointment of apostles or prophets, nor does the Book of Acts indicate that provision for such was given in the churches established on the missionary journeys. The apostles appointed not apostles or prophets but elders (Acts 14:23). At the conclusion of the missionary journeys, Paul met with the elders of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:17–38). Clearly, elders are also given the functions of bishop (“overseer”) and shepherd (“pastor”) (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).

Thus, within the Assemblies of God, persons are not recognized by the title of apostle or prophet. However, many within the church exercise the ministry function of apostles and prophets. Apostolic functions usually occur within the context of breaking new ground in unevangelized areas or among unreached people. The planting of over 225,000 churches worldwide since 1914 in the Assemblies of God could not have been accomplished unless apostolic functions had been present. In the Early Church, false apostles did not pioneer ministries; they preyed on ministries established by others. Prophetic functions occur when believers speak under the anointing of the Spirit to strengthen, encourage, or comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3). All prophecies are to be weighed carefully (1 Corinthians 14:29). A predictive prophecy may be true, but the prophet whose doctrine departs from biblical truth is false. A predictive prophecy that proves false leads to the conclusion that the person is a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:19–22).

Finally, it must be noted that titles are not as important as ministry itself. Too often a title is worn in an attitude of carnal pride. The title does not make the person or the ministry. The person with ministry makes the title meaningful. Jesus explicitly warned His disciples against engaging in the quest for titles (Matthew 23:8–12). He tells us, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25–28).

 

2. What is the implication for the local church in the current emphasis on apostles and prophets?

The Pentecostal and charismatic movements have witnessed various excessive or misplaced theological emphases over the years. We look with grave concern on those who do not believe in congregational church government, who do not trust the maturity of local church bodies to govern themselves under Scripture and the Spirit. Such leaders prefer more authoritarian structures where their own word or decrees are unchallenged.

In the current emphasis on Ephesians 4:11, verse 12 is being neglected: “ . . . to prepare God’s people for works of service [i.e. ministry], so that the body of Christ may be built up.” The stress of the New Testament lies with every-believer ministry. The Protestant Reformation recaptured the biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers. The Pentecostal movement has spread like a fast-moving fire through the world because of the Spirit-gifted ministry of the entire body. The church must always remember that leadership gifts are not given for the exaltation of a few but for the equipping of all God’s people for ministry.

3. Should Assemblies of God churches welcome the ministries of apostles and prophets?We encourage our churches to give close heed to the following provision of the General Council Bylaws: Pastors and leaders of assemblies should make proper investigation of persons who seek to gain entrance to teach, minister, or pastor. Use of the platform should be denied until spiritual integrity and reliability have been determined. Since the use of non-Assemblies of God ministers may bring confusion and problems detrimental to the Fellowship, it is recommended that Assemblies of God churches use Assemblies of God ministers (Article VI, Section 3).This bylaw provision is consistent with the oversight responsibility given to pastors (Acts 20:28–31) and leaders in the body of Christ (1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 4:3–5).

 

NOTES

---

1Biblical citations are from the New International Version unless otherwise indicated.
2For simplicity, when Greek nouns and verbs are included they will usually be in the nominative singular and first person singular indicative.
3A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, rev. and ed., Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 122.
4Tractate Berakoth 5.5 and several other places in the Mishnah, the oldest portion of the Talmud. While the earliest rabbinical references date from the second century, it seems likely that the institution was much earlier. However, some scholars trace the concept to the “to send” language both of the Old Testament itself and secular Greek. See Colin Brown, gen. ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), “Apostle,” 1:126–136.
5See the insightful study of C.G. Kruse in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 76–82.
6It is frequently suggested that the Eleven erred in their selection of Matthias because Judas’ place was reserved for Paul. Matthias, it is noted, immediately passes into oblivion. However, there is no hint of criticism in the text and few of the Twelve are mentioned after chapter 1. Paul’s apostolic credentials are established independently of the Twelve by both Luke and Paul himself (cf. Acts 9:1–30, especially vv. 26–28; Gal. 1:15–24).
7A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 311.
8Some commentators identify the “super-apostles” with the Twelve; however, others suggest that the context more readily supports an identification with Jewish-Hellenistic teachers who came to Corinth with letters of introduction, perhaps from Jerusalem.
9See the discussion in E. Earle Ellis, Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 38.
10“[M]essengers without extraordinary status.” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 122.
11Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 732.
12Colin Brown, gen. ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:135.
13See, for example, James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 578–579.
14The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 574.
15A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1:44. See also Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 1:447.
16New American Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version, “signs of a true apostle.”
17A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 125.
18Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 71–84.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®; NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Quantities of this position paper can be ordered in booklet format by calling 1-800-641-4310 Item #34-419

 

BAPTISM in the HOLY SPIRIT

ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 9-11, 2010

Since the early days of the twentieth century, many Christian believers have taught and received a spiritual experience they call the baptism in the Holy Spirit. At the present time, hundreds of millions of believers identify themselves with the movement that teaches and encourages the reception of that experience. The global expansion of that movement demonstrates the words of Jesus Christ to His disciples that when the promised Holy Spirit came upon them, they would receive power to be His witnesses to all the world (Acts 1:5,8).

The New Testament emphasizes the centrality of the Holy Spirit’s role in the ministry of Jesus and the continuation of that role in the Early Church. Jesus’ public ministry was launched by the Holy Spirit coming upon Him (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The Book of Acts presents an extension of that ministry through the disciples by means of the empowering Holy Spirit.

The most distinguishing features of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are that: (1) it is theologically and experientially distinguishable from and subsequent to the new birth,
(2) it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, and (3) it is distinct in purpose from the Spirit’s work of regenerating the heart and life of a repentant sinner.

The Term “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”

The term “baptism in the Holy Spirit” does not occur in Scripture. It is a convenient designation for the experience predicted by John the Baptist that Jesus would “baptize in [Greek en] the Holy Spirit”¹ (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33) and is repeated by both Jesus (Acts 1:5) and Peter (Acts 11:16). It is significant that the expression occurs in all the Gospels as well as in the Book of Acts. The imagery of baptism portrays immersion, as seen in John the Baptist’s analogy between the baptism in water that he administered and the baptism in the Spirit that Jesus would administer.

Being baptized in the Spirit must be differentiated from Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians
12:13 which, following the Greek word order, reads: “by [en] one Spirit we all into one body were baptized.” The context of that passage demonstrates that “by” is the best translation, indicating that the Holy Spirit is the instrument or means by which the baptizing takes place.² In verses 3 and 9 of the chapter, Paul uses the same preposition twice in each verse to indicate an activity of the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, “baptized into one body” speaks about the Spirit’s work of incorporating a repentant sinner into the body of Christ (see Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27 for the equivalent expression “baptized into Christ”). This is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5; it is the indispensable, all-important baptism that results in the “one body” of verse 4.

To summarize: At conversion, the Spirit baptizes into Christ/the body of Christ; in a subsequent and distinct experience, Christ will baptize in the Holy Spirit.

Other Biblical Terms for Spirit Baptism

 Various biblical terms are used for this experience, especially in the Book of Acts, which records the initial descent of the Spirit upon Jesus’ disciples and gives examples of the Spirit’s similar encounters with God’s people. The following expressions in Acts are used interchangeably for the experience:

• baptized in the Spirit—1:5; 11:16; see also Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33. The term “Spirit baptism” often serves as a useful substitute and is employed in this paper.
  • the Spirit coming, or falling, upon—1:8; 8:16; 10:44; 11:15; 19:6; see also Luke 1:35; 3:22
  • the Spirit poured out—2:17,18; 10:45
  • the gift my Father promised—1:4
  • the gift of the Spirit—2:38; 10:45; 11:17
  • the gift of God—8:20; 11:17; 15:8
  • receiving the Spirit—8:15,17,19; 19:2
  • filled with the Spirit—2:4; 9:17; also Luke 1:15,41,67. This expression, along with “full of the Spirit,” has a wider application in Luke’s writings. Paul’s command to be “filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18) does not refer to the initial fullness of the Spirit; it is an injunction to keep on being filled with the Spirit.³

Not one of these terms fully conveys all that the experience involves. They are metaphors conveying the idea that the recipients are thoroughly dominated or overwhelmed by the Spirit, who already dwells in them (Romans 8:9,14–16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Galatians 4:6).

SUBSEQUENCE AND SEPARABILITY
Old Testament Background

The outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the climax of God’s promises, made centuries before, about the institution of the new covenant and the coming of the age of the Spirit. The Old Testament is indispensable for understanding the coming of the Holy Spirit to believers under the new covenant. Two prophetic passages are especially significant—Ezekiel 36:25–27 and Joel 2:28,29:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws (Ezekiel 36:25-27). And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days (Joel 2:28–29).

The Ezekiel passage speaks about cleansing new believers from all spiritual filthiness and replacing their heart of stone with a “new heart” and a “heart of flesh.” This takes place as a result of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who will enable them to live in obedience to God’s decrees and laws. The promise predicts the New Testament teaching about regeneration. Jesus spoke of the need to be “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5,8) and Paul, echoing Ezekiel’s prophecy, says that God “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). The result is an altered lifestyle made possible by the indwelling Spirit.

Joel’s prophecy differs substantially from Ezekiel’s. It speaks of a dramatic pouring out of the Spirit that results in prophesying, dreams, and visions. The term charismatic in our day has come to identify those who believe in and experience, personally and corporately, the dynamic way the Spirit manifests himself through various gifts, such as those enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12:7–10.⁴ On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples were “filled with the Holy Spirit,” which Peter says was in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16–21).
The prophecies of Ezekiel and Joel, however, do not predict two separate, historic comings of the Holy Spirit. They represent two aspects of the one overall promise that includes both the Spirit’s indwelling and His filling or empowering of God’s people.

Importance of Luke’s Writings

Luke’s writings—the third Gospel and the Book of Acts—provide the clearest understanding of the baptism in the Spirit. Luke, in addition to being an accurate historian, is also a theologian in his own right and uses the medium of historical narrative to convey theological truth.⁵

Apart from the four Gospels, the only undisputed references to John the Baptist’s prediction of Spirit baptism are in the Book of Acts (1:5; 11:16). In addition, Luke’s is the only Gospel that has two sayings of Jesus that relate directly to Spirit baptism: “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (11:13); “I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (24:49).

The opening chapter of Acts picks up the theme of these promises. Jesus told His disciples: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with [en] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4,5); “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The entire Book of Acts is a commentary on these verses, elaborating on the two related themes of spiritual empowerment and the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. It is therefore necessary to explore what Luke says about Spirit baptism.

This emphasis in Luke’s writings, however, does not minimize other important aspects of the Holy Spirit’s ministry in non-Lukan writings as, for example, in John 14–16; Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 12–14. Nor does it imply that all non-Lukan writers are silent on the matter of Spirit baptism or that Luke limits the Spirit’s activity only to Spirit baptism.

It is important to recognize that Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Since Luke-Acts is historical in nature, Luke selected incidents and sayings that emphasize the dynamic aspect of the Spirit’s work.

The first four chapters of Luke’s Gospel present a clear picture that the promised age of the Spirit was being inaugurated. Luke portrays the activity of the Holy Spirit in a manner clearly reminiscent of the prophecy of Joel. For four hundred years the activity of the Spirit among God’s people had been virtually absent. It now bursts forth in a succession of events related to the births of both John the Baptist and Jesus, and to the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Angelic visitations, miraculous conceptions, prophetic utterances, the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus at His baptism, the empowerment of Jesus for His earthly ministry—these are all recorded in rapid succession in order to emphasize the dawn of the promised age.

Methodology Followed

Narrative accounts recorded in Acts in which believers experience an initial filling of the Spirit have a direct bearing on the questions of whether Spirit baptism is separate from regeneration and whether speaking in tongues is a necessary component of the experience. The inductive method will be employed in looking at these incidents; it is a valid form of logic that attempts to form a conclusion based on the study of individual incidents or statements.⁶

“Subsequence” in Acts

The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–21). The first instance of disciples receiving a charismatic-type of experience occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). The coming of the Spirit on that day was unprecedented; it was a unique, historic, once-for-all and unrepeatable event connected with the institution of the new covenant. But as Acts indicates, at a personal level the disciples’ experience at Pentecost serves as a paradigm for later believers as well (8:14–20; 9:17; 10:44–48; 19:1–7).

Was the Pentecost experience of the disciples “subsequent” to their conversion? On one occasion Jesus told seventy-two of His disciples to “rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). It is not necessary to pinpoint the precise moment of their regeneration in the New Testament sense of that word. Had they died prior to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, they surely would have gone into the presence of the Lord. Many scholars, however, see the disciples’ new-birth experience occurring at the time the resurrected Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ ” (John 20:22).

It is significant that the New Testament nowhere equates the expression “filled with the Holy Spirit” (verse 4) with regeneration. It is always used in connection with persons who are already believers.

The Samaritans (8:14–20). The Samaritan “Pentecost” demonstrates that one may be a believer and yet not have a charismatic-type of spiritual experience. The following observations show that the Samaritans were genuine followers of Jesus prior to the visit of Peter and John: (1) Philip clearly proclaimed to them the good news of the gospel (verse 5); (2) they believed and were baptized (verses 12,16); (3) they had “accepted [dechomai] the word of God” (verse 14), an expression synonymous with conversion (Acts 11:1; 17:11; see also 2:41); (4) the laying on of hands by Peter and John was for them to “receive the Holy Spirit” (verse 17), a practice the New Testament never associates with receiving salvation; and (5) the Samaritans, subsequent to their conversion, had an observable and dramatic experience of the Spirit (verse 18).

Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:17). The experience of Saul of Tarsus also demonstrates that being filled with the Holy Spirit is an identifiable experience beyond the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Three days after his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1– 19), he was visited by Ananias. The following observations are important: (1) Ananias addressed him as “Brother Saul,” which probably indicates a mutually fraternal relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Ananias did not call on Saul to repent and believe, though he did encourage him to be baptized (Acts 22:16); (3) Ananias laid his hands on Saul for both healing and being filled with the Spirit; and (4) There was a time span of three days between Saul’s conversion and his being filled with the Spirit.

Household of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:44–48). The narrative about Cornelius reaches its climax with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon him and his household. He was not a Christian prior to Peter’s visit; he was a God-fearer—a Gentile who had forsaken paganism and embraced important aspects of Judaism without becoming a proselyte, that is, a full-fledged Jew. Apparently Cornelius’s household believed and were regenerated at the moment Peter spoke of Jesus as the one through whom “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (verse 43). Simultaneously, it seems, they experienced an outpouring of the Spirit like the one on the Day of Pentecost, as Peter later told the leadership of the church in Jerusalem (11:17; 15:8,9). The expressions used to describe that experience do not occur elsewhere in Acts to describe conversion: “the Holy Spirit fell upon” (10:44; cf. 8:16 [both references NASB Updated]); “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (10:45; 11:17; cf. 8:20); “poured out on” (10:45); “baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit” (11:16).

The Spirit baptism of the new believers in Caesarea parallels that of believers in Jerusalem (Acts 2), Samaria (Acts 8), and Damascus (Acts 9). But unlike the experience of their predecessors, they had a unified experience whereby their conversion and their baptism in the Spirit occurred in rapid succession.

The Disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7). At Ephesus, Paul encountered a group of disciples who had not experienced the baptism in the Spirit. This incident raises three important questions:

(1) Were these men disciples of Jesus or disciples of John the Baptist? Throughout the Book of Acts, every other occurrence of the word “disciple” (mathetes), with one exception,⁷ refers to a follower of Jesus. Luke’s reason for calling these men “some disciples” is that he was not sure of the exact number—“about twelve men in all” (verse 7). They were Christian believers in need of teaching; like Apollos (Acts 18:24– 27), they needed to have “the way of God” explained “more adequately” (18:26).

(2) What did Paul mean by the question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit, having believed?” (a strict translation of verse 2).⁸ He sensed among them a spiritual lack, but did not question the validity of their belief in Jesus. Since in the Book of Acts the clause “to receive the Holy Spirit” refers to Spirit baptism⁹(8:15,17,19; 10:47; see also 2:38), Paul is asking if they have had the experience of the Holy Spirit coming upon them in a charismatic way, as did indeed happen to them subsequently (verse 6).

(3) Does Paul agree with Luke that there is a work of the Spirit for believers that is distinguishable from the Spirit’s work in salvation? This incident at Ephesus, as well as Paul’s own experience (Acts 9:17), requires an affirmative answer.

Summary Statements

1. In three of the five instances—Samaria, Damascus, Ephesus—persons who had an identifiable experience of the Spirit were already believers. At Caesarea, that experience was almost simultaneous with the saving faith of Cornelius and his household. In Jerusalem, the recipients were already believers in Christ even though it may be difficult—if it is even necessary—to determine with certainly the point in time when they were regenerated in the New Testament sense.
2. In three accounts there was a time-lapse between conversion and Spirit baptism (Samaria, Damascus, Ephesus). The waiting interval for the Jerusalem outpouring was necessary in order for the typological significance of the Day of Pentecost to be fulfilled. In the case of Caesarea, there was no distinguishable time lapse.
3. A variety of interchangeable terminology is used for the experience of Spirit baptism.
4. Groups (Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, Ephesus) as well as an individual (Paul) received the experience.
5. The imposition of hands is mentioned in three instances (Samaria, Damascus, Ephesus) but it is not a requirement, as evidenced by the outpourings in Jerusalem and Caesarea.
6. Even though Spirit baptism is a gift of God’s grace, it should not be called “a second work of grace” or “a second blessing.” Such language implies that a believer can have no experience or experiences of divine grace between conversion and Spirit baptism.
7. The ideal and biblically correct view is that a time-gap between regeneration and Spirit baptism is not a requirement. The emphasis should be on theological, not temporal, subsequence and separability.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Spirit-Inspired Utterances Prior to Acts 2

In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit manifested himself in a variety of ways, but His most characteristic and most frequent work and ministry was that of giving inspired utterance. In addition to prophetic writings, there were many instances when people prophesied orally at the Spirit’s prompting—for example, Numbers 11:25–26; 24:2,3; 1 Samuel 10:6,10; 19:20–21. This inspiration to prophesy is the link that connects Old Testament oracular utterances with Joel’s prediction that one day all God’s people would prophesy (Joel 2:28,29) and with Moses’ intense desire—he himself being a prophet— that all God’s people might prophesy (Numbers 11:29).

A vital connection exists between Old Testament people prophesying and comparable experiences of New Testament people prior to the Day of Pentecost, especially as recorded in Luke 1–4. In those chapters Luke records that certain people were filled with the Spirit—John the Baptist, his mother Elizabeth, and his father Zechariah—and also that a number of people prophesied under the influence of the Holy Spirit—Elizabeth, Zechariah, Mary, and Simeon. In addition, mention is made of Anna, a prophetess (2:36).

Evidential Tongues in Acts

The Day of Pentecost (2:1–21). Three dramatic phenomena occurred: a violent wind, fire, and speaking in tongues.¹⁰ The wind and the fire, which in Scripture are symbols of the Holy Spirit, preceded the outpouring of the Spirit; but the phenomenon of speaking in tongues was an integral part of the disciples’ experience of Spirit baptism. The impetus for speaking in tongues was the Holy Spirit. The Greek verb apophthengomai at the end of verse 4 occurs again in verse 14 to introduce Peter’s speech to the crowd. It is an unusual and infrequently used word, and may be translated “to give inspired utterance.”

The Greek verb phrase for speaking in tongues (lalein glossais) does not appear in nonbiblical literature as a technical term for speaking a language one does not know. But it is used by both Luke (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6) and Paul (1 Corinthians 12:30; 13:1; 14:5,6,18,23,39) with that meaning.

The Greek word glossa means the tongue as the organ of speech and, by extension, the product of speech—language. In Acts 2, the languages spoken by the disciples were unknown to them but were understood by others. They were human, identifiable languages. Luke says that the disciples spoke in other tongues—that is, languages not their own. However, in the other occurrences in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned (10:46; 19:6), there is no indication the languages were understood or identified. Paul’s writings imply that Spirit-inspired languages may not always be human, but may be spiritual, heavenly, or angelic (1 Corinthians 13:1; 14:2,14) as a means of communication between a believer and God.

Two very important observations are in order:

(1) On the Day of Pentecost, all who were filled with the Spirit spoke in tongues (Acts 2:4).

(2) Peter, in explaining to the crowd the meaning of the disciples’ experience, said it was in fulfillment of Joel 2:28,29 (Acts 2:16–21). Especially significant is that Peter, in the middle of quoting Joel, inserted the words “and they will prophesy” (verse 18c), stressing prophetic utterance as a key feature of the fulfillment. But is speaking in tongues the same as prophesying? Both oral prophesying and speaking in tongues occur when the Holy Spirit comes upon someone and prompts the person to speak. The basic difference is that prophesying is in the speaker’s own language, whereas speaking in tongues is in a language unknown to the speaker. But the mode of operation for the two gifts is the same. Speaking in tongues may therefore be considered a specialized or variant form of prophesying as to the manner in which it functions.

The Samaritans (8:14–20). The Samaritans had witnessed signs performed by Philip, had responded in faith to the message about Christ, and had submitted to baptism. But they had not yet received the Holy Spirit (verse 15). “Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (verse 17). Simon the sorcerer found something so extraordinary in this gift of the Spirit that he immediately wanted the authority to impart the gift himself. He had already witnessed demon expulsions and healings, but this was markedly different. Luke simply says that Simon “saw” or witnessed that the Spirit was given; something observable took place. The consensus among biblical scholars, many of whom are not Pentecostal or charismatic, is that the Samaritans had a glossolalic experience.

This account falls between the two major narratives in chapters 2 and 10 that unambiguously associate glossolalia with Spirit baptism. Therefore this incident may rightly be called “The Samaritan Pentecost.”

Saul of Tarsus (9:17). Luke does not record any details of Paul’s Spirit baptism. We do know, however, that Paul spoke in tongues regularly and often (1 Corinthians 14:18). It seems legitimate and logical to infer that he first spoke in tongues at the time Ananias laid hands on him. As with the Samaria account, this narrative comes between the two incidents that clearly say all spoke in tongues when they were baptized in the Spirit.

The Household of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:44–48). Several observations are important:

(1) Peter clearly identified the experience of Cornelius’s household with that of the Pentecost disciples: “God gave them the same gift as he gave us” (Acts 11:17; see also 15:8). In addition, common terms like “baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit,” “poured out,” and “gift” appear in both accounts.

(2) The outward, observable manifestation of glossolalia convinced Peter’s Jewish-Christian companions that the Spirit had indeed fallen on these Gentiles: “For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God” (verse 46, italics added for emphasis).

(3) Very likely, the phrase “praising [megaluno]¹¹ God” is a commentary on the content of the glossolalia. Acts 2:11 is relevant, which identifies the content of the glossolalia on Pentecost as a recital of “the wonders [megaleia] of God.”

(4) All the recipients spoke in tongues (verse 44). This incident and the Pentecost incident which also says that all spoke in tongues indisputably and unambiguously connect glossolalia with the baptism in the Spirit. The two narratives bracket the two in chapters 8 and 9 where Luke did not give details about the believers’ Spirit experience.

The Disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7). When the Holy Spirit came upon these disciples, “they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (verse 6). The Greek text may be translated: “Not only [te] did they speak in tongues, but they also [kai ] prophesied.”¹²

Summary Statements

1. Throughout the Old Testament, the early chapters of Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Acts, there is a pattern of inspired speech when the Holy Spirit comes upon people.
2. The outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost is the model, or paradigm, for later outpourings.
3. Speaking in tongues, as to the manner in which it occurs, may be regarded as a specialized or variant form of prophecy.4. Speaking in tongues was an integral part of Spirit baptism in the Book of Acts. It is the only manifestation associated with Spirit baptism which is explicitly presented as evidence authenticating the experience, and on that basis should be considered normative.
4. The Pentecostal doctrine of “the initial, physical evidence” of speaking in tongues is an attempt to encapsulate the thought that at the time of Spirit baptism the believer will speak in tongues. It conveys the idea that speaking in tongues is the initial, empirical accompaniment to Spirit baptism. Nowhere does the Scripture indicate that one may be baptized in the Spirit without speaking in tongues.
5. First Corinthians 12:30 is sometimes elicited as evidence that tongues are not a necessary component of Spirit baptism since Paul asks, “Not all speak in tongues, do they?”¹³But both the broad context and the immediate context relate the question to the exercise of the gift in corporate worship, as noted by the question immediately following: “Not all interpret, do they?” According to 1 Corinthians 12:8–10, only some believers are prompted by the Holy Spirit to give an utterance in tongues in a gathering of God’s people.

PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF SPIRIT BAPTISM

Continuing Evidences of Spirit Baptism

Divinely-intended results of Spirit baptism include:

Speaking in Tongues. Speaking in tongues is the initial, empirical indication that the infilling has taken place but it also benefits the speaker spiritually, for Paul says that “anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God” and that “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (1 Corinthians 14:2,4). This is the devotional aspect of tongues, which is associated with praising God and giving Him thanks (verses16,17). This aspect is sometimes called a prayer language. It is an element in praying in the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18; Jude 20). Because it is a means by which believers edify themselves spiritually, tongues may be called a means of grace. It is not an experience that occurs only at the time of being baptized in the Spirit; it ought to be a continual, repeated experience. This is implied in Paul’s statement to the Corinthians: “I wish all of you to continue speaking in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:5, a strict translation reflecting the Greek verb tense).

In addition, some qualified exegetes understand Paul to mean praying in tongues, or at least to include it, when he says that “the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express” (Romans 8:26).

Openness to Spiritual Manifestations. Spirit baptism opens up the receiver to the full range of spiritual gifts. This is a natural consequence of having already submitted to something supernatural and suprarational by allowing oneself to be overwhelmed by the Spirit. But this does not rule out spiritual gifts among those not Spirit filled. Both the Old Testament and the Gospels show that most of the gifts occurred prior to the Day of Pentecost, yet it was not until after the outpouring of the Spirit on that day that there occurred among God’s people a much higher incidence and a broader range of spiritual gifts. Since the edification of God’s people is the overarching purpose of spiritual gifts in the assembly (1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:3–6,12), Spirit-filled believers should desire them earnestly (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1).

Righteous Living. Spirit baptism has implications for righteous living. Number 7 of the Assemblies of God “Statement of Fundamental Truths” states that with the baptism in the Spirit “comes the enduement of power for life and service.” The phrase “for life” means “for righteous living.” If, indeed, Spirit baptism is an immersion in the One who is the Holy Spirit—the most frequent New Testament designation for Him—the experience must in some way relate to personal holiness. A basic problem with some believers in the Corinthian congregation was that they continued to speak in tongues without allowing the Spirit to work internally in their lives. It is at this point that the Spirit-baptized need to understand that spiritual fruit, and not only spiritual gifts, should issue from the Pentecostal experience.

Spirit baptism does not produce instant sanctification (nothing does!), but it gives the recipient an added impetus to pursue a life pleasing to God. In this connection, it is important to see the link between being continually filled with the Spirit and its consequences in the believer’s life—a joyful spirit, ministry to others, thanksgiving, mutual submission and mutual respect (Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9).

The baptism in the Spirit must not be a one-time experience. In addition to the Spirit’s daily internal work in one’s life, there are occasions when He comes upon believers in times of crisis or to meet a special need; those times are also designated as being “filled with the Spirit” (Acts 4:8,31; 13:9,52).

Power for Witnessing. The association of power with the Holy Spirit is common in the New Testament, and sometimes the two terms are interchangeable (for example, Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 10:38; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5). The ascended Jesus told the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they were “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In Acts, He tells them “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses” (1:8). These themes of Spirit baptism and world evangelization are closely related emphases in the Book of Acts. A cause-effect relationship between the two is obvious, but Jesus did not say that world evangelization was the sole purpose of the power. The Spirit’s work in Spirit baptism must be understood in a wider context than that which Acts emphasizes, yet a Spirit-baptized person who does not bear witness to Christ is a contradiction in terms.

Both from a biblical standpoint and from a missionary/evangelistic standpoint, receiving this power must be understood to include the proclamation of the gospel. The proclamation is primarily verbal, but the power Jesus promised included the performance of miracles in His name. The Book of Acts records evidences of the Spirit’s work— vocal gifts, healings, exorcisms, raisings from the dead, etc.—which the Lord used in preparing an audience for the proclamation of the gospel.

Encouragement for Those Not Yet Baptized

The Scriptures do not give a formula for receiving the initial infilling of the Spirit, but the following considerations will be helpful:

All Believers Are Candidates. Joel predicted that the Lord would pour out His Spirit upon all His people (2:28–29). Old and young, male and female, servants—no distinction as to age, gender, or social status—are included in the promise. This echoes the fervent hope (and prophecy!) of Moses that the Lord would put His Spirit upon all His people (Numbers 11:29). Prophetic endowment would no longer be limited to a select few. Peter underscored this theme in his Pentecost speech when he quoted the Joel passage and then declared that the promised gift of the Spirit was “for you [Jews] and your children [descendants] and for all who are far off” (verses 38,39). “Far off” probably means the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:13,17); some interpret it to mean those who are distant chronologically and geographically. Interested believers must be assured and convinced that the experience is indeed for them.

The Spirit Already Indwells All Believers. It is important to stress that the Holy Spirit is not external to a believer not yet baptized in the Spirit. The Spirit works internally in a repentant and believing person to effect the new birth; He does not then depart, to come back at the time of the infilling. Spirit-baptism is an overwhelming experience of the already indwelling Spirit; it is called by some a “release” of the Spirit.

Baptism in the Spirit Is a Gift. By definition, a gift is not earned. If it were on the basis of a person’s merit, the unanswerable question would be, “What should be the extent of the person’s worthiness?” Or, “How ‘perfect’ must one be before qualifying for the experience?” It is possible for a sincere seeker to be so preoccupied with a sense of personal unworthiness that the Spirit cannot flow freely through that person.

God Will Not Permit Sincere Seekers to Have a Counterfeit Experience. Some are fearful that their “speaking in tongues” will be either self-generated or that it will be prompted by Satan. Such persons need to be assured of Jesus’ words, “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” This is in a context that says even an earthly father will not permit a requested fish to be substituted by a snake or a requested egg to be substituted by a scorpion (Luke 11:11–13).

Expectancy and Openness Facilitate Reception. Candidates must be willing to yield to whatever the Lord prompts them to do. While genuine speaking in tongues cannot be self-generated, the seeker must cooperate with, or be borne along by, the Holy Spirit and to give vocal expression to an inner prompting to utter unfamiliar sounds. The experience of the disciples on the Day of Pentecost is instructive; they spoke in tongues “as the Spirit was giving them utterance” (Acts 2:4, NASB Updated).

Prayer and Praise Often Lead into the Experience. Jesus’ teaching on the Father’s disposition to give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him (Luke 11:13) follows an extended passage on prayer (verses 1–12) in which He elaborates on and illustrates the aspect of persistence. The Greek verbs for “ask,” “seek,” and “knock” are in the Greek present tense, suggesting the thought of “keep asking, keep seeking, keep knocking.” This should be distinguished from begging in desperation and frustration; it is more the idea of the beatitude, “Blessed are those who keep hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matthew 5:6, a strict translation). It should be noted that prior to the Day of Pentecost, the disciples were “all joined together constantly in prayer” (Acts 1:14).

Petition should be combined with praise. The Upper Room praying was complemented by the disciples staying “continually at the temple, praising God” (Luke 24:53). Spirit baptism seekers should be engaged in praise as well as in petition, since praising God in one’s own language often facilitates the transition to praising Him in tongues. It is notable that the content of the Pentecost disciples’ utterances was praise for the mighty works of God (Acts 2:11; note also 10:46). This is especially interesting since the Jewish celebration of Pentecost, a harvest festival, was a time of joy and thanksgiving to God. Even on a personal basis, an individual offering to God the firstfruits of the grain harvest engaged in a recital of God’s mighty act of delivering Israel from Egyptian slavery (Deuteronomy 26:1–11).

Special Blessings May Occur Along the Way. The baptism in the Spirit is attested by speaking in tongues, but one may have other valid and meaningful spiritual experiences between regeneration and Spirit baptism. Sometimes these blessings are a foreshadowing or taste of the climactic experience, serving to prepare for and facilitate the receiving of the Spirit’s fullness, but they should not be identified as Spirit baptism itself.

God’s Timing May Differ from Ours. The Lord responds to believing prayer and praise, but for reasons best known to himself, His timing may not coincide with our wishes. Both in Scripture and in church history, outpourings of the Spirit sometimes occurred in unexpected places and at unexpected times. Consequently, seekers should not be discouraged or get under self-condemnation if the infilling of the Spirit does not take place when they expect. But during times of special spiritual visitation when others are being filled with the Spirit, conditions are optimum for the seeker.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Baptism in the Holy Spirit must be more than a safeguarded and cherished doctrine; it must be a vital, productive and ongoing experience in the life of believers and their personal relationship with the Lord, their interaction with other believers, and their witness to the world. The vitality and vibrancy of the Church can be realized only when believers personally and corporately manifest the power of the Holy Spirit that was experienced by Jesus himself and that He promised to His followers.

APPENDIX

The official doctrinal statements of the Assemblies of God regarding baptism in the Holy Spirit are found in the Statement of Fundamental Truths and are as follows:

7. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit

All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian church. With it come the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8; 1 Corinthians 12:1–31). This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12–17; 10:44–46; 11:14–16; 15:7–9). With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37–39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Hebrews 12:28), an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word, and for the lost (Mark 16:20).

8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4–10,28), but different in purpose and use.

 

NOTES

---

1 Literal translation. All biblical quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) except as otherwise indicated.
2 Some reliable New Testament translations that opt for ‘by” include NIV, NASB updated, NKJV, and KJV.
3 The verb is in the Greek present tense, which conveys the meaning of a continuing or ongoing action.
4 The Greek word charisma, however, has a wider range of meanings in the NT. Its basic meaning is that it is a gracious gift.
5 See I. Howard Marshall’s, Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
6 The formulated doctrine of the Trinity is the result of an inductive study of Scripture, as is the doctrine of the hypostatic union—that Christ was and is both fully human and fully divine, yet one person.
7 Acts 9:25, where the phrase “his disciples” (NASB Updated) refers to followers of Paul. NIV reads “his followers.”
8 For “having believed [pisteusantes],” Greek grammar allows for a translation either of “when you believed” (coincident time) or “after you believed” (antecedent time). Context favors the latter.
9 In John’s Gospel, of course, the resurrected Jesus did address the disciples with the imperative, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (20:22). Biblical scholars understand John’s usage variously, some seeing it as the immediately realized gift of the Spirit in regeneration, others as anticipation of the Pentecost event, and still others as an independent Johannine report of Pentecost.
10 The English technical term for speaking in tongues is “glossolalia,” from the Greek words glossa (tongue, language) and lalia (speech). The word does not occur in Scripture.
11 See Luke 1:46 and Acts 19:17 for parallel occurrences.
12 The Greek construction is te . . . kai which, along with te kai, is common in the Book of Acts. The following are possible translations: “as . . . so; not only . . . but also.” Some grammatical examples are in Acts 1:1,8; 4:27; 8:12; 9:2; 22:4; 26:3. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.). Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 993.
13 A strict translation, based on the Greek form of the seven questions in this verse.

the DOCTRINE ofCREATION

THIS STATEMENT ON CREATION WAS ADOPTED AS THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN AUGUST 2010. IT WAS REVISED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN AUGUST 2014.

Position Paper

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The Bible begins with the story of creation, declares at the outset that God is the Creator, and reiterates this understanding of origins from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible’s teachings on creation clearly are foundational to Christian faith.

In studying the biblical doctrine of creation, it should be understood that the Bible makes no claim to be a scientific textbook. Nor should the Bible, which is intended to communicate to people throughout the ages, be expected to utilize modern scientific terminology. Nonetheless, the Bible declares itself to be trustworthy in whatever it teaches to be true, whether relating to matters of faith, history, or the created order. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). We affirm with Jesus the authority, certainty, and finality of God’s eternal Word, for “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35, NASB; Matthew 5:18).

God Is Creator of Everything

In the Genesis creation narratives, and throughout the Old and New Testaments, the Bible emphasizes that God is Creator, not only of the earth and its inhabitants, but of everything that exists (Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 146:6; Acts 14:17; Revelation 4:11; 10:6).

The Bible story stands in sharp contrast to ancient Near East thought that tended to be dualistic, teaching that the universe in some form existed eternally alongside the gods. In ancient mythologies, the gods created certain things but always from preexisting materials. However, the biblical declaration that God is the Creator of everything sets Him apart from these pagan gods and their idols (Psalm 96:5).

More recent materialists also tend to believe that matter is eternal and the sum total of all existence. Consequently, evolutionary theory assumes that the universe and all life forms, including humans, are evolving spontaneously through mechanistic forces, unguided by any external intelligence, divine or otherwise.

Over against these beliefs, the Bible assumes and plainly teaches that God existed before all things (Psalm 90:2). Moreover, He brought the universe into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo), that is, without preexisting materials (Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3). Belief in the eternality of matter and the theory that the universe evolved on its own are therefore inconsistent with, and, indeed antagonistic to, biblical faith.

The Reality of Creation

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis accurately communicate God’s creation of the heavens and the earth. Using language that appears to employ both prose and poetry, and that contains both literal and symbolic elements, the story is a simple, yet beautiful and compelling, narrative intended to speak to people in all ages.

The intricate design and delicate balance of creation is so complex that humans will never fully comprehend it—only the Creator himself can do so. But the message that God alone is Creator plainly has been communicated to all who through the ages hear and read the Genesis account. The simplicity, power, and beauty of these creation narratives contrast vividly with competing pagan myths from the ancient Near East.

 

Some have contended that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetical and are to be taken as parables. But a comparison of poetical references to creation (Deuteronomy 32, 33; Job 38:4–11; Psalms 90; 104:5–9) shows that the Genesis account is in prose form, though it may contain some poetic language. Even so, poetry in the Bible, as in other literature, often describes actual, historical events, so the use of poetry does not make this account fictional.

Only God Can Create

It is also evident that no part of God’s creation, angel or human, is creative in the sense God is. The Hebrew word for “create” (bara’) always has God as the subject of the verb. This word is used for God’s work of creation and is also used to indicate that God will do something unusual and unprecedented. For example, it is used when God said to Israel at Sinai: “I will do wonders never before done [bara’, “created”] in any nation in all the world” (Exodus 34:10).

The significance of the Hebrew verb bara’ is also illustrated when God spoke through Isaiah to his stubborn people, “From now on I will tell you of new things . . . They are created [bara’] now, and not long ago” (Isaiah 48:6–7). As in the first chapter of Genesis, the word bara’, “to create,” is used only of completely new and unprecedented acts of God; that is, of the creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning, of the creation of the first animal life in the sea (1:21), and of man and woman in God’s own image (1:27). At other times, the words “made” (‘asah) and “formed” (yatsar) are used. So the word “create” (bara’) emphasizes that God alone is the Great Creator of all.

Creation Is Purposeful

God had a stated purpose in creation. He created “for his own ends” (Proverbs 16:4) and for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). He “formed [the earth] to be inhabited” by his own animate creatures (Isaiah 45:18). All creation is thus an expression of His will and His power.

Moreover, order, progress, and climax are all woven into the biblical account of creation. Order is seen in the careful structuring of the various stages of creative activity in a six-day format, evening to morning. Progress can be seen in the sequential development and filling out of the earth and its inhabitants, and in the increase of personal attention God gave to His creative work. Of the vegetation we read that God said, “‘Let the land produce vegetation’ . . . And it was so” (Genesis 1:11–12). Of the animals we read that God said, “‘Let the land produce living creatures’ . . . And it was so” (vv. 24–25). But of the human race God, using strikingly personal and plural language, said, “‘Let us make mankind’ . . . So God created mankind . . . male and female he created them” (vv. 26–27). The human race is thus the capstone of God’s creative activity.

The biblical narratives intentionally show careful, intelligent planning and rules out the idea that any part of creation came into being by mere chance. God exercised His wisdom and control at all times (Psalms 136:5; 148:5; Isaiah 45:12; 48:12–13) and brought the entire created order to a complete and well-designed climax (Genesis 1:31).

The Nature of the Creator

It is important to note that Scripture focuses our attention not so much on the technical details of God’s creative activity as on the Creator himself. From Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, God’s presence and activity are primary. We read that “God created,” “God said,” “God saw,” God “separated,” “God called [named],” “God made,” “God set [placed],” “God blessed,” and God “rested.” The God of creation acted deliberately and decisively through His spoken word to bring about His intended purposes (Isaiah 55:10).

The creation accounts further show the Creator to be intelligent, loving, and personal. In contrast to pantheism, He is distinct from His creation (Psalm 90:2). In contrast to deism, He continues to be personally active in His creation. He upholds, sustains, and preserves it (Nehemiah 9:6) and, in His own time, will bring it to consummation (Romans 8:20–21; Colossians 1:16–17; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 20–21).

The relational nature of the Creator is seen in His fellowship with the first human pair and His expectations of all His human creatures. Humans are to worship and serve Him as the Creator (Isaiah 40:26,28,31). They are warned not to strive against their Maker (Isaiah 45:9). They are to commit the keeping of their souls to Him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator (1 Peter 4:19). They are also to recognize that their help comes from the One who made the heavens and the earth (Psalms 121:2; 124:8; 146:5–6), and in effecting His eternal purposes, there is nothing too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:17).

A Work of the Trinity

The Bible also teaches that creation was a cooperative work of the Trinity. In addition to naming God [the Father] as Creator, the Old Testament shows that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 33:6–7). The New Testament further reveals that Jesus [the Son], who is the one Mediator between God and fallen humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), was the active Agent in creation, “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth” (Colossians 1:16). This truth is also echoed in John’s Gospel, “Through him [Jesus, the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3).

God’s Creation of Humans

The creation story depicts human beings as the zenith of God’s creative activity. Their uniqueness is portrayed in two separate and complementary accounts. Genesis chapter 1 is a terse overview of all creation while Genesis chapter 2 shows that God lavished very personal and particular attention on the creation of both Adam and Eve. Significantly, it was only humans of whom God said, “Let us make mankind [“human being,” not exclusively “male”] in our image, in our likeness” (1:26), “so that they may rule . . . over all the creatures” (1:26). Neither the previous inanimate or animate creation was so described. In those creative activities, God had simply said, “‘Let there be’…And it was so” (as in Genesis 1:6–7).

Being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), human beings are free, rational, capable of self-appreciation and self-expression, capable of moral and spiritual understanding, and created for fellowship with each other and with God. That the first human pair, made in God’s image, would fall and lead the race into sin (3:1ff.) was hardly a surprise for the Creator, who nonetheless purposed to create and redeem them through Christ. To be sure, the image of God divinely stamped on the race would be marred by sin (Genesis 3). But Jesus Christ was destined “before the creation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20) to redeem fallen humankind and include His redeemed people in the final reconciliation of the universe (Romans 8:21; 1 Corinthians 15:20–28; Ephesians 1:4; Colossians 1:19).

While some think that the account of human creation is merely parabolic and not to be taken literally, Genesis pointedly declares God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life (2:7). Subsequently, God deliberately made Eve from Adam’s rib [perhaps “side”] (2:22). Both Adam and Eve, male and female, are declared to be made in the “image” and “likeness” of God. These carefully delineated creative acts indicate that humans are distinct from animals. God did not form Adam from some previously existing creature (1 Corinthians 15:39). Any evolutionary theory, including theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, that claims all forms of life arose from a common ancestry is thereby ruled out.

Moreover, the New Testament treats the first Adam as a historical person (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13–14). Adam is named as the first human in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:38) and Jesus pointed out, authoritatively citing Genesis 1:27, that “at the beginning, the Creator ‘made them male and female’” (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). Paul spoke of Adam and Jesus as historical persons, recognizing Adam as the beginning of the human race. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). “’[T]he first man Adam became a living being’” (2 Corinthians 15:45) and “a pattern of the one [Christ] to come” (Romans 5:14), thus definitively linking Adam with Christ, “the last Adam.” Adam is the “one man” by whom sin and death came (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22). Jude 14 also cited Adam as the beginning of the race.

We strongly affirm that Adam and Eve were real, historical persons whose fall into sin (Genesis 3) is likewise historical. Both their and our redemption is historically effected through Christ, the “second Adam.” To suggest that Adam is not a historical person uniquely created by God may well diminish vital biblical teachings on the nature of humankind, their fall into sin, and, perhaps, the nature of Christ himself.

Creation and Science

The discoveries of science have frequently been utilized by skeptics to question the accuracy of the biblical accounts. In response, believing scientists and biblical scholars consider no fundamental conflict to exist between God’s Word and His works. The theories of scientists are routinely modified with the introduction of new evidence. But the Scriptures, properly interpreted, are always the final, unchanging authority for Christian faith.

Christians historically have believed that “all truth is God’s truth.” God reveals himself finally and authoritatively in the Scriptures, His special revelation. In a subsidiary but nonconflicting way, He also reveals himself in the general revelation of His created order. Not surprisingly, many scientists have observed that the universe is fine-tuned to be capable of supporting life. There are many constants, which differing even slightly, would make life as we know it impossible. These observations are consistent with the testimony of the ancient Psalmist, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. . . . Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1–2,4).

Ultimately, then, when God’s Word and God’s Work are properly understood and taught by reverent scholarship, there is no disunity. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). God has revealed himself in such a way as to invite us into reverent exploration of His nature both through His Word and His work—the Bible and scientific exploration.

In conclusion, we affirm that God and God alone is the designer and creator of the universe and of life. The Bible from beginning to end identifies God as the Creator. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3). “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Psalm 33:9).

All Scripture citations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version (NIV).

CHURCH MISSION AND PEACEMAKING

POSITION PAPER
(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1 & 3 , 2015 )

“Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness” (James 3:18, NIV).¹

The Assemblies of God considers peacemaking to be intrinsic to the Church’s mission. Our “priority reason for being” is: (1) “To be an agency of God for evangelizing the world” (Acts 1:8; Matthew 28:19–20; Mark 16:15–16); (2) “To be a corporate body in which man may worship God” (1 Corinthians 12:13); (3) “To be a channel of God’s purpose to build a body of saints being perfected in the image of His Son” (1 Corinthians 12:28; 14:12; Ephesians 4:11–16); and, (4) “To be a people who demonstrate God’s love and compassion for all the world” (Psalm 112:9; Galatians 2:10; 6:10; James 1:27).

Peace emanates from the very character of the Triune God who is “the God of peace” (Romans 15:33). The gospel therefore is “The gospel of peace” which is proclaimed in evangelism (Ephesians 6:15), pervades the relational context of authentic worship, provides an essential ethos for building the body of Christ, and is expressed and extended by demonstrating God’s love and compassion for the world. God’s ultimate design for His world and all its inhabitants is and has always been for them to be at peace with Him, themselves, each other, and His creation.

PEACE DISRUPTED

---

At the beginning of the human story, Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect peace in four relationships. They were at peace with God, their personal self, each other, and God’s created order. Through these four relationships, God intended for humans to fulfill their purpose to worship and serve Him in a beautiful, hospitable, orderly, and peaceful world. However, when Adam and Eve yielded to temptation, followed their own desires, and rebelled against God, their sin damaged all four of these relationships, and humanity fell into depravity and strife. Thereafter, to this present time, and until Jesus Christ returns to establish His kingdom, fallen humanity has been, is, and will continue to be alienated from God, themselves, other people, and creation (Genesis 3:1–8). Peace is elusive where God’s Word and will are unknown or unheeded.

HOPE FOR PEACE RESTORED

---

In its most basic meaning, the word peace describes the quality of relationships. The Hebrew word shalom, usually translated “peace,” captures analogically what God’s peace is all about. It may best be understood as access to the “good life,” a life in which God’s good intentions for humanity are being realized. Shalom denotes the absence of conflict or war which is a necessary condition for human flourishing. But even more basically it speaks of harmony with God, oneself, one another, and God’s creation. Shalom therefore is a profoundly spiritual word, deeply rooted in the awareness that all blessings of life flow from God the Creator.

Its human and historical idealization is pictured in an oft-quoted passage from Israel’s “golden age”: “During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety (betach), everyone under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25). But as the biblical record makes clear, Solomon’s splendid and affluent kingdom by no means perfectly represented the mature shalom into which Israel’s God desired to bring His ancient covenant people and indeed all humankind (Micah 4:4).

Though the people whom God created were all too soon and too willingly alienated, the promise of a final and perfect realization of shalom is nonetheless found throughout the Scriptures. Immediately following the Fall of our first parents is God’s promise that the seed of the woman would one day defeat the deceiver (Genesis 3:15). This promise is followed by God’s promise to Abraham and his descendents that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). Somewhat later God promises that the Messiah, a descendant of David, will come to establish a kingdom of peace throughout the earth (2 Samuel 7:12–13; 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Chronicles 17:11–14; Isaiah 9:6–7; 11:10–16)

These conditions are beautifully and powerfully depicted in the Old Testament prophets as a time when nations will no longer war against one another (Isaiah 2:4) and all creation is at peace (Isaiah 32:17–18). God’s people will then finally have entered into the perfect shalom He intended from the beginning.

With righteousness he [the Branch, i.e., the Messiah] will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.

He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:4–9).

The New Testament continues this theme, often reflecting the language of the Old Testament prophets, and likewise declares that God’s eternal kingdom (Psalm 145:13) of peace will be established on the earth. But it will only come at the end of this present age when Jesus Christ returns as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:11– 16). The Revelation vividly depicts the arrival of a millennium, a thousand-year reign of peace (Revelation 20:4–10) which then gives way to the new heaven and the new earth (Revelation 21). It also describes the descent of the City of God at which time God comes eternally to dwell in righteousness and peace with His people (Revelation 21:1 through 22:5).

“Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:3–4)

PRESENT NEED FOR PEACEMAKING

---

Unfortunately, from the fall of Adam and Eve until the present, peace on our fallen planet has continued to be fragile indeed. Human history, to be sure, has its finer moments with the emergence of lofty ideals, many realized extensively in the history of our own and other nations, past and present. But unfortunately human history is also littered with the memories of wars, tyrannical and corrupt regimes, lawlessness, murder, slavery, even genocide. Far from our having evolved into a kinder, gentler world, the dawning of the twenty-first century is brimming with a simmering mix of ancient barbarities, militant religions, and godless philosophies that seem perennially to threaten whatever moral progress has been accomplished in previous generations.

Moral turbulence notwithstanding and with all the more reason, the Scriptures reiterate again and again the imperative of peacemaking for every generation. Dark ages and dark days are no reason for followers of Christ to cease faithful representation of the Prince of Peace! Even so, with all realism, the New Testament anticipates that turmoil will continue, and indeed increase as the end of the age approaches. In 2 Timothy 3:1– 5, Paul predicts “terrible times” that will characterize many of the “last days.” Among his descriptors of human depravity are such terms as “lovers of themselves (selfish),” “unforgiving,” and “treacherous,” all of which specifically identify characteristics that militate against peace and justice and often corrupt humankind’s best intended efforts toward those ends. The Church in our time, and every time, has both the imperative and the challenge of pursuing peace and justice in societies often tumultuous and conflicted. Great revivals of Christian faith and morals have often turned the tide of human history, and that possibility is always with those who believe and act on their faith.

BIBLICAL DIRECTIVES FOR PEACEMAKING

---

The Scriptures are replete with directives to make peace in the midst of injustice and turmoil. The Psalmist proclaims: “Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:14). The great writing prophets of the Old Testament severely condemned the dreadful social exploitation and injustice of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in their prosperous but declining years. Thus Amos confronted an outwardly religious but idolatrous and oppressive Israel:

Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! (5:23–24).

Similarly, Isaiah shortly thereafter confronted Judah, also outwardly religious but publicly corrupted by injustice and idolatry:

Stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice.

Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow (1:16–17).

As we know very well, for the most part those appeals fell on deaf ears, and both nations continued their blind march to disintegration and exile.

By the time of Jesus, God’s people were no longer a theocracy ruled by a Davidic king, but a vassal state ruled by tyrannical Rome. In that oppressive setting, with the Jewish people seething with resentment and revolt, Jesus yet preaches the prophetic message, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). Paul writes, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:17–18). Later in the same epistle he urges, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19). The author of Hebrews commands: “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy” (Hebrews 12:14). James promises, “Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness” (James 3:18).

When Jesus blesses those who make peace (Matthew 5:9), He is challenging and encouraging His followers to actively promote the restoration of relationships. To believers deeply involved in the life of local congregations, Paul writes, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). This is an exhortation rarely heeded in fractious congregations and communities! Nonetheless, peacemaking and peacekeeping are a vital part of the “ministry of reconciliation” that God has given to us through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18).

It is inspiring to remember that these exhortations first came to believers striving to be peacemakers under far more dangerous and difficult conditions than exist in advanced modern societies. But even today, there are many places in our world where extremely dangerous conditions threaten the very lives, not to mention the peacemaking efforts of believers. Certainly, for those of us who are free and uniquely empowered to bring reconciliation and hope to various communities at home and abroad, the imperative for peacemaking is inescapable.

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE

---

As we have repeatedly emphasized, genuine peace comes only from and through God who is the wellspring of peacemaking. As Paul notes (Romans 4:5; 5:6), God has taken the first step of peacemaking by offering redemption through Jesus Christ, whereby we have “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). This includes personal and experiential peace: “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7). Jesus further personalizes it declaring that He is the One who gives peace: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you” (John 14:27). Taking this reconciling gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15) to others in turn is the first and most basic means of peacemaking (Matthew 5:9).

Beyond sharing the gospel of peace, the Scriptures are not univocal regarding other means of accomplishing peace or addressing conflict. In the Old Testament, God’s will for human behavior is epitomized in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:1–21) which are in turn distilled into two, love for God and love for neighbor (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37–40). If necessary, force is used to resolve conflicts. In the New Testament, there is more emphasis on accomplishing peace through nonviolent means. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus advocates a nonviolent response to evil when He instructs us to turn the other cheek, go the second mile, or relinquish our shirts when sued for our coats. However, the Scriptures strongly support conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is wronged or has wronged another (Matthew 5:23–26; 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Ephesians 2:14).

The New Testament also recognizes and affirms the role of government in peacemaking and peacekeeping. “The authorities that exist have been established by God” and are “God’s servant for your good.” These authorities “bear the sword” as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1,4). While these biblical texts have no illusions about the moral impeccability of the authorities or their actual rule, it is clear that the divine mandate for government is to maintain justice and peace, and to defend against and punish evil.

Christians have an imperative not only to affirm their government’s role in peacekeeping but also as citizens to cast their ballots, raise their voices, and exert their influence to facilitate just and humane actions by their governing bodies as well as other social and commercial entities. Evangelical witness is always demonstrated as compassionate and peace-loving people thoughtfully and prayerfully examine their own prejudices, educate themselves on the great moral issues of the day, and engage in ways that bring glory to God and shalom to those who are oppressed and violated. Indeed, lawless and brutal behavior threatens the well-being and peace of society at large as well as particular individuals who are immediately abused by such destructive behaviors. Leaving the wounded unattended and unprotected alongside the highways of life may be excused by some religionists, but it is hardly the godly option for those called to be peacekeepers and peacemakers.

ASSEMBLIES OF GOD EMPHASIS ON PEACEMAKING

---

While the Scriptures place a great deal of responsibility for justice and peacemaking on leaders and government, the peacemaking imperative is also deeply and intensely personal—and must always have a personal starting point. One’s life-changing personal peace with God is to radiate outwardly in both effecting and maintaining peace in the family, with fellow believers, the immediate community, and among all the structures and ministries of the Church at home and abroad. As recipients of peace, believers are to exemplify, create, and maintain just and peaceful contexts in their various spheres of life and ministry.

For both personal and corporate engagement in peacemaking, the Assemblies of God provides a wide range of resources and missions opportunities. In addition to well- established and well-funded missions organizations at home and abroad, rationale and encouragement are provided in various perspective papers as those on capital punishment, counseling, environmental protection, and justice for women in society, and the church. In a perspective paper on human trafficking, holistic instructions are provided for churches to respond to this systemic injustice, including prayer, education awareness, speaking out against this atrocity, and personal ministry to victims. Also, clear justification and instruction are provided in a perspective paper on civil disobedience that encourages nonviolence as the appropriate response to counter social evils. Another example is found in Resolution 9 of the 1989 General Council, which states: “The General Council . . . approves participation in the pro-life movement by all scriptural means and disapproves all unscriptural acts by its ministers; and leaves to the discretion of individual ministers the extent to which they may participate in nonviolent and peaceful acts of intervention to prevent the ‘killing of the unborn.’”

The Assemblies of God’s position on war must be clarified in any discussion of peacemaking. The official perspective paper on war and conscientious objection makes it clear that, “The Assemblies of God as a Movement deplores war. Therefore we are committed to its avoidance as much as accountability, sensibility, and responsibility allow. This will be the necessary posture, until the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, establishes His reign over a world that is now characterized by violence, wickedness, and war.” At the same time, this perspective paper goes on to cite Article XVII of the Church’s Bylaws which makes it clear that the Church is not pacifistic: “We shall continue to insist, as we have historically, on the right of each member to choose whether to declare their position as a combatant [one who willingly serves in positions of violence], a noncombatant [one who serves only in nonviolent ways], or a conscientious objector [one who refuses to participate in any form of military service because of personal convictions regarding war].”

Moreover, the perspective paper also cites the following from Bylaws XVII: “As a Movement we affirm our loyalty to the government of the United States in war or peace.” Thus, while respecting the freedom of conscience of pacifists and encouraging their proper pursuit of peacemaking, the Assemblies of God also recognizes biblical authorization of police and military power for the safety and security of the country (Romans 13:1–5). Given these commitments, it is possible for believers of whatever persuasion in times of armed conflict to effectively serve as peacemakers in a place and role of their conscientious choice.

EVANGELISM AND PEACEMAKING

---

In view of the admonitions of Scripture to pursue peace in a broken world, the importance and relevance of deliberate peacemaking activities is abundantly clear. In keeping with its inclusion of compassion ministries in its “priority reason for being” statements, the Assemblies of God, as noted, provides encouragement and opportunities for its members to be proactive in peacemaking. As people of the Spirit, we have seen again and again the way in which God raises up gifted believers to spearhead the formation of powerful peacemaking ministries at home and abroad. Examples readily come to mind, as Teen Challenge, Convoy of Hope, military and civilian chaplaincy ministries, and many others local, national, and international.

Unfortunately, history also reveals that at times individuals and churches, even entire denominations, make social justice and peacemaking activities their primary mission. Not uncommonly, these well-intentioned transformation movements that began with lofty Christian ideals are co-opted along the way by political or ideological interests and lose their moorings in the gospel of Christ. Unwittingly, they may even become a part of the oppressive systemic structures they initially set out to reform.

That being true, the emphasis and function of peacemaking and other social ministries must always be kept in proper relationship to the Church’s core mission to evangelize and make disciples of Jesus Christ. While ministries of compassion, social transformation, and peacemaking that truly grow out of and retain their vital connection to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ do indeed extend the mission of our God in His world, there must be a determined effort to stay on mission.

From its beginning in 1914, the Assemblies of God’s main focus of ministry has been, and continues to be, worldwide evangelism and discipleship. This priority is drawn from the overall thrust of the New Testament and especially from the Lord’s final command: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father

and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19–20).

CONCLUSION

---

While evangelism and discipleship must always be the foremost task of the Church, the people of God cannot stand aside from the social evils and injustices of our time, about which the Bible speaks so powerfully. As we preach the gospel of peace about the miracle-working, life-giving Prince of Peace, we must be alert to the brokenness and systemic evils of the world around those to whom we minister. If we are prayerful and willing, our Lord by His Spirit will lead us through all our ministries to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), to help the needy (Matthew 25:35–36), and to minister in love and compassion endeavoring to obey everything He commanded.

 

^{1 All biblical citations unless otherwise indicated are from the New international Version (2011).}

QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ofDEACONS AND TRUSTEES

This statement is the report of the committee to study eligibility criteria for deacons and trustees in Assemblies of God churches. The report was adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 17, 1976.

DEACONS AND TRUSTEES INTRODUCTION

---

God’s method by which the church of Jesus Christ has moved forward down through the centuries is that God selected a person to be the leader (the pastor) and then gave the leader others (deacons) to serve as support to the leader and as fellow servants to the congregation.

It is understood that God has always chosen to give the leadership the vision for the work of the Lord. For a pastor and board to work together for the enlargement of the kingdom of God is a beautiful experience.

TERMINOLOGY USED WITH CHURCH BOARDS

---

Deacons

The deacons are chosen from among the congregation to “serve the church” in the practical, spiritual, and temporal matters of that body of believers

Trustees

The trustees are chosen from among the congregation to be custodians of the church property and serve as signatories.

Board of Advisors

The Board of Advisors shall be chosen to assist the pastor in those churches which have an insufficient number of adults to qualify as deacons.

Official Board

The pastor and deacons shall be the official board of the local church. In the event a church does not have a Board of Deacons, the official board shall be that board elected to serve with the pastor.

QUALIFICATIONS

---

Deacons

A person’s life and character must pass certain criteria before qualifying one to serve.

The Scriptures dictate the qualifications.

1. The deacon must be chosen from “among you” (Acts 6:3), a lay member of the local congregation for at least 1 year.

2. The deacon must be of good reputation, “of honest report” (Acts 6:3, KJV). The confidence and trust of the congregation and community are essential.

3. The deacon is in a spiritual ministry, “full of the Spirit” (Acts 6:3), according to Acts 2:4, and continuing to be “filled” (Ephesians 5:18).
4. The deacon is required to make decisions in practical and temporal matters as well as giving support to the pastor in spiritual matters, so sound direction and wise counsel need “wisdom” (Acts 6:3).
5. The deacon must be willing to be involved in the work of God through the church; the deacon is to “serve” (Acts 6:2, KJV).

6. The deacon is to be “sincere” (1 Timothy 3:8), i.e., steadfast and serious.
7. The deacon is “not double-tongued” (1 Timothy 3:8, KJV), i.e., must be as good as one’s word, dependable.
8. The deacon is “not indulging in much wine” (1 Timothy 3:8), but is temperate,

not depending on physical stimulants.

9. The deacon is “not pursuing dishonest gain” (1 Timothy 3:8), but faithful with the tithe, generous, and not motivated by money.

10. The deacon is proper in doctrine, keeping “hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:9), fully subscribing to the tenets of faith of the Assemblies of God.
11. The deacon is a mature believer, “and let these also first be proved” (1 Timothy 3:10, KJV).

12. The deacon has not experienced matrimonial mix-ups, but is in a faithful, monogamous marriage (1 Timothy 3:12).
13. Deacons lead their homes in Christ, “ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Timothy 3:12).
14. Spouses of deacons (or deaconesses) must be an example of the Christian life, “not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” (1 Timothy 3:11).
15. At the discretion of the local congregation, a female meeting other stated qualifications may be selected to serve as a deaconess.

 

Trustees

Trustee boards in churches are frequently granted capacities similar to that of a Board of Deacons. If the Board of Trustees is granted such capacities, it is recommended that the qualifications shall be the same as a Board of Deacons.

Board of Advisors

Members of the Board of Advisors shall subscribe to the tenets of faith of the Assemblies of God, support the local church in attendance and finances, and shall have been approved by the district officiary.

Official Board

If the official board is other than a Board of Deacons or Board of Trustees, the qualifications shall be determined by the constitution and bylaws of the local congregation as long as the scriptural standards of leadership are maintained.

RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL BOARDS

---

To the Pastor

The board member is the pastor’s advisor, helper, and prayer partner, a loyal supporter of the pastor, assisting in fulfilling the vision and goals God has given the pastor for the church.

The pastor is the chairperson and a voting member of the church boards.

To Each Other

Board members are a team, working together within the scope of their assignment with the view to achieving the successful advancement of the church.

Board members should seek to develop a close relationship through mutual prayer, worship, and cooperative co-laboring with the pastor and staff.

To the Congregation

Board members should promote goodwill in the congregation and should strengthen the people’s confidence in the pastor’s leadership. The spiritual interest and welfare of the congregation are their concern and responsibility.

To the Community

Board members should be the church’s public relations people in the community. Their lives should be a testimony of true Christianity, conducting themselves in a manner that will honor Christ.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOARDS

---

It is generally understood that the pastor, by virtue of office, is president of the corporation and chair of the board.

Deacons

The deacons shall act in an advisory capacity with the pastor in all matters pertaining to the assembly in its spiritual life and in the administration of the ordinances. They shall act in the examination of applicants for membership and also in the administration of church discipline.

At the discretion of the pastor, individual board members may be assigned portfolios of responsibility in the functioning of the local church.

It is expected that the official board shall serve as the nominating committee for selection of a pastor

Trustees

The trustees serve as the official, legal servants in matters of business. Normally the president (pastor) and the secretary of the Board of Trustees sign legal documents in behalf of the church, particularly as property and financial contracts are involved.

The trustees, serving as custodians of the church property, shall include its proper maintenance and insurance, etc., and shall act on behalf of the church in selling and acquiring property.

Board of Advisors

Inasmuch as the district officiary serves as the official board of the local assembly when a Board of Advisors serves, this board shall act in an advisory capacity to the pastor in the routine functioning of the local church.

Official Board

The official board shall serve as it has been defined in the above guidelines.

APPENDAGE

---

Elder or Eldership

After research, we conclude, because of the use of the word in the original Greek (Acts 20:17,28; 1 Timothy 5:17; James 5:14, etc.), that the words “elder” or “eldership” refer to the office of pastor, bishop, or overseer. It is beyond the scope of our assignment to speak to this office.

Process by Which Eligibility Is Determined

• When a nominating committee is provided for in the local constitution and bylaws, the following procedure is recommended:
  1. Spiritual qualifications shall be considered as stated under “Qualifications.”
  2. The nominee shall be one who faithfully supports the local church in attendance and finances.
  3. The nominee should understand the Assemblies of God church government.
  4. Before a nominee is presented, the pastor should discuss philosophy and vision and determine the nominee’s willingness to serve.
• The selection of board members shall be by a vote of the local congregational membership after nominees have been approved.

CONCLUSION

---

The pastor is God’s gift to the church; board members are the church’s gift to the pastor.

©1976 by the Assemblies of God Gospel Publishing House Springfield, Missouri 65802

Printed in the United States of America

Gospel Publishing House Catalog # 34-4171

CAN BORN-AGAIN BELIEVERS BE DEMON POSSESSED? (OFFICIAL A/G POSITION PAPER)

This statement on the question, “Can Born-Again Believers Be Demon Possessed?” was approved as the official statement by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God in May, 1972.

---

The spread of oriental religions and the occult in America has brought with it an increase in demon possession similar to that reported formerly by missionaries on foreign fields. All too often there has been too little teaching in this area. Many have felt all that is necessary is to preach Christ, and the demons will go away.

But the New Testament does more than command to preach Christ. It warns very definitely against the enemy of our souls and shows that demons are not to be treated lightly. It also emphasizes that deliverance is available through the “finger of God,” the power of the Spirit, and the name of Jesus.

The Danger of Extremes

There is a danger, however, when emphasizing any neglected doctrine, to go to an extreme which is beyond the intent of the Scriptures. It is also possible to be sidetracked into making the neglected doctrine the whole ministry. This seems to be the case with some who become fascinated with the subject of demonology. They are trapped into giving most of their attention to it. The more demons they cast out, the more there seem to be to cast out, and the rest of their ministry is practically ignored.

This tendency to become more occupied with casting out demons than with exalting Christ seems inconsistent with the balance of Scripture. Also there seems to be no basis in Scripture for the accompanying preoccupation with external phenomena, such as vomiting up various substances in connection with the casting out of demons (forgetting that demons are spirit beings). In the one instance in which foaming is mandated, Scripture makes it clear that this was a consistent pattern prior to the time the demon was cast out and not a phenomenon occurring only at the time of exorcism.

One of the regrettable side effects of an unscriptural overemphasis on demonology is that scriptural teaching is sometimes brought into disrepute. This was one result of the so-called witchcraft of 16th and 17th century England and 17th century America. In England, cases were reported where children vomited up articles which supposedly proved evil spirits had entered into their bodies.

Then, in 1692, Cotton Mather, a brilliant Boston preacher who graduated from Harvard with honors, roused the people of Salem, Massachusetts, against “witches.” Nineteen persons were hanged and 150 imprisoned because of the testimony of children who were supposed to be demon possessed (and who may have been moved by lying demons, though there may be other explanations). In the presence of the accused, these children would throw “fits” and would go into what seemed to be a trance. In this state they would name people who they said were responsible for their “suffering.”

Though many of the accused showed a spirit and a faith worthy of Christian martyrs, judges who were men of personal integrity pronounced them guilty. As a result of the publicity given these trials, Americans of that day turned away from the supernatural and branded all that the Bible teaches about Satan and evil spirits as mere superstition.

It seems important, then, that we do not permit Satan to sidetrack God’s people into an attention on demons or evil spirits that goes beyond the clear teaching of the Bible, thus producing a reaction that would turn people away from all that is supernatural and hinder the work of God.

Exercising caution, however, does not mean we should treat the matter of demonology lightly. The Bible clearly recognizes both the activity of demons and their great number. This is even more evident when we recognize that the word devils in our common English version really means “demons.” Actually, the word devil (Greek, diabolos, “the slanderer”) is appropriate only for Satan. This is not to say, however, that the devil does not work through demons. Satan is a created being, a finite spirit, and is not omnipresent. He does most of his work through demons scattered in various parts of the world. Jesus’ work in casting out demons was at least a part of His work of healing those oppressed (exploited, dominated, under the tyrannical rule) of the devil (Acts 10:38). (It should be noted that the word oppressed as used here is stronger than in today’s usage.)

A question that arises, then, is not whether demons are active today, but whether born-again believers can be demon possessed, have a demon, or need to have someone cast demons out of them. Can the Holy Spirit and a demon dwell in the same temple? Are not our bodies temples of the Holy Spirit?

What Writers Have Said

Most of the older writers say that genuine Christians cannot be possessed or indwelt by a demon.

An example is John L. Nevius, a Presbyterian missionary who spent nearly 40 years in China, who saw many cases of demon possession, but never among Christians. He found that demons did not want to stay in the presence of true Christians.¹

A pioneer Pentecostal missionary, Victor Plymire, gave similar insights from Tibet. He found also that demon worshipers did not find it easy to get demons to take possession of them.

More recently writers of various denominations have taken a different view. M. H. Nelson, a medical doctor, tells of numerous reports of Christians who apparently have suffered from demon possession. He suggests, however, that some of them may be in open rebellion against God. (Apparently, he believes in eternal security and still calls these rebels Christians.) He goes on to say, however, that though a demon may gain an influence over the mind and body of a Christian, it is very doubtful that the body of a Christian can be possessed by a demon.²

Others say that a demon can possess the Christian’s body without possessing the Christian’s inner being. This seems contrary to the biblical view of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. It also goes against the biblical view of the unity of body, soul, and spirit as far as responsibility is concerned. The fragmentation of the person into various aspects is a heathen idea. If a demon enters any area of the body or mind (or attitudes), it enters you!

What the Bible Says

Many Christians have had God-given deliverances from problems and believed they were delivered from demon possession. But we must search the Scriptures to see if their interpretation of what happened is really in line with what the Bible teaches.

Some, for example, teach that since the Bible speaks of a spirit of cowardly fear, any deliverance from fear must be by the casting out of an evil spirit or demon of fear. But an examination of the same passage (2 Timothy 1:7) shows it speaks also of a spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind or self-control. If people interpret fear to be an evil spirit needing to be cast out, to be consistent they would need to beseech three good spirits to come in.

The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. Love and self-control are fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives. By a spirit of love and of self-control is meant the attitudes that result from our cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

Actually, the word spirit in many cases means an attitude or a disposition. David spoke of a broken spirit (Psalm 51:17); Solomon of a humble spirit (Proverbs 16:19). Paul wanted to come to Corinth, not with a rod, but with love and a meek or gentle spirit (1 Corinthians 4:21). Peter spoke of the adorning of the heart with the imperishable gift of a meek and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4), actually meaning a quiet disposition. This is in line with the frequent use of the word spirit for one’s own spirit and its expressions (Haggai 1:14; Acts 17:16; 1 Corinthians 2:11, etc.).

Thus, unless the context shows that an independent spirit-being is meant, it seems best to take most phrases such as a haughty spirit, a hasty spirit, a spirit of slumber, a spirit of jealousy, etc., to be sins of the disposition or lusts of the flesh (Galatians 6), and not demons.

A serious danger in considering all these sins of the disposition to be demons is that the individual may feel no responsibility for personal actions and feel that the necessity for repentance is removed. Actually, the Bible calls people to repent of these things and to put off these attitudes. The great conflict within us is not between the Holy Spirit and demons, but between the indwelling Holy Spirit and the flesh (that is, all the sensory apparatus that tends toward sin).

When the word spirit is used of demons, the Bible may speak of an evil or unclean spirit. Sometimes the words are used together; for example, “a spirit of an unclean devil” (Luke 4:33).
In many cases these demons caused sickness. But the New Testament does not ascribe all sickness to demons or evil spirits. In fact, many passages make a clear distinction between sicknesses and diseases not caused by demons and those caused by demons (Matthew 4:24; 8:16; 9:32,33; 10:1; Mark 1:32; 3:15; Luke 6:17,18; 9:1, etc.). In none of these examples is there any indication that any of these sicknesses caused by demons were of people in right relation to God. We must remember also that all of these examples took place before Pentecost.

The word daimonizomai, to be possessed of a demon, or, as some put it, to be demonized, is not as common. It is used as a verb only once and that of a Canaanite girl who was “badly demonized,” or cruelly tormented by a demon. Everywhere else it is found as a participle which should be translated, “the demoniac(s)” (Matthew 8:28,33; 9:32; 12:22; Mark 5:15–18; Luke 8:35). Again, in no case is there any indication that any of these “demoniacs” or demonized persons was right with God; and in most cases they suffered severe torment—and a dramatic change of personality.

Another great problem with the idea that demons may possess Christians is a concept that erodes faith and waters down our concept of God and the salvation He provides. God is our Father. He has “rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Colossians1:13). In “this darkness we used to live when [we] followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (Ephesians 2:2). But now God by His love has saved us and made us “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (Ephesians 2:19). It would seem contradictory for demons to indwell our bodies now that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.

We were once servants of sin (Romans 6:17) but now we are free to live for Christ. It is still possible to sin, but if a believer sins, it is because of having become willing to do so, not because of having been invaded by a demon. The Book of Romans calls not for the casting out of demons but for a faith act by which one becomes what one is.

For a Christian to have a demon would bring a division that Jesus refused to admit. The Pharisees tried to say that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24). They supposed the kingdom of Satan might be divided against itself. Jesus rejected this. Luke 11:21,22 further implies that Jesus has bound Satan as far as Satan’s power to enslave a believer is concerned. Only when a demon returns and finds the house empty is he able to reenter (Luke 11:24–26).

The idea of a true believer being inhabited by a demon also erodes the biblical concept of salvation and peace. It may produce terrible fear as Christians begin to wonder what demon will invade them next. This is certainly not in line with the freedom the Bible assures us we have. Early Christians had no such fear, nor did the Church of the second century.

Hermas, who wrote a very influential Christian book called The Shepherd about a.d. 139,. rebuked corruption and encouraged Christian virtue. In the book he also spoke of evil spirits that were able to live and reign within a person, but denied that the Holy Spirit could live in the same person with these evil spirits.

The Scripture is full of assurance for the believer: “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). A believer is a person who is delivered from the devil. This is fundamental. Some point to Ananias and Sapphira as exceptions. But Ananias either apostatized before Satan filled his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, or else he and his wife were among those who joined themselves to the church rather than being added to it by the Spirit (see Acts 5:13,14). At the time, at least, they were no more than professing Christians.

Resisting Evil Forces

It seems evident that the term possessed should not be applied to true believers. What the Bible does show is that Satan and his cohorts are external foes. We are in a warfare against Satan’s forces and they are looking for opportunities to attack us. (See Ephesians 6:12.) The biblical emphasis is on what we must face in the very atmosphere around us. The call is never for us to get someone to cast the demons out of us. They are out there attacking us, testing us, not possessing us. The call is to be vigilant and to put our armor on and take our stand (2 Corinthian 10:3–6; Ephesians 6:10–18; 1 Peter 5:8,9).

Jesus defeated Satan by quoting the Word of God (Matthew 4). We too must take our stand on God’s Word and resist Satan and his demons, in faith (James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8,9). Then the shield of faith will quench every fiery dart of the enemy (Ephesians 6:16). (Here we recognize that just as God’s deliverances sometimes come through angels, so Satan’s attacks sometimes come through demons or through those who are demon possessed.)

That the attack is external is seen in the case of Job; and also in the case of Paul’s thorn in the flesh, which he called a messenger (or angel—Greek aggelos) of Satan sent to buffet him (beat or strike him with the fist). (See 2 Corinthians 12:7.) Paul besought the Lord three times that it (the messenger of Satan) might be removed (more literally, “Keep away from him”), but God refused and said His grace was sufficient. The result was that Paul learned to depend on God in his weakness, reproach, or distress. Whether the messenger of Satan was a demon, a sickness, or a person, the Bible does not say. Just what it was, however, is beside the point here. The attack, the buffeting, was from the outside, and Paul sought for it to be kept away, not cast out. We note also that Paul sees in himself and in us the living presence of Christ as the only hope (Colossian 1:2, 29).

We believe also that the gift of the discerning of spirits is for the purpose of discerning the spirit that may motivate people who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not the discerning of supposed demons in believers. If the truth remains in us, we remain in the Son and in the Father (1 John 2:24). Only if we are cut off from the vine and cast forth as a dead branch can Satan or his demons claim us. Our redemption is a redemption of the whole person. The full price has been paid.

Christ’s enemies accused Him of having a demon. It is a subtle trick of the devil that makes sincere people accuse Christians today of having a demon. Clearly, there are deliverances, but calling them deliverances from demon possession is unscriptural.

NOTES

---

1 J. L. Nevius, Demon Possession, Grand Rapids: Kregel, reprint from 1894, pp. 278, 290.
2 M. H. Nelson, Why Christians Crack Up, Chicago: Moody Press, 1960, pp. 76, 77.

MINISTRY to PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

This statement on ministry to people with disabilities was adopted by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God on August 11, 2000.

---

Pentecostal evangelicals, believing that miracles still happen today, sometimes have difficulty dealing with people with permanent disabilities and with those who are not healed after much prayer. But does our theology include, along with our belief in supernatural miracles today, a biblical explanation for those who are not immediately healed or made whole? We accept death by old age, and even by accident; but constant reminders of many with mental and physical disabilities, who are not restored to full health and activity, seem to suggest that our belief or our faith is faulty.

Our theology makes place for pain and suffering, because we have hope for healing and an end to pain. But how does our theology, our faith, and our practice handle the person who may never walk again or the mentally challenged child who may never participate in normal social interaction? A proper understanding of the gospel must boldly proclaim, even though we do not have all the answers, that the God who created the universe and all human life in it is aware of the tension His children feel. He expects us to be people of compassion as well as people of power.

God Still Heals and Works Miracles

We affirm that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8¹). He heals today. His miracles confirm His deity, omnipotence, and faithfulness to His promises. We preach the biblical truth of His healing power, even though divine power does not respond immediately to every human plea and desire. Though His ways are beyond our understanding (Romans 11:33), we trust His decisions in response to all our prayers.

The New Testament records many miracles and healings wrought by Jesus. Yet not every disease and infirmity in His immediate proximity was removed. Scripture records that upon returning to His hometown, “he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith” (Matthew 13:58). In John 5, Jesus healed only one of many gathered at the pool of Bethesda for a superstitious expectation of physical healing. So if prayer for healing is not immediately answered, we do not change our theology to say God no longer heals. We continue to trust Him in anticipation of the day when the infirmities of earthly existence drop away in the perfect light of His eternal presence.²

Biblical Attitude Toward Disabilities³

Some speculate that God does not value persons with physical or mental defects or disabilities, and He particularly does not want such persons in spiritual leadership. This erroneous interpretation of God’s impartial love and compassion is drawn by some from Leviticus 21:17-23: “For the generations to come none of your descendants [Aaron’s] who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the Lord by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.”

The Aaronic priesthood as a group anticipated the perfect, sinless High Priest. “Because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself” (Hebrews 7:24-27).

Now that the perfect High Priest has come to die for us, there is no longer need for physically perfect priests who foreshadowed the coming of the great High Priest. Yet even apart from the restriction on impaired priests participating in ceremonies that looked toward the future, the priests with disabilities were still priests whose every need was taken care of by divine command: “He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food” (Leviticus 21:22).

After Moses met with God at the burning bush, the call to leadership followed immediately: “So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt” (Exodus 3:10). Moses, after giving several reasons why he was not the man for the job, complained, “O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue” (Exodus 4:10).

Stephen, the New Testament martyr, referred to Moses as being “powerful in speech” (Acts 7:22). So Moses was either unaware of his strength of speech, or he was downplaying his abilities. Through a series of questions, God reminded Moses that He determines human abilities and disabilities. Was Moses’ claim to be “slow of speech and tongue” a disability or a lack of confidence in his God-given ability? Either way, God had the answer: “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11).

Some say that God is responsible for sin in the world and for the physical defects and disabilities humans have. But the suffering Job spoke truth, “Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong” (Job 34:10). God neither creates evil nor sends it on anyone. When He has to punish, it is loving correction (Hebrews 12:5,6). God was saying to Moses, “As Creator of all life, even in a fallen world of sin and disabilities, I take loving responsibility for everyone. So, Moses, if you have a disability, I can take care of that too.”

God imparts ability, and He knows about disability because He at least allows it. God could have said to Moses what He later said to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

We find additional confirmation in other Scripture passages. The Israelites were admonished to show kindness to those who were deaf and blind (Leviticus 19:14; Deuteronomy 27:18). Those who minister to the weak and helpless are blessed (Psalm 41:1). Jesus welcomed people with all manner of disabilities into the kingdom of God, even though they would have been excluded from service under the Old Testament (Matthew 4:23ff; 15:30). He instructed how to treat people with disabilities: “Then Jesus said to his host, ‘When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous’” (Luke 14:12-14, italics added). Countless healings in the Old and New Testaments provide proof of the compassionate nature of God, in spite of the fact that not all illnesses, diseases, or disabilities were removed.

Mental Disabilities

Secular society has found ways to accommodate those with physical disabilities better than those who are mentally impaired. The church of Jesus Christ, the earthly representative of spiritual reality, should be the leader in providing opportunity for all people to connect with the Spirit of God. We do not fully understand the age of accountability and its application to persons with mental disabilities. We do not understand how a person with a mental disability relates to God. But we must give opportunity for the Spirit of God to speak to such a person at his or her level of comprehension.

Recent special education approaches indicate that individuals with moderate levels of mental disabilities can be mainstreamed in traditional schools and can participate in emotional and social experiences with their peers. Some demonstrate an unusual level of creativity in artistic expression. Many grasp spiritual realities and participate in worship and other church activities, especially in smaller groups. The church should provide such activities for those who can be introduced to genuine encounters with God’s presence.⁴

The primary key to understanding and working with people with mental disabilities is building relationships with them. Developing friendship and trust encourages them to open up to the love of God. Such ministry fulfills the words of Jesus: “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me” (Matthew 25:35,36). He could well have added, “I was different, yet you loved me.”

Call to a Compassionate Church

Ministry to people with disabilities. The biblical command to “serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13) includes everyone. To view people with disabilities as flawed and defective, and possibly a divine mistake, is wrong for a church with Christlike compassion. People with disabilities are platforms for the demonstration of His power to heal or His power to use weakness to display His strength. The church often ministers well to persons with acute illnesses and injuries, where the natural healing process and/or the miracle of divine healing seems a possibility. But in situations where disability is long term or permanent, faith is challenged. Our faith and practice must include a compassionate hand extended to those with disabilities. The challenges to church leadership are: (1) affirming and ministering to those with disabilities, while (2) encouraging congregational acceptance of them into church life and activity. If we are to fulfill the Great Commission to preach the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15, NKJV), we cannot overlook this segment of society.

Ministry to people with disabilities is challenging. Volunteers grow weary when there are limited positive responses. Medication, therapy, pain, and slow deterioration may persist. Yet, we must remember that God’s love for us persists even though our failures and disobedience keep recurring. When His love consumes and motivates us, our ministry to people with disabilities is ministry as to Christ himself.

The church’s compassion may cost money to modify physical facilities. Federal, state, and local governments have standards that allow the physically handicapped access to public facilities. Such requirements should be considered minimal. Our responsibility, as representatives of the kingdom of God, is to include those with disabilities in church functions and worship. Reserving easily accessible pews or aisle seats for people with physical limitations will say, “We want you to worship with us.” Ushers trained to show kindness to worshipers with physical and mental disabilities and to their caregivers demonstrates the seriousness of the church’s concern.

Though salvation is the greatest need of every person, the Great Commission includes more than evangelizing. Discipling and equipping people with disabilities to use their gifts to build up the body of Christ is also a response to the church’s commission..

Ministry of caregiving. Caregivers need our thanks. Sometimes those they care for don’t have the ability to say thank you. It is easy to become weary serving a family member who has a terminal illness or a permanent disability. Knowing that God is all-powerful, caregivers may be tempted to blame the One who can make that person well, but doesn’t. Yet until He answers, they must trust the God who compassionately loves both the caregiver and the one with a disability.

Word to caregivers. Be proud to be seen in public and in a worship service with your family member or friend with a disability. Scripture commands us, “Carry each other’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2). You do that when you give love and compassionate care to one who cannot return the kindness. Others may not be quick to help you bear your burden of caring for one of God’s special people, but our Heavenly Father, who shows compassion for them, understands and will bless your ministry.

Word to People with Disabilities

If you comprehend what has happened to you, you probably have asked, “Why me, Lord?” Students of the Scriptures have searched the Bible for the answer to that question. And since the Bible does not give a final answer, neither can we. Some have tried to penetrate the mystery of suffering, but in doing so have gone beyond God’s Word. There are examples in Scripture of people suffering because of sin in their lives. But righteous people suffer too. Others have suggested that God has a special love for those with long-term pain and suffering, knowing they can handle what others could not. But the love of God to every person is beyond comprehension or deserving.

A mother with disabilities, whose children are serving God, said, “My greatest desire of seeing my entire family following Jesus has been answered, even though my prayer for physical healing has not yet been answered. It may be that their commitment has in some way been linked with my suffering and how I have handled it. God has given me the first desire of my heart.”

The answer the Bible gives concerning your pain and suffering is that we all live in a fallen, sin-cursed world. God did not make it that way. We have made it that way, from Adam and Eve to the present, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The bigger question is, “Why do we not all suffer more than we do?”

God calls you to come to Him with your disability, just as He invites everyone to come to Him. He says to each of us, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28,29). His first concern for every person is the soul: Is it right with God in preparation for eternal wholeness in His presence? A lifetime with a disability followed by an eternity with God is to be preferred to a lifetime with health and wealth followed by an eternity separated from God. Seek to know God intimately until He speaks peace to your heart. As you seek God, invest your time, talents, and energies in serving others. Jesus said, “Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8).

Conclusion

People with disabilities are essential to the wholeness of the Christian community. In a culture that worships physical perfection, devalues human life, and takes pride in disposability, the church must protect the helpless, vulnerable, disenfranchised, including people with disabilities. They are people created in God’s image, possessing dignity, value, and purpose.

The church must extend open arms of invitation and fellowship. Those with mental disabilities can respond to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul reported the answer he received when he asked that his thorn in the flesh be removed: “[The Lord] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’”(2 Corinthians 12:9). We can trust God to reveal His power through the weakness of those with disabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions About Ministry to People With Disabilities

1. What is a disability?

A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual. Disabling conditions come in countless forms and have many causes. Those causes include, but are not restricted to: birth, sickness and disease, the violence of others, accidents, sin and satanic activity, and the infirmities of advancing age. Disability is distinct from sickness and disease. Sickness and disease can often result in disabilities, but not all disabilities are caused by sickness and disease.

2. How did disability originate?

God established His authority over Adam and the rest of the human family by giving Adam one restriction: “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Imperfection, pain, sorrow, and suffering came when Adam and Eve became subject to death (Genesis 3:7-24).

Prior to the disobedience of Adam and Eve, God had declared His entire creation to be very good— exceedingly suitable (Genesis 1:31). That divine declaration not only described the status of His creation, but serves also as an indicator of His benevolent intent for His children. It was never God’s original purpose to fill the days of His children with difficult circumstances, including disabilities.

3. Why does God allow suffering?

Pain, suffering, and death are more than simply penalty for the sinful acts of Adam and Eve. The presence of suffering in the world is a witness to the integrity and holiness of God. He is indeed not a man that He should lie (Numbers 23:19). Suffering is essential so we may understand that the world we live in is not the same one that God declared to be perfect in Genesis 1:31. It has been violated and violently altered as a result of the sin of humankind (Genesis 3:17-19). The healthiest human being lives in a marred body. The healthiest human being is still appointed once to die (Hebrews 9:27). Death is the ultimate universal disability, and its presence in the world points us to the Cross. Living in marred bodies in a marred creation declares sinful humankind’s need for God’s plan of redemption through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:20-22). The good news is that God promises us that earthly suffering is temporary (2 Corinthians 4:17,18; Romans 8:18).

4. How does God view people with disabilities?

God determines both ability and disability. Exodus 4:11 states: “The Lord said to him, ‘Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?’” The word picture of God as a potter and man as the workmanship of His hands is used in both the Old and New Testaments. It implies personal involvement and attention to detail, deliberate intent, and the specific design and purpose of the potter for each individual vessel. The potter forms the clay in a way that pleases Him. People with disabilities are not damaged goods. God takes full responsibility for their existence.

5. What is the purpose of suffering and trials?

Trials keep us dependent on God. They drive us to pray and cause us to seek His face and His help (Hebrews 4:14-16; 1 Peter 5:6,7). Trials help our faith develop endurance and patience (James 1:2,3), and they allow God to establish a track record of His faithfulness in our lives (Psalm 37:25). They remind us that the love of Christ is constant and far greater than any problem or pain: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:35-39).

6. What part does sin in a person’s life or lack of faith play in the healing process?

John 9 indicates there are times when God allows a person to have a disability so the power of God can be displayed at some point. In John 9 and Acts 3 that power came in the form of divine healing. There are other Scripture passages where God chose to display His power through a person’s weaknesses (1 Corinthians 1:27-29; 2 Corinthians 12:9). The individual with the disability is the best judge of his own spiritual condition, because he is the one the Holy Spirit will convict, if need be (John 16:8).

7. Why doesn’t God heal everyone?

Ultimately, every Christian will experience a permanent release from all sickness, pain, and disability (1 Corinthians 15:43,54). Because of this certainty of ultimate healing, every Christian who suffers can live with hope. We know God does heal today. We serve a God who does things “in the fullness of times” (Exodus 2:23-25; Galatians 4:4) and in perfect season (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Psalm 30:5). The timing of an individual’s healing and the means of that healing are subject to God. Healing is not at the whim of individual believers. The apostle Paul wrote to the Philippians about Epaphroditus who nearly died before he was healed (Philippians 2:27). Paul wrote to Timothy about taking a little wine medicinally for his stomach and other chronic ailments (1 Timothy 5:23). The apostle Paul could not heal people at will. The Old and New Testaments show that the timing of divine healing rests with God and usually occurs as people of His choosing can be impacted for His glory, or when He deems that the purpose for the affliction or disability is fulfilled. Therefore, it is best to view healing as a divine appointment with the divine Physician.

8. What if a person is prayed for but doesn’t get healed?

The physical or spiritual condition of people with disabilities should not be judged only on what our physical eyes observe. It is imperative that spiritual leaders exercise discernment when praying for people with disabilities, and not simply assume that their most pressing need is for physical healing. Likewise, those who pray should not judge the results of their prayer by what they see. They can never know, without asking, how a person has been ministered to by the Spirit of God. Remember, people with disabilities often have internal physical disorders and dysfunction. People with disabilities often experience the healing power of God, without being healed of their physical disability. For example, a young man with cerebral palsy was hit by a bus and was close to death. God healed his injuries, but not his disability. The Holy Spirit may heal spiritual or emotional problems rather than physical ones.

9. What is the most critical need in the life of a person with a disability?

Salvation from sin is the greatest need every person has. Some people with disabilities become consumed with regaining what they have lost. They equate attaining physical and mental wholeness with attaining peace and contentment. Jesus understood that soul salvation was a higher priority than physical healing or wholeness. Moments before healing a paralytic, Jesus said, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven” (Matthew 9:2).

10. What is the biblical model for reaching people with disabilities?

Christ provided an example of servanthood that took ministry beyond miracles. People with disabilities are painfully aware that their condition and circumstances are often distasteful to others, and that their lifestyle and behavior are sometimes interpreted as being weird, abnormal, or bizarre. They are also painfully aware that, as a result, people around them are often uncomfortable. Christ’s example of humility, empathy, and servanthood teaches us that the compassion of the Body must be greater than its need for comfort. Jesus took the dirt-encrusted feet of His disciples in His holy hands and washed them. The best analogy in the Bible for reaching out and touching the lives of people with disabilities is washing feet. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them” (John 13:13-17).

NOTES

---

1 Scripture references are from the New International Version, unless otherwise noted.
2 For a biblically based affirmation of the Assemblies of God belief in divine healing and miracles today, see position paper, “Divine Healing: an Integral Part of the Gospel.”
3 The term disability is sometimes used interchangeably with handicap. Both words refer to something that hampers, hinders, or prevents one’s ability to perform a task because of mental or physical impairment through natural deteriora­tion, chronic disease, birth defect, or traumatic injury.
4 For further assistance in conducting ministry to people with mental and physical disabilities, contact Special Touch Ministry, Inc., P.O. Box 25, Waupaca, Wisconsin 54981. For assistance in ministry to the blind, contact the Assemblies of God National Center for the Blind, 1445 N. Boonville, Springfield, MO 65802.

DIVINE HEALING (OFFICIAL A/G POSITION PAPER)

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 9-11, 2010)

From its inception the General Council of the Assemblies of God has recognized divine healing for the whole person as an important part of the gospel, the good news, which Jesus commissioned His disciples to proclaim. The Assemblies of God constitution in its Statement of Fundamental Truths, section 12, states, “Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the Atonement, and is the privilege of all believers (Isaiah 53:4,5; Matthew 8:16,17; James 5:14–16).”¹

Though it is impossible in a brief paper to cover all the implications of this statement or answer all the questions that are raised concerning it, we shall attempt to show that the statement is scripturally sound.

1. Divine Healing Is an Integral Part of the Gospel

The ministry of both Jesus and the apostles gives evidence that divine healing was integral to the proclamation of the gospel message. It was an important witness to Jesus as the revelation of the Father, the promised Messiah, and the Savior from sin (see John 10:37,38). The Bible shows a close connection between the healing ministry of Jesus and His saving, forgiving ministry. His power to heal was actually a witness to His authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–12). Frequently the gospel writers testify that His healing miracles parallel His preaching of the gospel, both being the purpose of His ministry (Matthew 4:23; 9:35,36).

People came from all directions both to hear Him and to be healed (Luke 5:15; 6:17,18). He never turned any away but healed all varieties of sicknesses, diseases, deformities, defects, and injuries (Matthew 15:30,31; 21:14). He also delivered people from demons and the problems they caused (Matthew 4:24).

Jesus recognized that sickness is ultimately the result of the fall of humans into sin, and in some instances may be linked to specific sin (John 5:14) or to the activity of Satan (Luke 13:16). He recognized also, however, that sickness is not always the direct result of specific sin (John 9:2,3). There were times when it was rather an opportunity for God to be glorified (Mark 2:12).

Miracles of healing were an important part of the works God sent Jesus to do (John 9:3,4). This is in line with the Old Testament revelation of God as the Great Physician, the Lord who heals (Exodus 15:26; Psalm 103:3, where the Hebrew participles used in both cases indicate it is God’s nature to heal). Jesus’ ministry showed that divine healing is still a vital part of God’s nature and plan.

Healings also helped to identify Jesus as the promised Messiah and Savior. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53:4: “Surely he took up [lifted and took away] our infirmities and carried [as a heavy load] our sorrows.” (“Infirmities,” choli, is the same word used of physical sickness and disease in Deuteronomy 28:59,61; 2 Chronicles 16:12; 21:15,18,19; Isaiah 38:9. “Sorrows,” makob, is the same word used of physical pain in Job 33:19.) Matthew, in the account of Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, sees this Isaiah passage fulfilled in the healing ministry of Jesus: “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases’ ” (Matthew 8:17).²

Isaiah also ties the sufferings of the Servant to the provision of salvation, a ministry fulfilled by Jesus (Isaiah 53:5,6). His sufferings were for our sins and lead to our peace with God: “And by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). The Isaiah context and the reference to it in 1 Peter 2:24,25 emphasize especially the healing or restoration from sin. However, in view of the emphasis on physical sickness in Isaiah 53:4, it is clear that these passages teach that the gospel to be introduced by the Suffering Servant, Jesus, includes healing from both the spiritual and physical effects of the fall of the human race into sin recorded in Genesis 3.

When John the Baptist was imprisoned, he questioned whether Jesus was actually the promised Messiah or just another forerunner like himself. Jesus responded by calling attention to His messianic works that linked miracles and the preaching of the gospel to the poor (Matthew 11:4,5). Again, healing was an important witness, an integral part of the gospel (Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18; 7:19–23).

Divine healing continued to be an integral part of the gospel through the ministry of the apostles and the Early Church. Jesus sent out the Twelve and the Seventy-two to preach and to heal the sick (Luke 9:2; 10:9). After Pentecost “many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles” (Acts 2:43). Luke wrote the Book of Acts as an extension of the story of what Jesus did and taught, not only through the apostles but through a Church filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:1,8; 2:4).

The working of miracles, including divine healing, was not limited to the apostles. The promise of Jesus was to all believers (John 14:12–14) who would ask in His name (that is, those who recognize His authority and conform themselves to His nature and purposes). God used deacons such as Philip to preach and heal (Acts 8:5–7) and an otherwise unknown disciple, Ananias, to bring healing to Saul (Paul) (Acts 9:12–18).

The gospel message includes the provision of spiritual gifts through the Holy Spirit to the Church, among which are the gifts of healings (1 Corinthians 12:7). All of these gifts, including that of healing, continue to edify or build up the Church and offer hope to every believer. Moreover, James asserts that healing is a normal aspect of the regular meetings of the Church. Whenever the community of faith is gathered, anyone who is sick may request prayer for healing (5:14). We are assured that divine healing is an ongoing manifestation of the gospel in the current day, and will continue until the return of Jesus.

1. Divine Healing Is Provided in the Atonement

The ministry of the priests under the Law foreshadowed the ministry of the great High Priest, Jesus Christ, who is able “to sympathize with our weaknesses (astheneia, weakness, sickness, disease, timidity, infirmity)” (Hebrews 4:14,15). The Old Testament priests, through the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices, made atonement for the sins of the people.

An examination of the concept of atonement in the Bible shows that in most cases it refers to a ransom price paid for redemption and restoration, which points to the redemption through Christ accomplished by the shedding of His blood in our behalf. The apostle Paul described it this way: “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Romans 3:25).

The phrase, “sacrifice of atonement,” translates the Greek hilasterion, which can be also translated expiation, propitiation, atonement, or mercy seat. Leviticus 16 records God’s expectations for Israel’s Day of Atonement and the ministry of the high priest sprinkling the blood of a sin offering on the atonement cover (the solid gold lid on top of the ark of the covenant). The ark contained the stone tablets of the Law, which the people had broken. The broken Law called for judgment and death. But when the blood of a spotless lamb was sprinkled, prophetically anticipating the sinless life of Christ, God saw that sinless life instead of the broken Law and could give mercy and blessing.

The primary purpose of the atonement was cleansing from sin (Leviticus 16:30). It is also clear, however, that atonement brought release from the penalty and consequences of sin in order to bring restoration to God’s blessing and favor. When the people of Israel complained after the judgment that followed the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, God sent a plague on the Israelites. Moses sent Aaron out into the midst of the congregation, where he made atonement for them, and the plague was stopped (Numbers 16:47,48). The Law of Moses required that when the men of Israel were numbered, they were each to give a half shekel atonement offering for their redemption and to prevent a plague from coming upon them (Exodus 30:11–16). Atonement thus provided cleansing from sin and its consequences, including sickness and disease.

The Bible makes it clear that people could not pay the price for their redemption, so God out of His love and for the glory of His own name provided the ultimate atonement (Romans 3:25; see also Psalms 65:3; 78:38; 79:9; Romans 3:21–28). All this was accomplished through Christ at Calvary (John 3:14–16). There He made a full atonement for the whole person. The New Testament speaks of this as redemption, which has essentially the same meaning as atonement. Through Christ we have received redemption and the forgiveness of sins (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15).

Redemption, accomplished through the atonement of Christ, provides reconciliation for sin and its consequences. Even where sickness is not the direct result of specific sin, it is still in the world because of sin. Therefore it is among the works of the devil Jesus came to destroy (1 John 3:8) and is thus included in the Atonement.

From the parallel between redemption and atonement, we see that provision for the healing of our bodies is part of the redemption spoken of in Romans 8:23. We receive the forgiveness of sins now in connection with the redemption of our souls. We shall receive the redemption of our bodies when we are caught up to meet the Lord and are changed into His likeness (1 Corinthians 15:51–54; 2 Corinthians 5:1–4; 1 John 3:2). Divine healing now is a foretaste of this, and, like all the blessings of the gospel, flows from the Atonement.

III. Divine Healing Is a Gift of God’s Grace for All

Just as salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), so all God’s blessings and gifts are ours by His grace, or unmerited favor. They cannot be earned or deserved. It should be noted that instead of demanding healing from Jesus, the New Testament records that people came asking for His compassionate ministry. They did not look on healing as their right, but as a gracious privilege extended to them.

That we cannot earn God’s blessings, including divine healing, should make us realize the importance of cultivating our life in the Spirit, for the Spirit will “give life to your mortal bodies,” and that is our real hope (Romans 8:11). In fact, even though outwardly we are wasting away, inwardly we are being renewed day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16).

It is this inner renewal that makes us best able to have the faith to receive the gift of divine healing. To the woman healed of her twelve-year-long bleeding, Jesus said, “Your faith has healed you” (Mark 5:34). Paul at Lystra, when he saw that listening to his preaching had brought faith to be healed into the heart of a cripple, commanded him to stand up (Acts 14:9,10). Faith is seen also in the Roman centurion who recognized the authority of Christ’s word for the healing of his servant (Matthew 8:5–13) and the Canaanite woman who believed in Jesus for the healing of her daughter (Mark 7:24–30; Matthew 15:28).

That divine healing comes through faith is further confirmed by the fact that unbelief hindered its reception at Nazareth (Mark 6:5,6) and at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:14–20). James 5:15 promises that the prayer of faith offered for the sick by the elders of the church will make the sick well and the Lord will raise them up. Faith, then, receives healing through the simple Word of the Lord. But Jesus did not turn away from those who had little faith or who did not seem to express any faith at all. Those who are sick often find it is not easy to express faith, and Jesus did a variety of things to help them. Some He touched (Mark 1:41; 8:22), took their hands (Mark 1:31; Luke 14:4), or laid His hands upon them (Mark 6:5; 8:25; Luke 4:40; 13:13). Others He helped by a variety of acts, some of which called for faith and obedience on their part (Mark 7:33; 8:23).

Faith, however, had to be in the Lord, not in the means used to help them express their faith. This seems to be the reason for the great variety of means used, lest people get their eyes on the means rather than on God. Faith is trusting the all-wise, all-loving, and all-powerful God to respond to the cries of His creation in His own way.

The promise “anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing” is closely connected with prayer, asking in Christ’s name (John 14:12–14; 16:23,24). The usage of the name of Jesus is not a formula that can be used by humans to coerce the response of God. His name is the revelation of His character and nature, which we have in us only if we abide in Christ and His words abide in us (John 15:7). As a consequence of this, His will becomes dominant in our lives, conforming our will to His. Thus, our requests in His name are increasingly according to His will, opening the avenue for His responding to our prayers.

The revelation of God as “the Lord, who heals you” (Exodus 15:26) cannot be limited to Israel. The healing of the centurion’s servant and the daughter of the Canaanite woman show that healing is the privilege of Gentiles also. In fact, there is healing for all who desire it and will respond to Jesus. There is evidence that God’s gift of healing can even be experienced by one before their sins have been dealt with, as in the case of the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2–9,14).

Belief in divine healing neither opposes nor competes with medical doctors. The knowledge and skills of this profession bring help to many. It is true that the Bible condemns King Asa because “even in his illness he did not seek help from the Lord, but only from the physicians” (2 Chronicles 16:12). But Asa had already sought for help from Syria in an act of unbelief and disobedience, refusing to rely on the Lord (2 Chronicles 16:7). The issue for which Asa is judged is not that he sought help from physicians but that he refused to seek the Lord.

When the woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years was healed, Mark records that “she had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse” (Mark 5:26). If it was wrong for her to go to physicians, this would have been the perfect place for Jesus to have said so, but He did not. Instead, He accepted the faith she expressed and commended her for it.

Jesus also sent the ten lepers whom He healed to show themselves to the priests (Luke 17:14). Under the Law the priests were in charge of diagnosis, quarantine, and health (Leviticus 13:2ff.; 14:2ff.; Matthew 8:4). Thus Jesus recognized that human diagnosticians have their place.

Through the skill and training of physicians recoveries and restorations do occur, a truth that does neither refutes nor diminishes the belief in divine healing. We rejoice should God, who is the source of all healing, work through the doctors, give thanks to them for their dedication, and offer continual praise to God. With all their learning, training, and skill, doctors are still not the last word to be uttered in diagnosing human maladies. We steadfastly look to God who is more than able to bring healing even in situations deemed to be hopeless.

1. Divine Healing Will Be Fully Realized When Jesus Returns

We are living at present between the first and second appearances of Jesus Christ. At His first coming He provided, through His life, death, and resurrection, atonement for sin and its consequences. In this era divine healing, a gift of God’s grace, is seen as a proleptic expression of the complete redemption of the human body. At His second coming what was begun will be brought to completion—salvation from sin and all its effects will be realized. In this period of the “already and not yet” some are healed instantly, some gradually, and others are not healed.

The Bible indicates that until Jesus comes we groan because we have not yet received the full redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:23). Only when the dead in Christ rise and we are changed do we receive the new bodies which are like His glorious body (1 Corinthians 15:42–44,51–54). Even followers of Christ groan and travail in pain like the rest of creation, waiting patiently for the fulfillment of our hope (Romans 8:21–25). In that the human body is described by Paul as a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19), we must care for it and avoid that which would abuse it. But, no matter what we do for this body, no matter how many times we are healed, unless the rapture of the Church intervenes we shall die.

The promise and reality of divine healing does not rule out suffering for the sake of Christ and that of the gospel. We are expected to be prepared to follow His example (Hebrews 5:8; 1 Peter 2:19,21; 4:12–14,19). Nor are we to look to divine healing as a substitute for obedience to the rules of physical and mental health. Jesus recognized the need of the disciples to get away from the crowds and rest awhile (Mark 6:31). Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, advised him to delegate some of his responsibilities so that he could stand the strain of leading Israel (Exodus 18:17,18).

Neither is divine healing a means of avoiding the effects of old age. Moses did retain a clear eye and his natural strength until the day of his death (Deuteronomy 34:7), but this privilege was not granted to King David (1 Kings 1:1–4). The gradual breakdown of old age, pictured so graphically in Ecclesiastes 12:1–7, is the common experience of believers as well as unbelievers. Healing is still available to the aged, but the part that is healed usually continues to age like the rest of the body. We do not yet have the redemption of the body.

It is possible that the refusal to alter one’s lifestyle to accord with biblical principles could hinder healing (John 5:14). While the amount of faith is not always, as noted above, determinative, if one does not believe that divine healing can occur, it might not. We must also be open to God’s will and activities, always designed by His love and for our good, understanding that they are beyond our immediate ability to understand. He is, by healing us now and by not healing us, moved by His great compassion, desiring that we be drawn increasingly closer to Him.

We recognize that there have been abuses regarding divine healing. Excessive claims and unfounded judgments are offered by some. But we must not let that cause us to retreat from a positive proclamation of the truth of the Scripture. Peter and John were able to say to the lame man who was to be healed, “What I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk” (Acts 3:6). May we, too, remain committed to the reality of the power of God to effect divine healing.

In humility we confess that we do not understand all that pertains to divine healing. We do not understand fully why some are healed and others are not, any more than we understand why God permitted James to be martyred and Peter delivered (Acts 12:1–19). Scripture makes it clear, however, that our part is to preach the Word, expecting signs, including divine healing, to follow. Finally, at the Lord’s return, “when the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:54), the full realization of divine healing will have come.

NOTES

---

1All biblical quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New International Version (NIV).
2 “Infirmities,” astheneia, denotes weakness and is often used to speak of sickness and disease (Luke 5:15; Acts 28:9); “Diseases,” nosos, seems to be used synonymously with astheneia here to indicate physical disease or illness (see also, Matthew 4:23; 9:35; Luke 7:21; Acts 19:12).

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

Position Papers are official documents of the Church that have been approved by its General Presbytery.

---

This statement on divorce and remarriage was approved as the official statement by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God in August 1973. It was revised by the General Presbytery in August 2008.

---

Marriage is vital to our nature as human beings in society. God himself instituted marriage by creating and bringing the first man and woman together at the dawn of human creation.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. … The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” … Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 1:27; 2:18,22,23).¹

Unfortunately, in the United States, the institution of marriage is in crisis. Recent studies show that about one-third of all Americans who are or have been married have also been divorced at least once. Among self-professed evangelical Christian believers, 26 percent reportedly have been divorced. ²In the culture at large, vast segments of the population live in families headed by single parents, either never married or divorced. Many other persons live together in transient relationships of convenience, flouting God’s design, as well as the prevailing social science research, for marriage, sexuality, and childrearing.

It is imperative at such a time that the Christian church clarify, teach, and faithfully uphold what the Bible says about marriage. The Church must also speak biblically to the issue of divorce and remarriage, which occur all too often as one, or both, marital partners abandon their Christian ethical commitments and responsibilities.

Statement of Biblical Principles

A careful study of the Old and New Testament Scriptures yields the following salient principles that bear on divorce and remarriage.
The Nature of Marriage

1. Two sexes, male and female, are required to complete the divine image in humankind.“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Neither male nor female alone may procreate the race and fulfill the divine purposes.2. The first woman is described as a “helper suitable” (i.e., his perfect complement) for the man (Genesis 2:18,20), taken from his side, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh (2:23). It is obvious that God meant both the man and the woman to share in privilege and responsibility. Under God, though their roles may sometimes differ, the two sexes are equals. As the apostle Paul would later write, “There is neither … male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
2. The way God created human beings to live on the earth and brought them togetherindicates He intended man and woman for each other (Genesis 2:22-24). Their relationship was to be social as well as physical. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ ” (Genesis 2:18).
3. Marriage is to be sexually consummated. At the Creator’s command, the first man and woman were to “become one flesh” for purposes of procreation, bonding, and mutual pleasure in a safe and loving relationship (Genesis 2:24). Jesus himself reiterated the divine intent (Matthew 19:4,5) and Paul instructed Christian spouses faithfully and regularly to fulfill their sexual responsibilities to each other (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).
4. Marriage is to be heterosexual. The institution of marriage firmly is set within the creation of humans as male and female. God’s imperative is, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Homosexual and lesbian unions throughout the biblical record are judged to be sinful (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9­-11). There is no biblical precedent for any homosexual liaison that may be termed “marriage.”
5. God intended marriage to be a permanent union. The man was to depart from his parents’ home in order to “be united to his wife, and … become one flesh” with her (Genesis 2:24). Both Jesus (Matthew 19:5) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) quoted this passage from Genesis as the foundational premise of marriage. Translating Jesus’ quotation, Matthew used a Greek word for “united (kollao)” that means “to be glued to, be closely bound to”(Matthew 19:5). Jesus added, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (19:6).
6. God intended marriage to be monogamous. The Creator’s acts in establishing marriage are focused on one man and one woman. The order of marriage itself (Genesis 2:24) is directed at a monogamous pair, “man” and “wife” being singular. Polygamy did exist in the Old Testament era, of course. The first case was in Cain’s line (Genesis 4:19) with many Old Testaments examples, including some of the patriarchs, to follow. But polygamy is never held up to be the ideal. The Old Testament writers indirectly criticize polygamy by showing the resultant strife (for example, Genesis 21:9,10; 37:2-36; 2 Samuel 13-18). Passages that idealize marriage normally do so by speaking of one husband and one wife (see Psalm 128:3; Proverbs 5:18; 31:10-29; Ecclesiastes 9:9). Jesus also affirms that God’s ideal from the beginning was monogamy, speaking of “man” and “wife” in the singular, with the “two” becoming one flesh (Matthew 19:5,6). There is no reference to polygamy as a practice of the Early Church; and, in any event, it would be proscribed for leaders by Paul’s references to a “one woman man” (1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6).
7. Marriage is a covenant. It is a solemn binding agreement made first before God and then among people in society. The nature of marriage as a covenant is strongly implied in the marriage order of Genesis 2:24, but is made explicit in Malachi 2:14, “The Lord is acting

as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant” (emphasis added). Ezekiel applies the idea of marriage to the relationship between God and Israel.“ ‘I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, ‘and you became mine’ ” (16:8, emphasis added). From what is said we see that the husband “gave [a] solemn oath” (pledged faith) to the wife and entered into a covenant not intended to be broken. Significantly, the biblical marriage ceremony was a joyous public event in which the two partners solemnized their covenant with God and community.

9. Marriage is a relationship of mutually sacrificial love. It perhaps is best described in the words of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians that instructed wives to “submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (5:22) and to “respect” their husbands (5:33). Then, lest those instructions be misinterpreted, Paul wrote to husbands, “Love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25), and “Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies” (5:28). Overarching the entire discussion is Paul’s description of Spirit-filled men and women: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21).
10. Marriage is the foundation of the family, both in terms of procreation and nurture.Children, ideally, are born into an intact family with both father and mother present.These two parents are intended to be the first providers of their nurture. This order of family life may be observed throughout the Bible with particular emphases on childrearing drawn from such passages as Deuteronomy 6:1-9, Malachi 2:15, and Ephesians 6:1-4. The divine intention, however, has never guaranteed that sin will not fragment and distort many families that, in such cases, are not to be despised, diminished,or neglected, but are to be supported with wise counsel and loving fellowship.

The Nature of Divorce

1. God hates divorce. God’s attitude toward divorce is nowhere stated more clearly than in Malachi 2:14-16:

…[T]he Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth,because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard your self in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. ‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel, ‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,’ says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

This passage shows that divorce is treachery (deceitful unfaithfulness) against one’s companion. It is also described as violent, coming from a wrong spirit. Perhaps worst of all, it impairs the nurture of children born to the marriage whom the parents are obligated to rear as believers in a godly home. Broken homes are most often detrimental to children.

As noted above, Jesus made explicit what was previously implicit, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6; cf. v.8). Divorce was not a part of God’s original intention for humanity. His purposes in marriage are hinderedwhen the marital covenant is deliberately broken. The divine purpose can only be realizedas the husband and wife subject themselves to Christ and each other, as described in Ephesians 5:21-31.

God’s hatred for divorce, however, is not to be interpreted as condemnation of those who themselves are not at fault, but have been divorced and victimized by the ungodly actions of their spouses. The divorce laws and teachings of the Old Testament were designed to add a measure of protection for the innocent, not to heap guilt upon the victims of circumstances over which they had little or no control.

2. The Law regulated divorce. The Law recognized the fact that divorce was already taking place in Israel, as were many other sinful practices common to the ancient world. In those times, women were under the authority of their husbands and, without legal recourse of their own, might be abandoned to starvation or prostitution on a mere whim. In giving Israel the Law, God met His people where they were in a pagan region, put restrictions on their sinful practices, protected the weak and innocent, and attempted to direct them in ways loving and just. The Old Testament divorce law was thus a necessary hedge against human sinfulness. The Law provided that, while the husband was the only one who could initiate divorce, he could do so only under carefully prescribed circumstances (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-19, 28,29; Genesis 21:8-21).

The regulative nature of the Law is seen in the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees who erred in saying Moses commanded that a man give a certificate of divorce to his wife, thus freeing him to send her away (Matthew 19:1-9). Jesus pointed out that Moses only permitted (epitrepo) them to divorce their wives—but even then not for “every cause” as was commonly practiced at the time (Matthew 19:3,7,8). Jesus accurately read the divorce provisions of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where the Hebrew is a simple sequence that does not command divorce, but simply recognizes that it happens under certain circumstances.

3. Jesus forbade divorce as contrary to God’s will and word. He made this clear in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:6-9, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” The partner, or partners, responsible for breaking the marriage covenant is guilty of adultery (see Mark 10:11).
4. Paul forbade Christian couples to divorce. “To the married I give this command (not I,but the Lord [Paul had an actual saying of Jesus to back this up]): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else bereconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10,11). Paul recognized that some Christians were getting divorces, but apparently for invalid reasons. Therefore, he commanded, in these cases, that they keep the way open for reconciliation.
5. Paul forbade Christians to take the initiative in divorce simply because their partner was an unbeliever. It appears that some new converts were eager to do exactly that.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) [Paul was indeed speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit; he merely refers to the fact that he has no actual saying of Jesus on this subject]: If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him [as a faithful wife], he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. … But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound [not enslaved] in such circumstances” (1 Corinthians 7:12-15, emphasis added).

While making every effort to preserve the marriage, when the unbelieving spouse was definitely unwilling to continue, the believer should not, at all costs, attempt to restrain him/her. In these cases, abandonment, by implication, may be interpreted as grounds for divorce and remarriage.

6. Jesus permitted a Christian to initiate a divorce when “marital unfaithfulness” was involved.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness,causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32; see also Matthew 19:9).

The Greek word translated “marital unfaithfulness” in these passages is porneia, which would certainly include adultery in the context of these sayings (a porne was a prostitute). However, porneia is a broad term for sexual immorality of various kinds, often habitual, both before and after marriage (Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:18; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3). In stating the exception, Matthew did not use moicheia, the Greek noun for adultery. (Jesus did differentiate between porneia and moicheia elsewhere [Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21] and the verb moicheuo is used in Matthew 5:32;19:9 to describe the actions of the sinful party who forces the divorce without a valid cause.)

Matthew used porneia in 5:32 and 19:9 to translate the Hebrew ‘erwâ (“something indecent”) found in Deuteronomy 24:1. It was this Old Testament passage that lay behind Jesus’ teaching and his dispute with the Pharisees. The root meaning of ‘erwâ has to do with “uncovering” and “exposure” of, among other things, the genitalia (Genesis 9:22,23). So the “indecency” of Deuteronomy 24:1 appears to have been some kind of sexual immorality, or indecency, short of adultery (for which the adulterer would have been stoned; cf. Deuteronomy 22:22). The broad semantic range of ‘erwâ is also characteristic of porneia; both words are general and appear purposefully to include a variety of immoral practices. For example, the Holiness Codes of Leviticus 18 condemned such sex acts as incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality.

In Matthew 5:31,32 and 19:8,9, Jesus spoke of the man’s initiative in divorcing an immoral partner. In Jewish society, normally, only the man had that legal right—though certain upper-class women, as Herodias, seem to have done so (Matthew 14:3; note that in Mark 10:11,12, Jesus warns both sexes against groundless divorces). Clearly, the spiritual principle applies for either men or women. Moreover, it should be noted that Jesus granted permission to divorce only under specific circumstances where sexual immorality was involved. He did not, however, issue a command to divorce, since such action would rule out any possibility of reconciliation.

To be sure, a few scholars, drawing from ancient church tradition, believe that divorce is always forbidden, even when the spouses of innocent believers are guilty of repeated sexual immorality. These scholars narrowly restrict Jesus’ exception as stated in Matthew to rare, unlawful unions. In this view, there are no cases when, after dissolving these unlawful unions, remarriage is permitted. These innocent parties are not free to remarry until and unless the offending former spouse dies.

From another tack, many higher critical scholars insist that Matthew, in this case,put an exception in Jesus’ mouth that He never really spoke. However, the exception clauses in Matthew are well supported in the earliest texts of the Gospel and these two occurrences (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) are to be regarded as dependable words of the Lord.

It is seldom, if ever, that any single passage gives all aspects of truth on any single theme. To come to an understanding of any truth, we must take the whole of what the Bible teaches, and that is the intent of this paper.

The Right To Remarry

1. The Law makes clear that divorce permitted remarriage. Deuteronomy 24:1-4, already quoted, assumed that the divorced woman (and her former husband) would remarry.However, this passage also shows that the Law put certain limits on remarriage in that the rejected wife could not be reclaimed after her marriage to another man.
2. Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage, without biblical cause, was adultery. It constituted a sin against the covenant of the first marriage (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18). In these passages, Jesus appears to be speaking to those who willfully initiated divorce without having biblical grounds to do so. However, Jesus recognized that the basic problem is divorce itself, because divorced persons could be expected to remarry.
3. Jesus included an exception on behalf of the innocent spouse. “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (porneia), causes her to become an adulteress” (Matthew 5:32; see also Matthew 19:9). This shows that a married person who divorces a sexually immoral spouse does not cause that spouse to commit adultery,since the offender is already guilty of adultery. Nor does the spouse who has been sinned against commit adultery upon remarriage. It should be noted, of course, that “marital unfaithfulness (porneia)” often implies repeated immorality so this exception should not be considered a command to end a viable, salvageable marriage marred by one tragic indiscretion.
4. Paul also included an exception on behalf of the innocent spouse. In cases where unbelieving spouses were unwilling to live with partners who had become believers, Paul advised, “If the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound [not “enslaved,” douloo] in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15). “Not bound” is a strong expression that appears to mean the believer is set free. Therefore, the meaning seems to be that the believer is free to remarry.

Paul, in some cases, does discourage remarriage for the sake of ministering to the Lord. “Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a
wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1 Corinthians 7:27,28). All divorced persons considering remarriage should remember Paul’s instructions to these unmarried virgins at Corinth, “but he [in this case, the new spouse] must belong to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).

5. Objections to remarriage. The above exceptions notwithstanding, there are still certain arguments made against the remarriage of innocent believers.
6. It is sometimes recognized that Jesus’ exceptions do indeed allow divorce for“marital uncleanness.” But it is then argued that such a divorce still does not sever the marital bond, or give any right to dissolve it. Therefore, on this view,remarriage by the innocent party is still adultery. However, Jesus never made such a statement; and in Matthew 19:9, He assumes the man will remarry. The verse deals with divorce and remarriage; the laws of grammar make the exceptive clause apply to both. The Greek word for “divorce (apoluo)” is used in the Deuteronomy passage to which Jesus referred in Matthew 5:31 and Mark 10:2-12.In the Deuteronomy passage, the “divorcing” clearly dissolved the marriage bond.Jesus did not change the nature of divorce as the dissolution of marriage. He simply threw out all excuses, reasons, or causes except “marital uncleanness(porneia).”

Moreover, this view is difficult to maintain in light of other passages that emphasize the conjugal rights and obligations of husbands and wives (as in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5). Most Protestants therefore have understood that the exceptions spoken by Jesus do indeed provide for remarriage and free the innocent party of any charge of adultery. But, in no case does Jesus command divorce or remarriage. They are merely permitted under this condition.

1. The objection sometimes is made that two passages, Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, specifically say a woman is bound to her husband until death; therefore, believers may not divorce or remarry short of the death of their spouse.
   Romans 7:1-3—A careful examination of the context shows that Paul’s point is to illustrate the believer’s freedom from the Law. In ancient Judaism, only the husband could initiate divorce. Therefore, his wife was bound to him as long as she lived, unless, of course, he chose to divorce her. Paul’s point is to show that the believer has died to the Law and is now alive to serve in the new way of the Spirit. The passage was not intended to address the problems of divorce and remarriage.
   1 Corinthians 7:39—This verse appears to refer back to verses 8,9 which deal with those who have never married as well as with widows. So Paul is addressing widows whose husbands have passed away. The passage does not deal with the question of divorce and remarriage. Moreover, Paul has already addressed the problem of abandonment in verse 15 and shown that “A believing man or woman is not bound [that is, free to remarry] in such circumstances.”
2. Remarriage establishes a new marriage covenant. While Scripture makes it clear that errant spouses who sinfully break their marriage covenant do commit adultery, Scripture never places such guilt on the innocent partner. Those who argue that an innocent believer continuously commits sin by living in a new marriage have not a single shred of biblical evidence. Jesus clearly assumed that those who were divorced by sinful spouses,or those who divorced sinful spouses for “marital uncleanness” or abandonment, were free to remarry without any tinge of adultery. However, believers are to remarry one who “belong[s] to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39) and the new marriage covenant is to be permanent.

The Divorced and Remarried in the Church

1. Membership in the church is open to all born-again believers. This would certainly include those who were divorced and remarried before conversion. Paul indicates that persons in various social and legal positions, such as circumcised men and slaves, should be accepted in the condition in which they were when they were saved (1 Corinthians 7:17-24). “Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to” (1 Corinthians 7:24).

Huge numbers of Jews and Gentiles were swept into the Early Church. Given the frequency of divorce and remarriage among both Jews and Gentiles at that time, it is virtually certain that the early churches included many divorced and remarried persons.For example, Paul insisted that Corinthian believers continue to live with unbelieving partners willing to remain in their marriages (1 Corinthians 7:12). Probably many of these Corinthian believers had previous spouses still living and/or were married to unbelievers in those circumstances.

2. The office of elder is open to remarried persons who were divorced and remarried prior to conversion, or as a result of spousal infidelity, or desertion of a believer by an unbeliever. (Since local assemblies maintain the prerogative of setting their own standards for the office of deacon, that standard is not addressed in this paper [See Bylaws Article IX, Section 5, Divorce and Remarriage]).

Near the top of the list of requirements for the offices of elder (corresponding to pastor) is that they shall be “the husband of but one wife (mias gunaikos andra )”(1Timothy 3:2; 3:12; Titus 1:6). “[H]usband of but one wife” reads literally “one woman man.” Its exact meaning is elusive and has been subject to a number of interpretationsover the years. Six are listed here. Taken literally, the term would mean that elders and deacons (1) could not be single, (2) could not remarry after being widowed, (3) must be male, and (4) could not be bigamists or polygamists. None of the first three can be shown to be the practice of the Early Church. Bigamy and polygamy are clearly prohibited by this term; however, historians report bigamy and polygamy were not common in either Jewish or Greco-Roman practice at the time and probably are not exactly what Paul had in mind.

Two possible interpretations remain: (5) elders and deacons cannot be divorced and remarried, a traditional and long-standing view of the Church, and (6) elders and deacons must be in a sexually faithful, heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

Sexual license (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 6:9,18; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 2:21, et al.), easy divorce (1 Corinthians 7:12-16), and remarriage, often legally mandated, posed enormous challenges for the emerging Church and its thousands of converts. Nonetheless, these new believers were affirmed as new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), forgiven of all their sins (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:19), and integrated into the Church.

In view of all the available biblical evidence relating to the divorce and remarriage problems in the Early Church, The General Council of the Assemblies of God has adopted interpretation six above—the description, “one woman man,” is best understood to refer to persons in a sexually faithful, heterosexual, monogamous marriage,where neither partner has been previously divorced (except where the divorce occurred prior to conversion, as a result of the previous spouse’s sexual infidelity, or because ofabandonment of the believer by an unbeliever).

Application of Biblical Principles to Our Bylaws as Revised and Adopted by the General Council in Session
Article IX, Section 5. Divorce and Remarriage

1. Membership

(1) Marriage entanglements before conversion. There are now among Christian people those who became entangled in their marriage relations in their former lives of sin and who do not see how these matters can be adjusted. We recommend that these people be received into the membership of local assemblies and that their marriage complications be left in the hands of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:17,20,24).

(2) Common-law marriages. We recommend that in no case shall persons be accepted into membership who are known to be living in a common-law state of matrimony.

1. Remarriage Low standards on marriage and divorce are very hurtful to individuals, to the family, and to the cause of Christ. Therefore, we discourage divorce by all lawful means and teaching. We positively disapprove of Christians getting divorces for any cause except fornication and adultery (Matthew 19:9). Where these exceptional circumstances exist or when a Christian has been divorced by an unbeliever, we recommend that the question of remarriage be resolved by the believer in the light of God’s Word (1 Corinthians 7:15,27,28).
2. Local Church Leadership

(1) Standard for offices of bishop, or elder, and deacon. Since the New Testament restricts divorced and remarried believers from the church offices of bishop, or elder, and deacon, we recommend that this standard be upheld by all our assemblies (Titus 1:5-9; 1 Timothy 3:12),except when the divorce occurred prior to conversion (2 Corinthians 5:17) or for the scriptural causes of a former spouse’s marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), or the abandonment of the believer by the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). [Note—The foregoing causes of unfaithfulness or abandonment are also understood to be applicable after conversion.]

(2) Prerogative of local assemblies. It is understood that recommendations are not binding, but local assemblies shall maintain the prerogative of setting their own standards (in accord with provisions of Article XI of the Constitution).

1. Performing Marriage Ceremonies

(1) Ministerial guidelines. We discourage any Assemblies of God minister performing a marriage ceremony for anyone who has been divorced and whose former spouse is still living,unless the case is included in the exceptional circumstances described in Bylaws, Article IX, B,Section 5, paragraph b.

(2) Violation of conscience not required. We realize that the remarrying of such persons included in the exceptive circumstances in Bylaws, Article IX, B, Section 5, paragraph b, could violate the conscience of a minister; and if this should be the case, the minister should not be expected to perform such ceremonies.

(3) Same-sex ceremonies. No minister shall perform any type of marriage, cohabitation, or covenant ceremony for persons who are of the same sex. Such a ceremony would endorse homosexuality which is a sin and strictly forbidden in God’s Word (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-11). Any minister of our Fellowship who performs a ceremony for these types of disapproved relations, unless innocently deceived into doing so, shall be dismissed from the Fellowship.

(4) Counsel. An Assemblies of God minister is urged to counsel applicants for marriage ceremonies with scriptural guidelines for Christian marriage prior to performing the ceremony. A minister may not perform ceremonies for persons who, in the minister’s opinion, approach marriage without proper forethought, wisdom, and sobriety.

1. Ministerial Credentials We disapprove of any married minister of the Assemblies of God holding credentials if either minister or spouse has a former spouse living unless the divorce occurred prior to conversion or for the scriptural causes of a former spouse’s marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), or the abandonment of the believer by the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). (See also Article VII,Section 2, paragraphs j and k.)

Article VII, Section 2

i.Marriage Status.
We disapprove of any married persons holding ministerial credentials with the Assemblies of
God if either marriage partner has a former spouse living, unless the divorce occurred prior to his
or her conversion or for the scriptural causes of a former spouse’s marital unfaithfulness
(Matthew 19:9), or the abandonment of the believer by the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:10-15,
except as hereinafter provided.

j.Annulments, Marriage Dissolutions, and Divorces
The Executive Presbytery shall have the authority to determine whether an applicant qualifies for
an ecclesiastical annulment. In such cases there must be clear and satisfactory evidence of
deception, fraud, or other conditions which have a profound impact preventing the creation of a
valid marriage union, unknown at the time of marriage by the applicant. The Executive
Presbytery shall have the authority to determine whether an applicant qualifies regarding a
former marriage when the termination of that marriage is consistent with the scriptural position
of the Fellowship relating to the granting or holding of ministerial credentials; or if a former
marriage ended prior to conversion. In those cases involving preconversion divorce they shall be
decided on an individual basis just as those that deal with ecclesiastical annulments. Appeals
from the decision of the Executive Presbytery may be made to the General Presbytery.

Pastoral Application

This brief study of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Bible is intended to in form pastoral care and guidance for the people of God. It provides clear direction for many problems that confront modern believers. At the same time, the complexities of modern life are such that specific direction for every single issue that may emerge in the church or the community may not be found in Scripture. In such cases, wise, Spirit-led counseling and support must come from responsible spiritual leaders. The following principles and recommendations are offered for consideration:

1. Regular, consistent instruction in the nature of marriage, its permanence and nurture, is essential for teens, young single adults, engaged couples about to be married, and married persons across the lifespan of their marriages.
2. The church must speak clearly not only to the God-ordained, permanent nature of marriage as an exclusive covenant between two heterosexual persons, but also against the evils and sufferings that come from divorce.
3. The immediate victims of divorce, spouses and children, who have been sinned against and deeply hurt, need and deserve special care within Christian congregations and from trained caregivers.
4. In addressing the ideal nature of marriage, the church must also recognize that among its most needy, and yet potentially most fruitful, congregants are many who are already divorced, possibly remarried, and who struggle with guilt and condemnation from earlier marital failure. It is imperative that the church demonstrate to them Christ’s love and grace.
5. An uncompromising declaration of the sanctity of marriage must be articulated in ways that affirm and comfort the divorced and equip them to be successful in any new marriage that may have been, or will be, undertaken in faithfulness to Christ.
6. These divorced and remarried believers have great potential for service to the church and must not be viewed as second-class saints. Instead, they are to be instructed in the Spirit’s work of preparation and gifting for service through their personal lives and marriages.
7. The church must also deal very purposefully and firmly with professing believers who willfully violate their marital vows and engage in behaviors that destroy their marriage covenants, often, at the same time, seeking justification for their behavior.
8. Special sensitivity will be needed for those caught in difficult marital circumstances not specifically addressed in Scripture such as physical and emotional abuse, as well as chemical addictions, where serious danger to life and limb, not to mention physical and spiritual health, prevails. Believers enmeshed in these circumstances are to be carefully led through the application of scriptural principles and prayer as they come to decisions consistent with Scripture and their own consciences.
9. In our congregations, cohabiting couples are occasionally among those who are converted, or restored to faith. Firm and sensitive pastoral guidance is needed to assist them in prayerfully reevaluating their relationship and moving either to separation and chastity or to legal marriage before becoming members or assuming leadership roles.

In all humility, the church today, as did the Early Church, struggles to understand and faithfully to apply the teachings of Scripture as it evangelizes and nurtures people in a secular, materialistic, and sensual environment. Realizing there is much we do not know about the ways Jesus and the Apostles would have handled every problem raised by divorce and remarriage, we of the Assemblies of God offer this paper in a sincere effort to affirm and practice the truth of Scripture while also endeavoring “to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3).

NOTES

---

1. Biblical references, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New International Version (NIV).
2.  Barna Group, “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” [March 31, 2008] http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=295 (accessed April 17, 2008).

ENDTIME REVIVAL — SPIRIT-LED AND SPIRIT-CONTROLLED

THIS STATEMENT WAS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD ON AUGUST 11, 2000.

As the writer of Ecclesiastes noted, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Generations come and go. Revival movements come and go. Hunger for more of God comes and unfortunately wanes. Some people prefer the routine over the unexpected. Others desperately want to see something unusual, something that has never happened before.

Revival Extremes

In times of revival God often reminds the Church of neglected truths. When this happens, it is easy for extremes to develop. Some will reject the revival of a doctrine, while others in their zeal will go beyond the teaching of Scripture. Both extremes are harmful and bring reproach on the cause of Christ.

Revivals from Azusa Street (early 20th century) until now have witnessed unusual and unexpected human responses to God’s presence. Maria Woodworth-Etter, whose evangelistic ministry began in the 1880s and continued past the founding of the Assemblies of God in 1914, reported of her early ministry, “Men and women fell and lay like dead.”1 She had never seen anything like it and didn’t know what to do when they fell. She concluded that it was God’s power at work. Yet the physical response never became a hallmark of her ministry, to be organized, planned, and deliberately repeated. When it happened, she acknowledged it as a work of the Spirit.

In some cases, the current revival is experiencing manifestations that seem to follow certain individuals or ministries and come to be expected as proofs of God’s special presence. Such expectation, when human repetition mingles with supernatural visitations, robs God’s children of the manifold variety and freshness of God’s genuine work that unmistakably confirms His presence.

Media Impact on Revival

Revival today is both the beneficiary and victim of modern communication media and technology. Whereas revivals in the first quarter of the 20th century were described in time-delayed newsletters or reported by observers who traveled elsewhere with their eyewitness accounts, today’s revival happenings are broadcast live, or recorded and edited to better publicize the event. To compete in the visual world of television, the dramatic physical aspects are often publicized on the screen while the inner work of the Holy Spirit in saving souls and changing lives is not as visible or spectacular. Yet these are the real reasons for God’s power at work. High-profile evangelists must never replace God’s priorities with human priorities.

Unfortunately, some Pentecostals and charismatics have come to think of revival in terms of the number of people falling to the floor, shaking or laughing uncontrollably, or demonstrating a variety of other human responses reported in media favorable to the revival. The presence of such physical reactions is sometimes viewed as evidence of spirituality or of God’s choice of blessing a certain ministry with His presence. That may or may not be the case.

Quench Not the Spirit

The last thing any sincere Pentecostal believer wants to do is to quench or grieve the Holy Spirit. We know full well that Paul meant what he said when he wrote to the Thessalonians, “Quench not the Spirit.” But two verses later he admonished, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:19,21, KJV). So we do not take lightly the twofold responsibility of letting the Holy Spirit anoint and move as He pleases while at the same time obeying the command to judge and discern. If prophecy supposedly prompted by the Holy Spirit is to be judged (1 Corinthians 14:29), then physical responses purported to be the work of the Holy Spirit can and should be judged. But judgment in such matters must always be with the mind and spirit of Christ. We do not wish to disfellowship sincere believers who unknowingly slip into excesses—if they are teachable and listen to the discerning judgment of the body of Christ with which they choose to identify.

In the years since its founding, the Assemblies of God has seen the need to make statements about revival “manifestations,” according to its understanding of Scripture. As these apply to current revival reports, we affirm and give biblical reasons for our concerns. Yet above all, we reaffirm our desire not to hinder any move of the Spirit. If it is of God, we cannot and do not wish to stop it. If it is of man, it will in time fail, but we are advised by Scripture to discern with the help of the Holy Spirit who seeks to bless the church with lasting spiritual growth. We therefore call for careful discernment in the following areas, which have demonstrated excesses and abuses that do not follow biblical teaching or example.2

Deviant Teachings Disapproved

God is certainly moving in the hearts and lives of people desiring His presence and praying to see His power changing lives and reclaiming that which Satan has stolen or destroyed. But along with the genuine move of the Spirit often come teachings and practices which, if not discerned and corrected, will turn the genuine move of God into shallow and misguided emotional displays. Within teachings that add to or depart from biblical truth, there is usually a kernel of truth that gets buried under the chaff of human additions and unusual interpretations of Scripture. Though we dare not inadvertently quench the Spirit’s work in changing lives and calling the church back to its first love and passion, we must speak out with words of caution when departure from Scripture threatens the ongoing life and stability of local churches. We find cause for concern in the following areas.

1. The overemphasis on identifying, bestowing, or imparting spiritual gifts by the laying on of hands and naming, supposedly by prophecy, specific gifts.

The spiritual gifts are gifts of the Spirit, distributed as He “gives them to each one, just as he determines” (1 Corinthians 12:11). When the Spirit empowers the gift He bestows, there is no need for anyone to assume the Spirit’s role. As the Holy Spirit inspires the operation of the gifts, the identification and confirmation will be obvious to all without assistance from humans who would share some of the glory. The greatest tragedy of such a practice is a misguided human prediction, appearing to be a prophetic utterance, that leads a believer to expect abilities and an enduement he may never have. Paul says that gifts were bestowed through the laying on of hands (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6), but the biblical record neither names a specific gift Timothy received nor implies that Paul or elders had imparted the gift. The Holy Spirit bestows the gifts, not the minister who prays the prayer for empowerment. Caution in naming specific gifts is advised until the Spirit confirms such a prophecy by the supernatural manifestation of the promised gift.

2. The problematic teaching that present-day offices of apostles and prophets should govern church ministry at all levels.

It is very tempting for persons with an independent spirit and an exaggerated estimate of their importance in the kingdom of God to declare organization and administrative structure to be of human origin. Reading in the Bible that there were apostles and prophets who exerted great leadership influence, and wrongly interpreting 1 Corinthians 12:283 and Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, they proceed to declare themselves or persons aligned with their views as prophets and apostles. Structure set up to avoid a previous structure can soon become dictatorial, presumptuous, and carnal while claiming to be more biblical than the old one outside the new order or organization. Proponents of apostles/prophets leadership stop too soon in their reading of the Ephesians 4 passage, overlooking the high calling of every office and minister of the Church: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ” (Ephesians 4:11,12, italics added).4

In Ephesians 2:20, Paul is talking about the historical fact of Jews and Gentiles having come together to form the Church. The aorist participle in verse 20 is best translated “having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”—a past occurrence. The reference to apostles and prophets in Ephesians 3:5 speaks of their role in recording the inspired Scriptures as a past occurrence. The leadership of the local church, according to the Pastoral Epistles, is in the hands of elders/presbyters and deacons. These are the last of Paul’s epistles. There is no indication in these last writings of continuing offices of apostles and prophets, though the ministry functions still continue.

Prophets in the New Testament are never described as holding an officially recognized position as in the case of pastors and evangelists. They spoke prophetically to the body for edification and admonition. When they prophesied under the inspiration of the Spirit, their ministry was noted. They could indeed have been called prophets without designating them as filling an office. A self-proclaimed prophet who dropped into a local church setting would certainly have been suspect until he was better known. And to guard against such abuses, Paul taught that all prophetic utterances should be tested by the Body (1 Corinthians 14:29). The humility that Paul taught and modeled should be a primary character trait of every spiritual leader. We affirm that there are, and ought to be, apostolic-and prophetic-type ministries in the Church, without individuals being identified as filling such an office.

The Shepherding Movement, a term not used as frequently now as earlier, is still a practice with close ties to the apostle/prophet excesses described above. The random and wrongful substitution of mutually appointed apostles and prophets to replace existing divinely appointed and duly chosen leadership is a circumstance open to abuse. In the past the shepherding teaching led to an artificial pyramid system of accountability, with each person responsible to a personal shepherd.5 The shepherd in turn is accountable to another shepherd for his guidance, accountability, and control. Although the example of Paul mentoring young Timothy is a good pattern for today, there is no biblical basis for a network requiring every believer to have a personal shepherd. The pastor, as shepherd of a local church flock, along with the spouse, can deal with even the most personal matters. The pastor in turn has a district superintendent, chosen for the position through a divinely blessed process, from whom help can be sought when needed. But to seek randomly, and with a sense of obligation, for someone to be a personal shepherd is not biblical. God-ordained leaders, chosen by Spirit-led colleagues seeking to build and edify the body of Christ, have the needed maturity, stability, and gifting by the Spirit.

3. The practice of imparting or imposing personal leadings by means of gifts of utterance.

Instances of Spirit-prompted personal advice, contrary to common sense yet definitely of divine origin, are so infrequent that recklessly giving personal prophecies soon becomes an abuse in the body of Christ. Though Paul and Barnabas were rightfully set apart by the Holy Spirit for an unspecified work (Acts 13:2), the two still had to hear the Spirit’s direction for their specific assignments. Their call was heard by the gathered believers while worshiping and fasting, and all present, including Paul and Barnabas, were obviously persuaded that it was indeed the Spirit speaking. If the “prophesied” words are from God, the Holy Spirit will also confirm the reality to the heart of the one set apart for the Spirit’s work.

4. Wresting and distorting Scripture through interpretations that are in opposition to the primary meaning of biblical passages.

The following teachings all have an element of truth in them, but as currently taught they are plagued with misleading and unbiblical elements and should be carefully avoided. In some instances a word or phrase is taken from Scripture, so it has the sound of biblical authenticity, but the application is a human creation rather than biblical truth. Many of them are reappearances of earlier departures from biblical truth, and in the future they could resurface as supposedly new revelations with different names.

Kingdom Now or Dominion theology. The thought that God’s kingdom can come on earth with a little help from humankind is intriguing to those who advocate this approach to impacting society. Rather than scoffing at the promise of Christ’s imminent return (2 Peter 3:3,4), this errant theology says that Jesus will not return until the Church takes dominion of the earth back from Satan and his followers. By taking control, through whatever means possible, of political, ecclesiastical, educational, economic, and other structures, Christians supposedly can make the world a worthy place for Christ to return and rule over.6 This unscriptural triumphalism generates other related variant teachings.

Manifest Sons of God and Joel’s Army. These are some of the names used to describe those who have caught the vision of the Kingdom Now and are actively at work seeking to overcome the opposition and declaring Christians who hold a biblical understanding of Christ’s imminent return at any time to be cowardly for not joining the “anointed,” as they sometimes call themselves. Without question, the Old Testament Book of Joel includes many endtime references. But the great and powerful army in Joel 2 is one of terrible locusts, an instrument of judgment on Israel. After Israel’s repentance, the army of locusts is destroyed by the Lord. Only after this destruction of the instrument of judgment does the promised revival come. “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people” (Joel 2:28). It is a complete misinterpretation of Scripture to find in Joel’s army of locusts a militant, victorious force attacking society and a non-cooperating Church to prepare the earth for Christ’s millennial reign.

Spiritualizing Biblical Events and History. There is certainly nothing wrong with finding parallels between historical biblical events and the application of biblical truth to life today—for edification and encouraging spiritual growth. But when those events are forced into a strained application of endtime events, thinking Christians should be on the alert. The Bereans of Acts 17:10,11 were commended because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things [that Paul was teaching] were so.” A teaching announced as the revelation of a new truth should be checked out very carefully. Pentecostals have become accustomed to anointed and dynamic preaching. But hearing a teacher speak with authority and self-confidence does not make the teaching true. It must always line up with Holy Scripture. Personal charisma is no substitute for biblical authority.

The Prosperity Gospel. The preaching of a prosperity gospel has increased giving to some programs, both legitimate and less than legitimate. God does bless faithfulness, but the blessing is not always financial gain. There are spiritual principles of sowing and reaping, but to draw money from the poor to support an affluent personal lifestyle is unconscionable. If we one day will have to give an account of every idle word (Matthew 12:36), it seems reasonable that we will have to account for every dollar solicited by dubious methods. A biblical teaching should be applicable in every neighborhood, culture, society, and country of the world.7

Birthing. Another example of a kernel of truth being pushed beyond propriety is the teaching that believers must “birth” new Christians into the Kingdom. Paul used the parallel very appropriately when he wrote to the Galatians, “My dear children,…I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (Galatians 4:19). But when the parallel is vividly described with the imagery of a mother in the process of delivery and believers are encouraged to intercede lying in the physical position of a mother giving birth to a child, truth is abused.

Generational Curses. It is true that Scripture speaks of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9). In two of the three passages the visitation is targeted at those who hate God. We also know that heredity and environment do pass some things on to descendents. But the Old Testament passage should be read in the light of the work of Christ on the cross. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any reference to this concept. Believers today do not live under a personal curse, even though the fallen creation around us still groans and suffers (Romans 8:22), awaiting the restoration of all things. Strong emphasis on a generational curse binds rather than delivers believers. Outside the body of Christ, there may be evidence of a generational curse, but for believers it is broken at salvation, even though there may be some natural traits or behavior patterns we must deal with through the help of the Holy Spirit.

5. Excessive fixation on Satan and demonic spirits.

“Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4, KJV). There is a devil. He is working desperately as his opportunity of opposing God’s eternal plan is fast coming to a close. But he is no more powerful today than he has ever been. God is always in control and our emphasis should be on His omnipotence rather than on the evil work of oppressing, disturbing, destroying, and even possessing those who willingly play with Satan’s trinkets and give themselves to his control. Satan can never take possession of the child of God, though he may tempt and oppress. Believers cannot be demon possessed.

Fighting and exorcising demons is exciting activity. It attracts attention. Again, there is a kernel of truth. There is demon possession—not in everything that is amiss, but certainly in special instances that must be dealt with. Yet God in His wisdom has provided the tools for those special needs. While there may indeed be princes of darkness on assignment against cities, there is no biblical evidence that every city or geographic entity is ruled by a demon. The Holy Spirit may give a Spirit-filled believer the word of knowledge that a demon is in control of a person who needs deliverance. And in situations of strange behavior, the Spirit discerns for the Spirit-filled believer the source of the activity. But to conclude that every sickness, injury, birth deformity, and negative personality trait is caused by a demon is a misreading of Scripture. Sin has left its mark on the world, yet not in the form of a demon wherever we turn that must be named and exorcised.

We are engaged in spiritual warfare. “The devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). But that message was not given to frighten believers into going to extremes in making every daily activity a major struggle with the devil. As we put on the full armor every Christian should wear in spiritual conflict, we are promised that we will stand against the devil’s schemes (Ephesians 6:11-17). Covered by the blood of Christ and wearing our armor, we can then concentrate on the assigned task of going into all the world with the gospel. There may be some intense combat along the way, but the One who goes before us has already overcome.

Discernment of Physical “Manifestations”8

Some people defend strange physical responses as the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit at work. However, that is often a fleshly response to the consciousness that God is present. Discernment is absolutely essential. Correction of such abuses should be appropriately handled. An overly exuberant but sincere believer can be gently counseled. There will be times, though, that a carnal response must be dealt with immediately so that the genuine move of the Spirit is not quenched by unseemly “manifestations.”
Some critics have contended that a physical response must be found in Scripture to give it legitimacy. But we do not claim that God can only heal diseases specifically mentioned in Scripture. There are enough instances of supernatural healing, and the promise that God can heal all diseases (Psalm 103:3), for us to believe God can heal the newly found disease that was never before known. Likewise, there are instances in Scripture when the Spirit moved upon people so they were in an otherworldly or supranatural condition.

Paul included a humble reference to such a supranatural experience in his second epistle to the Corinthians: “Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who 14 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. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses” (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). John had an “in the Spirit” experience on the Isle of Patmos: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice” (Revelation 1:10). The Old Testament prophets also had encounters with God’s presence that caused them to do and say unexpected things. If the Spirit moved on people in biblical times, He can do so today, and as He chooses. But physical responses not explicitly normative in Scripture must be tested and discerned whether they be of God, of human reaction, or of a spirit seeking to discredit the genuine work of God. If they do not have a biblical parallel, they should not be seen as evidences of spiritual perfection or patterns of normative spiritual experience.

Excessive Fascination With Physical “Manifestations.” No single physical response (apart from the biblically repeated Spirit-prompted utterances in tongues) is indisputable evidence that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the visible reaction. God’s presence is not always in the wind, the earthquake, the fire9 (1 Kings 19:11,12). Sometimes it is in the still small voice. God may use the dramatic to get the attention of believers intent on other things, but the Spirit-filled Christian, with a current experience, should always be listening for the whisperings and nudging of the Spirit. There are times when the Spirit desires to say, “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10).

Judging the Human Response. Just as Scripture tells us a prophecy must be judged (1 Corinthians 14:29), so should an unusual physical response be judged. Is the physical demonstration the result of the Spirit’s conviction resting heavily on a sinner? In revivals of earlier centuries, conviction has led sinners to groan, to weep, and even to scream as the fear of eternal damnation gripped the soul. Such “manifestations” seem entirely appropriate, if they are sincere expressions leading to conversion.

Judging the physical response experienced by believers is more difficult. A religious experience is often accompanied by emotion and is sometimes an expression of deep emotional needs. Yet to seek out a revival event just to have an emotional experience falls short of the divine mission to change lives and make believers more Christlike. Does the human response edify both the individual and the congregation? Does it glorify God and encourage others to move closer to the Lord? In telling of their experiences, whether real or simulated, do the recipients expect to be admired and applauded? Or do they testify of changed attitudes and a growing desire to please the Lord in every way possible, to surrender all for Christ, to bear whatever cross He asks them to carry? Is there an expressed determination to lay aside carnal desires and pursue holiness? Is the joy expressed a divine joy of relationship with deity or is it delight in one’s own experiences and abilities? The judging of “manifestations” should be by those present, as in the case of judging prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:29).

We must admit that an omnipotent God could place gold fillings in teeth and gold dust on individuals. But can such events be empirically demonstrated?10 If it is for a sign to those present, the reason for the sign should be evident. But to run after such signs and wonders makes us little more than the Pharisees who came to Jesus asking to see a sign from heaven (Mark 8:11). The same attitude should guard believers, no matter what the unnatural sign might be. Judging from a distance on the basis of secondhand reports is dangerous.

Manifestations and Ministry. The prophet Isaiah had an unusual experience of the presence of the Lord (Isaiah 6). First, there was a vision, a revelation of the majesty and holiness of God. Isaiah’s initial reaction was to give glory to God. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isaiah 6:3). But immediately on the heels of that declaration came a crushing sense of unworthiness, of sinfulness. “ ‘Woe to me!’ I cried. ‘I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty’ ” (Isaiah 6:5). If we really experience the presence of God, no matter how good our lives may seem to us, they look despicable alongside the holy presence of God. There is no merit in any of us apart from the merit of Christ. Genuine confrontation with God results in deep humility.

God does not leave in self-condemnation those who have paid the price to experience His presence. He immediately gives an assignment, some Great Commission task to be executed. To Isaiah, God said, “Go and tell this people.” The message wasn’t an easy one to deliver, but Isaiah obeyed. Obeying the voice of the Lord should follow the special experience of God’s presence. Yet the Spirit-filled believer who walks in the Spirit moment by moment can hear and respond to the still small voice without a mountaintop emotional experience every time God gives directions. Such a mountaintop experience may be just the prescription to rekindle holy passion that has waned, but to seek only to have more like experiences without answering the call to be up and doing the work of the Kingdom is counterproductive. Revival has a higher purpose than making the saints feel better.

A Word to Pastors of Local Churches

As you hear unprecedented revival reports from other churches, it is natural to wonder why God is moving in such a spectacular way elsewhere but not to the same degree in your church. It is natural to wonder, “What is wrong with our church?” “Haven’t we prayed and asked God for revival?” “Are we for some reason being bypassed in what God is doing today?” More dangerous is the response, “We have been experiencing God’s presence and don’t want or need anything more.” You are called to be faithful where you are, keeping your eyes on Jesus, not on the public attention others are experiencing. Keep the following advice in mind and heart as you seek in unity with your congregation to be the church God wants you to be.

1. God may be accomplishing the spiritual growth He desires for your church at this time. He loves every individual for whom He sent His Son to die and the Father desires that every member of your congregation draw closer to His Son.
   2. Out of envy or feelings of less worth, don’t criticize churches experiencing visible revival activity. Be patient and faithful to your call. God is able to move in His way, at His time, and where He chooses. Be open and preparing for His supernatural move.
   3. Be faithful in preaching the Word and encouraging membership to expect God’s presence and power in a greater way. Every believer should desire and seek a closer walk with our Lord.
   4. Don’t allow those who have visited other scenes of God’s seemingly spectacular move to persuade you or your people to merely copy the activity observed elsewhere. Seek God for His special move according to the needs of your church. A carbon-copy “revival” is likely to be man-made.
   5. Use caution in publicizing supernatural healings or other miracles that cannot be authenticated. Pentecostals know for certain that God can and does heal. We know that faith is encouraged and strengthened by testimonies of supernatural healing. But when a claim of healing is made and critics prove later that no significant and lasting change followed, the cause of Christ suffers. Charges of fraud, lying, and deliberately misleading in order to enhance one’s ministry only hurt the Christian witness. If a person sincerely testifies of personal healing and then suffers a setback, the premature testimony cannot be charged to the pastor or evangelist, which would reflect negatively on the testimony of the church in the community.
   6. Do not invite speakers to fill your pulpit out of a desire just to see “manifestations.” There has been enough manipulation that casts doubt on the genuine work of the Spirit. Choose your pulpit guests wisely. Going outside the list of recognized Assemblies of God credentials holders can bring undesired teachings and example.
   7. Do not point accusing fingers at those who may not heed these admonitions.
   8. When you do observe and confirm the presence of wrong doctrine and/or practice, you have a responsibility to speak out in the right way. Concern should first be expressed to those involved in the error. If the concern is rejected or not answered, district leadership should be made aware of the situation. “In a multitude of counselors there is safety” (Proverbs 24:6, NKJV).
   9. Some of the teachings and human responses described in this paper as concerns of the Church will in a few years, if the Lord delays His return, be forgotten or remembered only as passing fads. Some will reappear under new names. And there will likely be new teachings like these that begin with a kernel of truth but then move to extra-biblical excess. Discernment is needed, not so much on the labels and names, as on the actual teachings and human responses. The Lord is faithful to guide and protect His people as they seek only to build His kingdom and to give all the glory to Him, refusing to take any for themselves.
   10. Reports of souls saved and lives changed should never justify wrong theology and practices. Yet Paul said about the false prophets who were causing him and his ministry frustration, “Christ is proclaimed in every way whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:15-18). But Paul obviously wanted Christ to be proclaimed from right motives and with biblical integrity. So do we.

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

This statement is the report of the committee to study eternal punishment. The report was adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 17, 1976.

---

The position of the Assemblies of God concerning eternal punishment is set forth in its “Statement of Fundamental Truths” as follows:

Section 15. The Final Judgment. There will be a final judgment in which the wicked dead will be raised and judged according to their works. Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, together with the devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, will be consigned to everlasting punishment in “the fiery lake of burning sulfur: This is the second death” (Revelation 21:8; compare Matthew 25:46; Mark 9:43–48; Revelation 19:20; 20:11–15).

Here we note that the punishment is with the devil and his angels, that it is everlasting, and that it is in the lake of fire which is called the second death. This paper will attempt to give further definition and explanation to each of these points.

The Wicked Share Satan’s Doom

The Bible makes it clear that the lake of fire was not intended for people but for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). God’s purpose and desire for humanity has always been good. The first heaven and earth were created good (Genesis 1:31). The Law was given for the good of humankind (Deuteronomy 6:24). God does not will that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). In fact, God works in all things for the ultimate good of those who love Him and respond to His call (Romans 8:28). Nevertheless, God will not allow Satan to spoil the new heaven and the new earth which are to come. God will shut him off in the lake of fire. Those who follow Satan must share Satan’s doom (John 16:8,11), for they have Satan, not God, as their father (John 8:44).

Those who share Satan’s punishment are further referred to as the “wicked” (Matthew 13:49,50). This is a general term for all who are actively evil and worthless. They include the cowardly (cowardly because of lack of faith), the unbelieving, the vile (the disgusting, detestable), murderers, sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts (those who use enchantments, harmful drugs), idolaters, and all liars (Revelation 21:8). (See also Matthew 8:12; 13:41,42; 22:13; 23:15; 25:30,33; Luke 13:27; Revelation 21:27; 22:15.) Paul sums it up by including all who do not know God with a personal knowledge of salvation plus all who do not keep on obeying the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

The Punishment of the Wicked Has No End

The first Bible reference given in the “Statement of Fundamental Truths”—Matthew 25:46—uses the phrase “everlasting [Greek, aionion] punishment.” Some have denied that this means eternal in the sense of absolutely unending. In the same verse, however, Jesus used the same word of life “eternal” (aionion) in a manner that is directly and exactly parallel. In other words, the punishment will be as eternal as the eternal life. This leaves no room for any later restoration of the wicked. In Matthew 25:41 the punishment is defined as “everlasting [Greek, aionion] fire.”

Jesus characterized the intermediate state of the wicked after death (hell, Hades) as one of fire (Luke 16:23,24), but this is to be distinguished from the eternal fire. Jesus’ words in Luke 16 show us that the wicked remain conscious and are aware of their state and of what they have missed. But the eternal fire is to be identified with what Jesus called Gehenna or literally “the gehenna of fire” (Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:8,9; 23:15; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5). This fire is not only to be eternal, but is also said to be of such a nature that it can never be quenched (Mark 9:43). This clearly indicates that there can be no possible end to the fire or the punishment. The punishment is as eternal as the fire. If the fire brought an annihilation of the wicked, there would be no reason for the fire being eternal.

Jesus also referred to the same fire as a “fiery furnace” (Matthew 13:42,50) where there will be terrible remorse shown by weeping and gnashing of teeth. But remorse is not repentance. The remorse of Judas did not save him from eternal loss as the “one doomed to destruction” (John 17:12; Acts 1:16–20). Jesus identified this weeping and gnashing of teeth as taking place in “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30, KJV et al.). This darkness indicates a final separation from God and from the Lamb who is the light of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23).

Another New Testament passage refers to eternal punishment as “eternal judgment,” that is, a judgment that is valid eternally (Hebrews 6:2). Still another passage speaks of “ruin” (literally, “death,” “separation”) and “destruction” (eternal loss) (1 Timothy 6:9). This “everlasting destruction” (or separation) is “from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). In these passages the word “death” is thus used in the sense of spiritual death or separation from God. The sinner is even now dead in trespasses and sins and therefore without Christ, or separated from Christ (Ephesians 2:1,12). Eternal judgment brings a final and eternal separation from God and from Christ.

The Second Death

The Bible calls this final separation from God “the second death.” In the Book of Revelation, the lake of fire is so described (Revelation 20:14). Jesus also identified Gehenna as a second death when He warned: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna]” (Matthew 10:28; see also Luke 12:4,5). This clearly refers to another death after the physical death of the body. It is also clear that this death is different in order and in kind. As physical death is separation from the body and from the environment of this life, so the second death is a final and eternal separation from God and from the life to be enjoyed in the new creation. Among those consigned to this second death will be all who take the mark of the beast (Revelation 14:9–11). These will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the angels and Christ. That is, though shut off from the new creation in the lake of fire, they will be able to see the Lamb of God they rejected, just as Lazarus was able to see across the great gulf between Hades and Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:23). Again, they will not be annihilated, for “the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night” (Revelation 14:11). They will be forever denied the rest promised to the saints.

None of these passages indicates any promise of rehabilitation or restoration once the final judgment is pronounced. No sanctifying agent is revealed in connection with the lake of fire or Gehenna. The fire is parallel to the “worm” of Mark 9:44,46,48 (KJV). It is looked at as punitive, not purifying. There will be no second chance. This should stir the Church to proclaim the message, “Now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).

A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON GAMBLING

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1 & 3, 2015)

The unprecedented pervasiveness of gambling in American culture and its consequences demand a critique from a Christian perspective. To determine whether participation in gambling is appropriate, Spirit-filled followers of Jesus must recognize the problematic nature of gambling, understand relevant principles derived from Holy Scripture, and apply those principles prayerfully and with sensitivity to the potential impact that gambling has on the individual and others in the individual’s circle of influence.

The Nature of Gambling

The basic dictionary definition of gambling is “to play a game for money or property; to bet on an uncertain outcome.”¹ A more precise, legal description may help Christians understand gambling and differentiate it from legitimate transactions in which creative efforts, useful skills, and responsible investment (positive expected returns, at least in the long term, as well as inherent value independent of the marginal risk being taken) are integral factors:

A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence. . . . Gambling does not include bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, such as the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guaranty and life, health or accident insurance.²

Gambling, then, is recognized as any activity in which wealth changes hands, mainly on the basis of chance and with risk to the gambler.

Gambling involves a wide variety of activities, both illegal (and thus prohibited by state and/or federal law) and legal (and thus usually highly regulated by state and/or federal law). Legalized gambling is often euphemistically referred to as “gaming” in the United States, and includes many types of games in which even some Christians may sometimes find themselves participating recreationally. These include, generally, three categories: fixed-odds (or “pari-mutuel”) betting, including horse and greyhound racing and other sporting events; casino gaming, both table and electronic (e.g., slot machines, video poker); and noncasino gaming, such as bingo, dead pools, lotteries, scratch cards, carnival games, card games, confidence games (e.g., the shell game) and dice-based games. Activities (such as raffles and sometimes, bingo) that are designed primarily to support a charitable cause, and only secondarily to generate a possible return on a purchase, are not usually considered to be “gambling,” though certain of these may be a matter of personal conscience.

The Problem of Gambling

The prevalence of gambling has increased as a result of its accelerated legalization³, enhanced media exposure through mega-lotteries, expanded accessibility through online gaming and state-sanctioned lotteries, perceived acceptability of “gaming” as healthy social activity and recreational entertainment, and professed claims of economic benefit through job creation. Nonetheless, gambling’s troublesome consequences, both individual and societal, remain.

For many persons gambling results in psychological addiction⁴that mirrors other forms of addiction, such as alcohol and drug dependence, in terms of symptoms⁵ and variation in brain chemistry.⁶ Gambling’s threat to public health is understood in terms of its susceptibility to organized criminal influence and control, as well as its detrimental impact on society in terms of marital dissolutions⁷, impoverished families, bankruptcies, suicides⁸ and costs of associated social services, such as treating addictions and responding to increased crime.

In the social sciences, the term “gambling disorders” incorporates both “problem gambling” and “pathological gambling,”⁹ the latter being the more severe and subject to clinical diagnosis. Researchers spanning three decades estimate that from slightly less than 1 percent up to 1.9 percent of the U. S. general population suffers from pathological gambling.¹⁰ In a meta-analysis of 120 previous studies, researchers at the Center for Addictions at Harvard Medical School found that approximately 1.1 percent of the adult general population were past-year level three [pathological] gamblers and an additional 2.8 percent were classified as level 2 [problematic] gamblers who were having some problems as a result of their gambling but did not meet diagnostic criteria as pathological.¹¹ This research suggests that almost 4 percent of the adult population in the United States suffers from some form of gambling disorder. Of the pathological gamblers, approximately 75 percent have an alcohol use disorder and 38 percent also have a drug use disorder.¹² Sadly, more recent research conducted by the Research Institute on Addictions at the University of Buffalo indicates that 6.5 percent of young people (ages 14–21) are at-risk and problem gamblers (mostly male), a rate much higher than the general adult population.¹³

Those who think they may escape the problems by avoiding some types of gambling while participating in seemingly more innocuous forms should consider the conclusion of university researchers funded by the gambling industry itself: “Research does not substantiate the belief that some games—such as online poker or slot machines—are riskier than others. People can get into trouble with all types of gambling, from sports betting to the lottery, from bingo to casino games.”¹⁴ This should serve as a warning even to many good and relatively psychologically healthy people, including Christians, who “have been ‘softened’ toward frequent gambling by the permissive attitudes of family or friends, and by favorable portrayals of betting in popular culture. They start gambling for entertainment, or to be sociable. . . . From that point, the conditioning process takes over, forging a connection in the brain between winning and feeling good.”¹⁵

While all levels of society may be adversely affected by gambling, repeated studies have shown that the poor are particularly susceptible to the inducements of the industry, and are deliberately targeted.¹⁶ State-sponsored lotteries likewise generate much of their revenue from the less affluent who are often desperate for a solution to their financial ills and more easily drawn in by lottery advertising.¹⁷ That those at or near the poverty level spend a greater percentage of their income on various gambling venues is well documented. One recent study by a major university institute found that problem gambling was twice as common in “disadvantaged” neighborhoods as the more affluent. Moreover, the poorest in these disadvantaged neighborhoods were the ones at greatest risk for gambling problems.¹⁸

Given these problematic effects of gambling upon individuals, governmental reliance upon state-sanctioned gambling to fund its legitimate activities such as education is deplorable. Furthermore, marketing and promotion of state-sanctioned gambling—which amounts to a tax (though voluntary) upon those in society who can least afford to pay the monetary and social penalties accompanying such gambling—is especially egregious.

The Bible and Gambling

Most religious authorities generally have disapproved of gambling because of the widely recognized social consequences associated with it. However, since the Bible contains no explicit statements condemning gambling¹⁹ , it is often categorized among the adiaphora, “matters of indifference” in religion since they are not expressly forbidden by the Scriptures. However, the Bible certainly provides principles that should govern the Christian’s thinking about gambling.

1. Gambling is inadvisable because it disregards responsible stewardship.

The Bible clearly teaches that all things belong to God. “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1). Since all things belong to God, people are placed in the position of stewards who must give a proper accounting for everything given to them in trust.

The first step in a faithful administration of this stewardship is the giving of self to God. Believers must recognize they are not their own (1 Corinthians 6:19). They have been redeemed with a price, not of silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18–19). The churches of Macedonia set a worthy example of personal dedication when “they gave themselves first of all to the Lord” (2 Corinthians 8:5). Life, with all it involves, is a stewardship to be administered for the glory of God.

People who honestly dedicate themselves to God will also recognize that all they possess must be handled as a stewardship. The Parable of the Bags of Gold [Talents] (Matthew 25:14–30) indicates that the good and faithful servants administered the talents entrusted to them in such a way that the master was pleased. The wicked and lazy servant failed in his stewardship responsibility and suffered the appropriate consequences.

When people recognize their stewardship responsibilities, they will not consider gambling in any form to be proper management of divinely bestowed resources, time, and ability. Even secular business ethics will not tolerate those who gamble with resources put in their trust. Christian responsibility transcends all other responsibility and, for the Christian, gambling is a total disregard of the principle of stewardship. It is a prostitution of God-given assets which should be used to glorify God by providing for family needs and advancing His kingdom.

2. Gambling is imprudent because it involves a chance of gain only at the expense and suffering of others, often the poor.

The nature of gambling is such that a person has a chance of gain only because others have suffered loss. The economic benefits come only to a very few. The financial loss is borne by many who usually least can afford it. Whether or not the financial loss is excessive, gamblers are basically the losers while the operators of gambling establishments are the winners.
19 In the Old Testament era casting lots was used to determine God’s will in some cases (Ex. 28:30; Josh. 18:6–10; 1 Sam. 14:41–42; Jonah 1:7). One New Testament occurrence is found in Acts 1:26. But these biblical practices in no way meet the definition of gambling.

The suffering caused by gambling is totally inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture concerning love. Not only is the Christian to love those who are lovable, but even enemies (Matthew 5:44). God’s people are to love their neighbors as themselves (Matthew 22:39; cf. Leviticus 19:18). Love places limits on the Christian’s choices: “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (1 Corinthians 10:24). Christians are under a love-obligation to choose not to engage in behaviors that they know could cause harm to others or cause other Christians to emulate their risky behavior and thus stumble and fall (Romans 14:13–15, 19–21; 1 Corinthians 8:9–13; 10:32).

The principle of love will prevent Christians from gambling because of the damage it does to others. The principle of love will cause Christians to oppose any effort by the state or any other organization to legalize any activity based on a weakness of people that degrades society. William Temple, late Archbishop of Canterbury, stated the Christian position well when he wrote:

Gambling challenges that view of life which the Christian church exists to uphold and extend. Its glorification of mere chance is a denial of the divine order of nature. To risk money haphazardly is to disregard the insistence of the Church in every age of living faith that possessions are a trust, and that men must account to God for their use. The persistent appeal to covetousness is fundamentally opposed to the unselfishness which was taught by Jesus Christ and by the New Testament as a whole. The attempt (inseparable from gambling) to make profit out of the inevitable loss and possible suffering of others is the antithesis of that love of one’s neighbor on which our Lord insisted.²⁰

3. Gambling is inconsistent with the work ethic of Scripture.

Throughout Scripture the importance of work is emphasized. In several places, the correlation between working and eating is stated. The Old Testament reminds us that generally, “Those who work their land will have abundant food” (Proverbs 12:11). In the New Testament, the same principle is stated with great forcefulness. To the Thessalonians Paul wrote: “When we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat’” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
In the wisdom of God work was assigned in the Garden of Eden even before the Fall (Genesis 2:15ff; cf.1:28). Though sin resulted in a change of the nature of work (Genesis 3:17, 19), the responsibility of working was never rescinded. Any effort to circumvent the work ethic of Scripture can result only in failure rather than flourishing.²¹ Gambling, whether to secure wealth in a hurry or to place bread on the table, is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about work.

4. Gambling is contrary to biblical warnings against greed or avarice.

Not only does the Bible require that one should work for the necessities of life, but much biblical wisdom also warns against the “something for nothing” or “get rich quick” approach that is fueled by greed: “One eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Proverbs 28:20). On the other hand, Proverbs 13:11 encourages patient work and steady investment: “Dishonest money dwindles away, but whoever gathers money little by little makes it grow.”

Jesus warned against the seducing evil of greed: “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15). Likewise, Paul admonished Christians to avoid avarice. “But among you there must not be even a hint . . . of greed, because [this is] improper for God’s holy people” (Ephesians 5:3; cf. Romans 1:29). In fact, Paul repeatedly associated greed with idolatry (1 Corinthians 6:10; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5) that disqualifies one from participation in the kingdom of Christ. Inasmuch as greed motivates gambling, it certainly is a seductive evil that must be avoided by followers of Jesus.

5. Gambling is inconsistent with a healthy recognition of God’s providence.

Proverbs 16:33 clearly affirms the sovereignty of God over what people suppose are chance events. God’s people are not to covet riches or worry about material needs but are to trust in God’s sovereignty—not luck or chance. The Sovereign LORD rebuked and promised retribution on those disobedient ones among the Covenant People who forsook the LORD by committing virtual idolatry with “Fortune” and “Destiny” (Isaiah 65:11–15), the pagan gods of good fortune and fate in the ancient Babylonian world comparable to “Lady Luck” in the contemporary world.

Jesus’ warning against greed (Luke 12:15) is placed in the immediate context of His teaching on trusting in God the Father’s faithfulness and providential provision (12:22– 34). Jesus admonished His disciples to neither worry nor set their hearts on their life’s sustenance, food, or clothing, “For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. . . . For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (12:30–31, 34).

Because gambling reflects people’s faith in Chance rather than Providence, and trust in Luck rather than the Lord, it ought to be avoided by those who are seeking the Father’s kingdom.

6. Gambling is unwise because it tends to be enslaving.

Gambling, like other evils, has a tendency to become an addiction, which is a condition that is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The Word of God points out that a Christian will refuse to be enslaved to (or mastered by) even lawful, permissible activities (1 Corinthians 6:12). The person indwelled by the Holy Spirit will be characterized by self-control (Galatians 5:23).

It is obvious that habitual gamblers are under the control of the compulsion to gamble. Rather than being servants of God, they are servants of a desire they cannot handle. Paul described the condition clearly when he wrote, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey?” (Romans 6:16).

7. Gambling is a compromise of Christian ethics and witness.

A great deal of gambling, particularly casino gambling, takes place in lavish facilities offered relatively inexpensively to attract maximum participation, and featuring entertainment that is often tempting in its sensuality and indulgence. Attendance and participation in such an environment poses serious challenges for Christian witness and conduct.

The Christian and Gambling

As Jesus’ followers consider the appropriateness of their involvement in various gambling activities, the following questions may help to focus many of the current issues and biblical principles set forth in this paper.

1. Is this good stewardship of the resources that God has entrusted to me?
   2. Does it hurt anyone by taking money from others; by taking advantage of others’ weaknesses; by causing others, following my example, to stumble; or by contributing to an immoral system?
   3. Am I doing honest work regularly to meet my needs?
   4. Am I motivated by greed and covetousness, which is idolatry?
   5. Do I trust in God as my source, or do I trust Lady Luck?
   6. Is this something that could become an addiction? Does it occupy my thoughts? Is it becoming a compulsion?
   7. How does it impact my spiritual walk with the Lord?

With appropriate humility and holiness before the Sovereign LORD, sincere Christians acknowledge that other like-minded believers may feel greater freedom in regard to so-called adiaphora (debatable matters), especially when exercising self-control in occasional, budgeted entertainment. Nevertheless, Christians are called upon to recognize the weightiness of decision-making in regards to participation in gambling activities. There may be lurking danger in one’s unforeseen predisposition to addiction. There may be an unintended example that leads others within one’s sphere of influence into risky behavior. On the one hand, one’s witness to the world may fall short with respect to avoiding avarice. On the other hand, one’s example may also fail to inspire a responsible work ethic and conscientious biblical stewardship.

NOTES

---

1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble, accessed March 9, 2013.
2 http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling/,accessed March 9, 2013.
3 Especially since passage of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.
4 This is illustrated classically in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Gambler, 1867. Originally published in Russian, it is available in many English translations and in online free editions. See also Howard J. Shaffer, “Understanding the Means and Objects of Addiction: Technology, the Internet, and Gambling.” Journal of Gambling Studies 12:4 (1996): 461–469.
5 This includes increasing tolerance (e.g., needs to gamble more money to achieve the desired excitement); symptoms of withdrawal if gambling is stopped or reduced; and an inability to stop or reduce gambling.
6 John Mangels, “Gambling Addicts Arise from Mix of Flawed Thinking, Brain Chemistry and Habitual Behavior,” The Plain Dealer, May 15, 2011. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/gambling_addicts_arise_from_mi.html accessed March 12, 2013.
7 “It is estimated that one problem gambler affects at least seven other people—spouses, children, extended family members, and friends. Problem gambling can hurt not only one’s finances, but one’s physical and mental health, as well as relationships.” AAMFT Therapy Topics, American Association for Marital and Family Therapy. http://www.aamft.org/imis15/Content/Consumer_Updates/Problem_Gambling.aspx accessed March 12, 2013.
8 Alex Blaszczynski and E. Farrell, “A Case Series of 44 Completed Gambling Related Suicides.” Journal of Gambling Studies, 14 (1998): 93–110.
9 The diagnosis of “pathological gambling” was added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980.
10 Christine Reilly, “The Prevalence of Gambling Disorders in the United States: Three Decades of Evidence” in Increasing the Odds, Vol. 3, Gambling and the Public Health, Part 1, 2009. http://www.ncrg.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/monographs/ncrg_monograph_vol3.pdf accessed March 9, 2013.
11 Ibid., 4. Reilly cites a 1997 study by Shaffer, Hall & Vander Bilt. Research supported by a grant from the National Center for Responsible Gaming.
12 Ibid., 5. Reilly cites a 2005 study by Petry, Stinson & Grant, University of Connecticut Health Center and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2005.
13 John W. Welte, Grace M. Barnes, Marie-Cecile O. Tidwell & Joseph H. Hoffman, “The Prevalence of Problem Gambling Among U.S. Adolescents and Young Adults: Results from a National Survey.” Journal of Gambling Studies 24:2 (2008): 119-133.
14 National Center for Responsible Gaming, Fact Sheet on Gambling Disorders, http://www.collegegambling.org/just-facts/gambling-disorders accessed March 9, 2013.
15 John Mangels, “Gambling Addicts Arise from Mix of Flawed Thinking, Brain Chemistry and Habitual Behavior,” The Plain Dealer, May 15, 2011. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/gambling_addicts_arise_from_mi.html accessed March 12, 2013.
16 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/gaming-the-poor accessed November 25, 2014.
17 http://www.npr.org/2014/07/16/332015825/lotteries-take-in-billions-often-attract-the-poor, accessed November 26, 2014.
18 http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html, accessed November 25, 2014.
20 William Temple, Gambling and Ethics. London: The Churches’ Committee on Gambling, 1948.
21 For a thoughtful expression of a biblical work ethic, see Charlie Self, Flourishing Churches and Communities: A Pentecostal Primer on Faith, Work, and Economics for Spirit-Empowered Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Christian‘s Library Press, 2013).

HOMOSEXUALITY, MARRIAGE, AND SEXUAL IDENTITY

THIS STATEMENT WAS ADOPTED AS THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IN SESSION AUGUST 4-5, 2014.

Increasing political and religious advocacy for homosexual1 practices, same-sex marriage, and alternate sexual identities has prompted us to clarify our position on these critical issues. We believe that all matters of faith and conduct must be evaluated on the basis of Holy Scripture, which is our infallible guide (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Since the Bible does speak to the nature of human beings and their sexuality, it is imperative that the Church correctly understands and articulates what it actually teaches on these matters which have now become so controversial and divisive.

A reaffirmation of biblical teachings has become all the more urgent because writers sympathetic to the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender)2 communities have advanced revisionist interpretations of relevant biblical texts that are based upon biased exegesis and mistranslation. In effect, they seek to set aside almost two thousand years of Christian biblical interpretation and ethical teachings. We believe these efforts are reflective of the conditions described in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”3 (See also v. 4.)

It should be noted at the outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual activity, same-sex marriage, or changes in sexual identity found anywhere in Scripture. Male and female genders are carefully defined and unconfused. The consistent ideal for sexual experience in the Bible is chastity4 for those outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage and fidelity5 for those inside such a marriage. There is also abundant evidence that homosexual behavior, along with illicit heterosexual behavior, is immoral and comes under the judgment of God.

We believe, in light of biblical revelation, that the growing cultural acceptance of homosexual identity and behavior (male and female), same-sex marriage, and efforts to change one’s biological sexual identity are all symptomatic of a broader spiritual disorder that threatens the family, the government, and the church.

This paper is a brief exposition of salient biblical teachings on homosexuality and the application of those teachings to marriage and sexual identity.

1. Homosexual Behavior Is Sin

Historically, homosexuality often has been defined as an emotional (psychological) or organic (physiological) problem. In recent years, some have lobbied mental health organizations to have homosexuality removed from the list of classified diagnostic pathologies, and many have come to see it as nothing more than a morally neutral personal preference or a naturally occurring aspect of human biological diversity. In making moral judgments, we must remember scriptural warnings against depending on our own reasoning or even personal experience to discern truth (Proverbs 3:5–6).

1. Homosexual behavior is sin because it is disobedient to scriptural teachings.

When God called Israel to be His people in a distinctive sense, He miraculously delivered them from Egyptian bondage. But God did more. He entered into a covenant relationship with them and provided the Law, predicated on love for God and neighbor, by which they could order their lives as a holy people. That law included specific prohibitions of homosexual practice, such as that of Leviticus 18:22: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Lest the previous injunction be misunderstood, Leviticus 20:13 provides a restatement, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” “Detestable,” used in both verses, is a strong word that indicates divine displeasure with sin.6

The Christian church has historically understood that although the ceremonial provisions of the Old Testament law were no longer in effect after the atoning death of Christ, the New Testament interpretation and restatement of its moral law continues in effect. On the subject of homosexuality, both the Old and New Testaments speak with one voice. The moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior in the Old Testament are pointedly repeated in the New Testament.

To those who witnessed on a daily basis the sexual license of imperial Rome, Paul depicted the results that followed in the lives of those who rejected God and “worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. . . . Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations[7] for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations[8] with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts[9] with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:25– 27). Paul is referring to both male homosexuality and lesbianism.

In Paul’s day, the city of Corinth was especially notorious for sexual immorality. It was not only a crossroads of commerce, but of all kinds of vice. Because the church was being established in this city, it was important that new Christians come to understand God’s moral order. The record is explicit. Paul wrote, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Then he continued, “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral[10] nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10 [NIV, 1984]). In this case, Paul is understood to identify male homosexuals in both active and passive homosexual behavioral roles.11

Paul wrote, “Law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals”12 (1 Timothy 1:9–10, NASB).13

An unbiased study of these passages makes it clear that Scripture consistently identifies homosexual behavior as sin. Not only do the Scriptures condemn more flagrant examples of homosexual violence and promiscuity, they also provide no support for the popular modern idea that loving and committed homosexual relationships between two long-term partners, even if legally married, are morally acceptable. Homosexual activities of every kind are contrary to the moral commandments God has given us.

1. Homosexual behavior is sin because it is contrary to God’s created order for the family and human relationships.

The first chapter of the Bible says, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). After God had created the male, He indicated it was not good for him to live alone (Genesis 2:18). So God created a companion for him (Genesis 2:18). It should be noted that the male’s aloneness was not to be remedied by the creation of another male but by the creation of a female. God created two sexes, not just one, and each for the other.

When God brought the woman to Adam, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” Scripture then states, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23–24).

In creating humankind God established the order of sexuality by which the race was to develop. Psychologically, the relationship is sound. Physically, the relationship is natural. Sociologically, it establishes the foundation for the family. The biblical order for human sexual expression is that of an intimate physical relationship to be shared exclusively within a lifelong marriage covenant—a heterosexual and monogamous relationship.

When people choose to engage in homosexual behavior, they depart from the God-given nature of sexuality. Their unnatural sexual behavior is a sin against God, who established the order of sexuality (Romans 1:27). And the social unit they seek to establish is contrary to the divine instruction for the man to leave father and mother and be “united to his wife” (Genesis 2:24).

In Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees, He reiterated the order of sexuality that God established in the beginning: “Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4–5). He pointed out that the only alternative to heterosexual marriage is celibacy for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:10–12).

1. Homosexual behavior is sin that comes under divine judgment.

The name of the ancient city of Sodom14 has become a synonym for homosexual behavior. While other evils existed in this community, sodomy was prominent. The homosexuals of Sodom were so depraved that they threatened homosexual rape of Lot’s guests. “Bring them [“the men who came to you”] out to us so that we can have sex15 with them,” Lot was told (Genesis 19:5). The biblical record indicates that the mob became violent and tried to break down the door of Lot’s house. Only divine intervention spared Lot and his household from their evil intentions, and God subsequently destroyed both Sodom and the neighboring city of Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4–11, 24–25).

God’s punishment of these cities was of such severity that it is used as an illustration of divine judgment by both Peter (2 Peter 2:6) and Jude (7). Jude’s commentary is particularly apt, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

The Book of Judges (19:1–30) records an incident in the ancient Benjamite city of Gibeah that has many similarities to the sin of Sodom. Certain “wicked men of the city” (19:22) sought to force a visiting Levite male into homosexual acts16 with them. Denied their insistent requests, the attackers finally settled for vicious sexual abuse and gang­rape17 of the Levite’s concubine that resulted in her death (19:25–30). The other tribes of Israel found the crime so repugnant that when the tribe of Benjamin refused to surrender the offenders, they eventually went to war—decimating the Benjamites (20:1–48).

These are particularly notorious examples of homosexual expression that undoubtedly most homosexual persons today would repudiate. It should be understood that while expressing abhorrence at such rapacious perversion, the biblical writers do not imply that heterosexuals are not capable of sexual atrocities nor that most homosexuals are as depraved as the residents of those ancient cities. Nor should modern Christians draw those implications. It is important to note, however, that wherever homosexuality occurs in the biblical record it is an occasion of scandal and judgment. Homosexuality is never viewed in a positive light.

The biblical writers make it clear that practicing homosexuals, along with sexually immoral heterosexuals and all other unrepentant sinners, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). Paul also described homosexual conduct as one evidence of God’s judgment for humankind’s corporate rebellion against Him (Romans 1:26–27). Jesus himself was explicit that at the end of the age “the Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:40–42).

1. Homosexual Behavior Is Sin for Which Reconciliation Is Possible

While Scripture makes it clear homosexual behavior is sin and comes under the judgment of God, it also indicates that those who are guilty of homosexual behavior or any other sin can be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:17–21).

In the church at Corinth were former homosexuals who had been delivered from the power of sin by the grace of God. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul listed homosexuals along with immoral heterosexuals as those who cannot inherit the kingdom of God. His grammar implies continuing sexually immoral activity until their conversion.

Verse 11 follows with a powerful contrast, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” They had been homosexuals in orientation and behavior, but now the power of God’s Spirit had radically transformed their lives, and the lives of their fellow heterosexual sinners.

Scripture makes clear that the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ is unlimited for those who accept it. There is no sin, sexual or otherwise, that cannot be cleansed. John the Baptist announced, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

The apostle Paul wrote, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The apostle John wrote, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, people, regardless of the nature of their sin, can be made new creations in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17). God’s plan of salvation is the same for all. The practicing homosexual who wants to be delivered from the penalty and power of sin must come to God in the same way all heterosexual sinners must come to God, in the same way all who are now His children have come for deliverance from their sins.

The act of turning to God for salvation includes both repentance and faith. Jesus is both Savior and Lord. He is the one who forgives our sin as we believe in Him and repent. Repentance represents a change of mind in which there is a turning from sin in both attitude and behavior.

Jesus is also the One whose lordship we affirm in holy living. “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:3–5).

Like the Philippian jailer who asked what he had to do to be saved, those desiring salvation must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:30–31)—believe that He can save from the power as well as the penalty of sin. Obedient faith, like repentance, is a condition of salvation.

III. Resultant Affirmations

In view of the clear biblical teachings on homosexuality and the application of these teachings to contemporary sexual practices, the Assemblies of God Fellowship makes the following affirmations:

1. With Regard to Same-Sex Marriage

The Assemblies of God defines marriage as the permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, and conjugal “one flesh” union of one man and one woman, intrinsically ordered to procreation and biological family, and in furtherance of the moral, spiritual, and public good of binding father, mother, and child. (Genesis 1:27–28; 2:18–24; Matthew 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–9; Ephesians 5:31–33).

1. With Regard to Sexual Immorality

The Assemblies of God believes that sexual acts outside of marriage are prohibited as sinful. Sexual acts outside of marriage include but are not limited to adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality, pornography, prostitution, voyeurism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, sodomy, polygamy, polyamory, or same-sex sexual acts. (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:7–23; 20:10–21; Deuteronomy 5:18; Matthew 5:27–28; 15:19; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–13; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:17–19; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4).

1. With Regard to Sexual Identity

The Assemblies of God believes that God created humankind in His image: male (man) and female (woman), sexually different but with equal personal dignity. The Fellowship supports the dignity of individual persons affirming their biological sex and discouraging any and all attempts to physically change, alter, or disagree with their predominant biological sex—including but not limited to elective sex-reassignment, transvestite, transgender, or nonbinary “genderqueer” acts or conduct. (Genesis 1:26–28; Romans 1:26–32; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

1. With Regard to Sexual Orientation

The Assemblies of God affirms the sexual complementarity of man and woman and teaches that any and all same-sex sexual attractions are to be resisted. Consequently, believers are to refrain from any and all same-sex sexual acts or conduct, which are intrinsically disordered. (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:5–9; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

1. A Word to the Church 

The Assemblies of God believes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and should seek redemption through confession, repentance, baptism, and faith in Jesus Christ. Our Fellowship welcomes and treats with respect, compassion, and sensitivity all who experience same-sex attractions or confess sexually immoral acts and are commited to resisting sexual temptation, refraining from sexual immorality, and transforming their behavior in the light of biblical teachings. (Matthew 11:28–30; Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 10:13; Ephesians 2:1–10; Hebrews 2:17–18; 4:14–16)

Believers who struggle with homosexual temptations and sexual identity confusion must be encouraged and strengthened by fellow Christians (Galatians 6:1–2). Likewise, they should be taught that while temptation to sinful behaviors is universal, temptation itself is not sin. Temptation can be resisted and overcome (1 Corinthians 10:13; Hebrews 12:1– 6).

The moral imperatives of Scripture are incumbent upon all persons. However, believers should not be surprised that unbelievers do not honor God and do not recognize the Bible as a rightful claim on their lives and conduct (1 Corinthians 1:18). Peter writes clearly of the conflict and contrast between believer and unbeliever in his first letter:

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead (1 Peter 4:1–5).

As Christians we must both exhort believers to live in moral purity and express in word and deed Christ’s love for the lost. Aware of the claims of God on every aspect of our lives, we must emphasize that we are called to holiness. To unbelievers we must reach out with compassion and humility. We must hold no malice toward, or fear of, homosexuals and those struggling with sexual identity—such attitudes are not of Christ. At the same time we must not condone sexual behavior, homosexual or heterosexual, that God has defined as sinful.

Christians should also do all they can to assist the person who has struggled with homosexual behaviors and desires to change and find deliverance. Change is not always easy but it is possible. It may require the help of others in the body of Christ, such as counselors and pastors, as well as a supportive church fellowship. Christian organizations are also available to help those who seek to change their lifestyles.
We desire all to be reconciled to God—to experience the peace and joy that stems from the forgiveness of sin through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. God does not want any to perish in their sins; He invites all to accept His offer of eternal life (John 3:16). As part of His church, we issue that invitation to life in Christ to everyone.

NOTES

---

1 The term homosexuality is frequently used to describe both orientation and behavior. In this paper, homosexual orientation is understood to mean sexual attraction to other members of the same sex. Homosexual behavior is understood to mean participation in sexual activity with another of the same sex. Homosexual orientation may pose temptations to lustful thinking and behavior, like heterosexual temptations, that are not necessarily acted upon and that may be resisted and overcome in the power of the Holy Spirit. Only homosexual lust and homosexual behaviors are understood in this study to be sinful.
2 Some sexual preference groups may prefer a different designation but, in the absence of a universally agreed-upon term, LGBT, generally understood in contemporary circles, is used here to include all “nonstraight” communities.”
3 All biblical citations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.
4 Here meaning to refrain from illicit sexual activity.
5 Here meaning sexual faithfulness and exclusivity in marriage.
6 The Hebrew word found here, to’ebah, is also used in this chapter of Leviticus for various abominable sexual practices of Israel’s pagan neighbors (18:26–27,29–30). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, it denotes such repugnant practices as idolatry, human sacrifice, and witchcraft. See R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:976–77. It is not uncommon for revisionists to attempt to explain away the plain meaning of the text by assuming the homosexual acts to be judged wrong only because they were associated with pagan religious practices forbidden to Israel. However, nothing in the passages cited supports this interpretation and the fact that homosexual practice is implicitly or explicitly condemned wherever it appears in the biblical text negates this interpretation.
7 “[N]atural intercourse,” New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); Greek chresis has to do with sexual intercourse in such contexts. See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1089.
8 Ibid.
9 Greek aschemosyne, “shameless deed.” See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 147.
10 It is important to note that Scripture is even-handed in condemning heterosexual sins as well. Along with homosexuality, the apostle Paul includes such heterosexual sins as adultery, fornication, and prostitution. (See also such passages as Galatians 5:19–21 and 1 Timothy 1:10.) The Assemblies of God stands against all sexual immorality, heterosexual or homosexual, and calls all participants to repentance.
11 “[M]ale prostitutes” is translated from the Greek plural of malakos; “homosexual offenders” is translated from the plural of arsenokoites. The terms are defined respectively as “the passive male partner in sexual intercourse” and “the male partner in sexual intercourse” in Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd edition (New York: United Bible Societies; 1988, 1989) 1:772. See also the respective entries in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
12 Plural of arsenokoites.
13 New American Standard Bible.
14 Some modern interpreters claim that Sodom was condemned in Scripture only for its general wickedness, not for a reputation of pervasive homosexual behavior. They also conclude from Hebrews 13:2 (“some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it”) and Matthew 10:14–15 (“shake the dust off your feet”) that the sin of Sodom was nothing more than inhospitality. It is further claimed that even if the references to Sodom describe homosexual behavior, it is actually male rape, not consensual homosexual relations, that are denounced. While the Genesis account does not answer all our questions, it is clear from the story itself and the many references in both Testaments that promiscuous and violent homosexuality is in view.
15 “[H]ave sex” is in this context an accurate translation of the Hebrew yada’, which means “to know” but is frequently used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, NRSV). The word is also used to denote sodomy (Genesis 19:5; Judges
19:22) and rape (Judges 19:25). See Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1:366.
16 Hebrew yada’. See previous note.
17 Hebrew yada’. See previous notes.

the INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, AND AUTHORITY of SCRIPTURE

POSITION PAPER

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1 & 3, 2015)

---

The Assemblies of God understanding of Scripture has long been stated in the first article of the Fellowship’s Statement of Fundamental Truths: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21)” (KJV).¹

EXPLANATION OF TERMS

---

We therefore understand the Bible to be the very Word of God in that God himself revealed His will and purposes to chosen writers (Amos 3:8) who faithfully and precisely recorded what had been revealed to them for eventual and providential inclusion in our canon of sixty-six books.

We understand inspiration to mean that special act of the Holy Spirit by which He guided the writers of the Scriptures. Such superintendence influenced both their thoughts and their actual choice of words, yet also made full allowance for the divergent backgrounds, abilities, and personalities of the writers. Moreover, inspiration applies to all they wrote as it is found in the canon of Scripture.

We understand infallibility to mean that the Scriptures are true and reliable in what they intend to assert. Inerrancy is a near synonym to infallibility and has been used more recently to further attest that Scripture as recorded in the original manuscripts, the autographs, is without error. Being without error and completely truthful, the Scriptures are absolutely trustworthy (2 Samuel 7:28; Psalm 119:160; John 17:17; Colossians 1:5). Infallibility and inerrancy likewise apply to all of the Scriptures.

We understand authority to mean that everything the Bible affirms and teaches is true. As God’s disclosed will and purpose, it is determinative for belief and behavior. Therefore, the affirmation that the Bible is the “authoritative rule of faith and conduct” is understood to call for accepting the Scriptures as the final and unchanging authority for doctrine and ethics.

BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS

---

The starting point for a correct understanding of the doctrine of Scripture is the Bible itself which bears repeated and powerful witness to its own nature. It clearly claims divine authority and full inspiration.

The teaching of Jesus is foundational for our understanding. He is quoted in Matthew 5:18, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is

accomplished.”² Whether we take this allusion to the Hebrew alphabet literally or figuratively, the force is the same. Jesus thought of the Scriptures as being eternally significant even in their slightest detail. If Jesus did not believe in the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, the force of His argument is lost.

Jesus’ insistence on the truthfulness and authority of every part of the Scriptures is seen in other passages as well. In John 10:34–38, He points to a brief statement from the Psalms (82:6) and argues that neither it nor the other parts of the Law can be broken. If Jesus had thought of the Scriptures as being only partially inspired and subject to errors of detail, He certainly would not have spoken as He did. In Matthew 22:32, the validity of Christ’s statement rests on a precise scriptural detail, namely, the present tense of the verb, “I am.” In His questioning of the Pharisees in Matthew 22:43–45, the force of the dialogue rests on the use of one word, “Lord.”

Jesus’ confidence in the details of Scripture is reflected in the New Testament Epistles as well. For example, in Galatians 3:16, Paul depends on a distinguishing of number— singular and plural—“seed” versus “seeds,” for the force of his argument. Such reliance on minute details involving tenses, particular words, and singular and plural, are meaningful only in light of fully inspired Scriptures that are inerrant even in their detail.

One of the most forceful statements on the full inspiration of the Scriptures is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. This passage, as translated by many English versions (KJV, NASB, NLT, NRSV, NET, et al.) begins “All [or “every”] Scripture is inspired by God” [or “given by inspiration of God”]. However, the Greek term translated “inspired” is theopneustos, literally “God-breathed.” The NIV more vividly translates “God-breathed”; the ESV similarly reads “breathed out by God.” Theopneustos points to God as the source of Scripture but also signifies that Scripture remains vibrant as the Spirit of God continuously makes God’s Word alive to receptive readers and hearers. The writer to the Hebrews expresses a similar understanding, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

What should also be noted about the nature of “God-breathed” Scripture is its immediate and practical relevance to the life of the people of God. Paul goes on to say that it “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). The inspired Word is intended to enter into and order every aspect of the public and private beliefs and behavior of Christians.

This passage also asserts that what is true of one part of Scripture is true of all the Scriptures; that is, the Scriptures in part and in whole are uniquely the product of God. The Scriptures at the time Paul wrote to Timothy were what we know as the Old Testament. But, Paul called Timothy to include in the understanding of Scripture “my [Paul’s] teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance” (3:10). Moreover, Paul went on to challenge Timothy to “continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of” (3:14). From infancy he had been instructed in “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (3:15). So Paul includes in his “all Scripture” the message he had been given and had preached, the message that formed the basis for the New Testament. And Peter, in fact, asserts that Paul’s letters are among the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15–16).

Another important passage that provides a great deal of insight on the function and nature of inspiration is 2 Peter 1:21, “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along (pheromenoi) by the Holy Spirit.” In context, this verse suggests the uniqueness of the Scriptures when compared to humanly inspired statements and declares “the prophetic message as something completely reliable” (1:19). The persons who wrote the Scriptures did so by means of a unique and powerful action of the Holy Spirit.

So the uniform witness of the Scriptures is clear: God communicated to the mind of the writer (revelation); the Holy Spirit guided the transmission of His revelation into words (inspiration); and, through the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit (illumination), we receive the original revelation as we encounter the Scriptures.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE

---

The claim that the Scriptures are the revelation of God to humans, the authoritative rule of faith and conduct, demands that they be seen as worthy of such affirmation. Would God provide humans with a flawed instrument by which to direct their lives? Would He not ensure that the source of faith and conduct be without error, fully trustworthy? He has inspired writers by the Holy Spirit and in that process given for our direction and guidance texts that are fully reliable to guide us to salvation, worship, and service.

It is noteworthy that the Scriptures repeatedly claim to be “God’s Word.” The Old Testament is abundant with such phrases as “and God said” (Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24), “This is what the LORD says” (Exodus 4:22; 1 Samuel 2:27; and over four hundred additional passages), and “The word of the Lord came” (Genesis 15:1, 4; 1 Samuel 15:10; Jeremiah 1:2, 4, 11, 13). In other passages, Scripture is equated directly with divine authorship: “It says” (Romans 3:19; 15:10; 1 Peter 2:6); “It is written” (Matthew 4:4, 6, 10; Acts 1:20); and “Scripture says” (Romans 9:17; 10:11; 11:2). This shows that God’s voice, spoken to the prophets, is equated with the Scriptures. The writers claim to be writing God’s words.

Moreover, the Scriptures also repeatedly claim to be “truth,” as vividly expressed in Jesus’ high priestly prayer: “your word is truth” [alētheia, not alēthēs; that is, “truth,” not “true”] (John 17:17). The Old Testament regularly reiterated God’s truthfulness: “God is not human, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19); “Sovereign Lord, you are God! Your covenant is trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant” (2 Samuel 7:28); “Your word, Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89); and “Every word of God is flawless” (Proverbs 30:5). Similar passages from the New Testament are found in Paul’s teaching about “God, who does not lie” (Titus 1:2) and in the letter to the Hebrews that similarly notes “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). Truth is an attribute of God; the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13).

In asserting the inerrancy of the Scriptures, we refer to the autographs (the original manuscripts as they first came from the author[s]). Strict inerrancy is claimed only for the original writings. Those original manuscripts, of course, no longer exist; however, their wording can be determined with amazing precision. Experts in textual criticism throughout the centuries have carried out, and continue, rigorous comparisons of thousands of ancient biblical texts to carefully determine the original. The Bible is, in fact, the best-attested book of antiquity and we are assured of a reliable text that is indeed trustworthy. Moreover, it demonstrates God’s providential care in the exacting, painstaking work of faithful scribes and scholars through the centuries.

We can also be assured that our major translations of the Bible, to the extent they are faithful to the original texts, reliably communicate the infallible Word of God today. The reader can trust that these major translations have been made by, and are continuously reviewed by, reputable scholars who are committed to the task of conveying accurately the Word of God from the original languages to modern readers.

It is important to note that claims of inerrancy are directed toward what Scripture affirms and asserts rather than information that is merely accurately reported. The Bible does correctly record false statements by ungodly people (e.g., the comforters of Job) and even the words of Satan (e.g., Genesis 3:1–5). The biblical writers also on occasion quote from noncanonical and noninspired writings, which would show the truthfulness of that quoted but not extend authoritativeness to the source (e.g., Jude’s use of the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch). Likewise, every act recorded in Scripture is not thereby to be considered in keeping with God’s divine order.

The inerrancy of the Scriptures must also be considered in light of their historical and cultural setting. The Bible comes to us from the Ancient Near East, a culture and time far distant from the present. Thus the scientific exactness in numbers and quotations that are expected of contemporary technical writing may not be applicable to the biblical texts.

As modern authors often do, the biblical writers used the language of appearance to describe their world. That is, they wrote from their perspective and not in technical terms. So, for example, they could talk (as moderns still do) about the sun “rising” or “setting” and be fully truthful. With regard to miracles, the writers tell us what they saw and experienced without trying to explain the mystery in scientific terms. So, for example, the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea is reported matter-of-factly, “ the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land” (Exodus 14:21–31). Other Old and New Testament miracles were likewise reported just as they were observed. The writers report the mighty acts of God which they experienced and attribute those acts to His gracious intervention. Their ultimate goal in writing is to call their readers to the same faith they exemplified in their mighty God.

The inerrancy of the Scriptures is not invalidated by the use of multiple figures of speech and various literary genres. Parables, analogies, allegories, similes, metaphors, hyperboles, symbols, etc., are to be found throughout the Bible. Among others, the writers employed narrative, poetic, apocalyptic, prophetic, didactic, and epistolary genres as they conveyed the truth of God. Accurate interpretation of the biblical texts requires careful attention to their literary form.

In that the Holy Spirit used humans in the process of producing the Scriptures, it is to be understood that the human authors employed their particular grammatical skills. So, finding what might be considered by moderns as incorrect grammatical constructions does not in any way detract from biblical inerrancy.

To find in the Bible items that are not presently understandable or that may seem erroneous or contradictory does not mean that the Bible is in error. Again and again, advancing historical, archaeological, and philological studies have verified biblical reports once claimed to be erroneous. The historical details of the Bible have an amazing record of validation. Humility requires us to continue to search for understanding when confronted with the occasional problematic passage and not peremptorily misjudge the Scriptures as containing error.

The personal God of creation, redemption, and consummation so desired to communicate with the people He created that He chose to make himself known. He superintended the conveyance of that revelatory activity to writing in such a powerful manner that it is fully trustworthy. He continues in the power of the Holy Spirit to illumine His written revelation to the hearts and minds of people who open themselves to reading, hearing, and obeying the Bible in its life-giving force.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

---

With regard to the doctrine of inspiration, just as other salient doctrines of the Christian Church, it is important to understand what the Church has believed through the centuries. While discussion on the inerrancy of Scripture is primarily a phenomenon of more recent years, a survey of church history suggests that the church has long held a high view of the inspiration of the Scriptures with belief in infallibility and inerrancy implicit in that view.

During the Patristic Period, the Scriptures were considered to be the unique work of the Holy Spirit carrying forth a divine message. To the church fathers, inspiration extended even to the phraseology of the Bible. Thus, Clement of Alexandria underscored Christ’s words in Matthew 5:18 by saying that not a jot or tittle shall pass away because the “mouth of the Lord the Holy Spirit hath spoken these things” (Protepticus [Exhortation to the Heathen], IX). Gregory Nazianzus suggests that the smallest lines in the Scriptures are due to the care of the Holy Spirit, and that we must be careful to consider every slightest shade of meaning (Oration 2, 105). Justin Martyr distinguished between human and divine inspiration and spoke of the divine Word that moved the writers of the Scriptures (The First Apology, 36). Irenaeus asserted that we can be “most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit” (Against Heresies 2.28.2). There can be little doubt that the early fathers had a very high view of inspiration, and that this view extended to the minute details of the Scriptures.

The Reformers, in a search for authority, readily accepted the doctrine of inspiration and, by implication, infallibility and inerrancy. Zwingli appealed both to the Old Testament and New Testament in his defense of pure Christian doctrine (see his, On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God). Calvin asserted that because the Holy Spirit authenticates the Scriptures “we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men” (Institutes, I, 7, 5). Luther argued for a high view of inspiration and thought of the Scriptures as being above error (see his Answer to Latomus, 8.98.27). While the Reformers did not devote a decisive part of their theology to the subject of inspiration, it is conclusive that they accepted the full authority of the Scriptures.

The age of rationalism leveled its attack against the application of inspiration to the minutia, that is, the small details, of the Bible. In the spirit of the Renaissance, linguistic and textual studies flourished. The rationalistic approach suggested that if errors could be demonstrated to exist in the text of the Scriptures, the whole doctrine of inspiration would crumble. This kind of thinking ignited a rash of claims that the Bible was full of errors, its critics hoping thereby to destroy the whole doctrine of inspiration.

The response to the charges that the Scriptures are filled with error is first to appeal to the claims of Scripture itself as has been done in this paper. If we accept that the Scriptures are the Word of God, as clearly stated in the biblical text, that Word must take precedence over our rationalizations. The Scriptures are inerrant because they are inspired of God—not inspired because they are inerrant. The first approach is biblical and leads to a correct view of inspiration and infallibility; the second approach is rationalistic and opens the door to human speculations.

THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

---

We affirm that God has provided for all time an inspired, inerrant, and authoritative record of His revelation in the Bible, our Holy Scriptures.³ We hold that the Scriptures are God’s sufficient and authoritative disclosure for the salvation of all people, and therefore are authoritative for belief, teaching, and practice. The Scriptures define the believer’s worldview, morality, and ethics. Moreover, the Scriptures are not simply one authority among others; they are the final authority. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the writers in their task of recording the revelation of God, breathes life into and through the writings so that they continue to speak with clarity and authority to the contemporary reader. He does not speak through supposed prophets or religious leaders to teach any belief or action not validated in the Scriptures. Accordingly, we reject any contemporary philosophy, interpretive method, or purported prophecy that attempts to contravene or alter the nature and meaning of “the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3, 2 Peter 1:20–21).

We, the community of faith, come with humility to the biblical revelation, asking that the Holy Spirit speak through it, conforming our wills and worldviews to it. We grant absolute primacy to the biblical revelation, assured that it will guide us into all truth.

the KINGDOM of GOD

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 9-11, 2010)

The terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven are frequently found in Holy Scripture and in contemporary Christian usage. Yet there is widespread disagreement on the meaning and application of the terms. Some of this disagreement is a simple matter of interpretation on minor points, but some of it is crucial, challenging even the fundamental tenets of traditional evangelical and Pentecostal beliefs. For this reason, it is appropriate to articulate those essential aspects of the kingdom of God that are commonly held by the Assemblies of God.

Linguistic Meaning of the Term Kingdom

The primary meaning of malkuth (Hebrew) and basileia (Greek) is the authority, reign, or rule of a king. The territory, subjects, and operations of the kingdom are secondary meanings.

The kingdom of God is the sphere of God’s rule (Psalm 22:28).¹Though rightfully under God’s rule, fallen human beings nonetheless participate in universal rebellion against God and His authority (1 John 5:19; Revelation 11:17,18). However, by faith and obedience men and women turn from their rebellion, are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and become a part of the Kingdom and its operation. While participation in the kingdom of God is not compulsory, the Kingdom is present, whether or not people recognize and accept it.

The Kingdom is variously described as “kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:11), “kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11), “kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 5:5), and “kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Revelation 11:15). Jesus sometimes spoke of it as “my kingdom” (Luke 22:30). Paul, referring to Christ Jesus, called it “his kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1). All these terms refer to the one kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament

“Kingdom of the Lord” occurs once in the Old Testament: malkuth Yahweh (1 Chronicles 28:5). There are of course many occurrences of “kingdom” denoting earthly territory or domain. “Dominion” or “rule” is occasionally the translation for the idea of God’s authority and power (Psalms 22:28; 66:7; 103:19; 145:11–13). Throughout the Old Testament (but especially in the Psalms and the Prophets) the idea of God as King ruling over His creation and over Israel is clearly expressed. Although God’s immediate kingship is evident in the Old Testament, there is also a strong emphasis on a future fulfillment of God’s universal rule. This anticipation often coincides with messianic expectations associated with both the first and second advents (cf. Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1–12; 24:21–23; 45:22,23; Zechariah 14:9). Daniel describes God’s rule as “an eternal dominion” and a “kingdom [that] endures from generation to generation.” (4:34).

The Kingdom in the New Testament

While the idea of the universal rule of God permeates the Old Testament, the kingdom of God takes on additional meaning and importance in the teaching and ministry of Jesus that begins with the proclamation, “The kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1:15; cf. Matthew 3:2; 4:17). Although Jesus never specifically defined the Kingdom, He illustrated it through parables (Matthew 13; Mark 4) and demonstrated its presence and power in His ministry. He instructed His disciples to proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom as He sent them out in missionary ministry (Matthew 10:7; Luke 9:2; 10:9,11). Every description of Jesus Christ as Lord is a reminder that Christ is ruler of the kingdom of God.

From the various contexts of the word kingdom in the Gospels, the rule of God is seen as (1) a present realm or sphere into which people are entering now and (2) a future apocalyptic order into which the righteous will enter at the end of the age.

Thus the kingdom of God is both a present reality and a promise of future fulfillment. The Kingdom was present on earth in the person and acts of Jesus during the time of His Incarnation. After the Resurrection, the Risen Christ is present by His Spirit, and where His Spirit is, the Kingdom is present. While the Kingdom is manifested in the Church, the Kingdom is not limited to the Church. The fullness of the kingdom awaits a final apocalyptic arrival at the end of this age (Matthew 24:27,30,31; Luke 21:27–31).

The State of the Kingdom Now

Just as some who followed Jesus “thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once” (Luke 19:11), certain groups today are expecting Christians to usher in the fullness of the Kingdom in an earthly rule. When the Pharisees asked Jesus at what time the kingdom of God would come, He answered, “[T]he kingdom of God is within [entos, “within,” “in the midst,” or “among”] you” (Luke 17:21). The restored reign of God was soon to be a reality, for the One who was to reclaim the usurped territory was on earth to accomplish His work of redemption. The overthrow of Satan’s dominion had already begun. Today, the redemptive work is complete, yet the reality of the ultimate Kingdom is qualified. In the present age, the power of the Kingdom does not halt aging or death. Though God does at times miraculously overrule natural laws by sovereign act or in response to the prayer and faith of believers, the Kingdom still works through fallible human beings. The Church has a powerful healing influence on the world, but final restoration will not occur prior to the Second Coming. Righteous political and social actions vitally enhance public life, but the main thrust of the Kingdom is the spiritual transformation of persons who together form the body of Christ. The Millennium and the ultimate expressions of the Kingdom will not come without the physical return of Jesus Christ to the earth (Luke 21:31). The Kingdom is already present, but not yet complete. It is both present and future.

The interim between the first and second advents of Christ (the present age) is marked by forceful spiritual confrontation between the power of the Kingdom and the powers that dominate the world in this present age. Putting on the full armor of God, believers must engage the forces of darkness (Ephesians 6:12).

We are not guaranteed total, instant success in this conflict. Each victory over sickness, sin, oppression, or the demonic is a reminder of the present power of the Kingdom and of the final victory to come, a victory made sure by the resurrection of Christ. We are called to wage war against sickness, but we face the reality that not everyone we pray for gets well. We do not surrender to the evil and the struggles of the present order; but neither do we rage against God or blame others when every request is not granted. The essence of the Spirit-energized life is to move against the forces of darkness, fully aware that total deliverance is always possible but does not always come immediately (cf Romans 8:18– 23). Some of the heroes of faith (Acts 12:2; Acts 12:2; 2 Corinthians 11:23 to 12:10; Hebrews 11) suffered, even died, having their deliverance deferred to a future time. We do not give in to the ravages of evil. As instruments of the Kingdom in this present age, we faithfully battle against evil and suffering.

The Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God

As Pentecostals we recognize the role of the Holy Spirit in the inauguration and ongoing ministry of the Kingdom. At His baptism, Jesus was anointed with the Spirit (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22). His acts of power, energized by God’s Spirit, brought healing to the sick and spiritual restoration to sinful men and women. The descent of the Spirit at His baptism was a significant point in the ministry of Jesus. “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert” (Luke 4:1). The working of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus attested to the presence of the Kingdom.

Jesus described the role of the Holy Spirit in the kingdom of God. As part of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, He told His disciples, “You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). The power of the Kingdom, manifest in the Cross, the Resurrection, and the Ascension, was passed on to all who would be filled with the Spirit. The age of the Spirit is the age of the Church, which being Spirit-created is also the community of the Spirit. Working primarily through the Church but without being confined to the Church, the Spirit continues the Kingdom ministry of Jesus himself.

The Kingdom as a Future Reality

Biblical charismata, anointed proclamation of the Word, and confirming signs and wonders are distinguishing marks of the kingdom of God, at work from the time of Christ until now. The kingdom of Satan has already been invaded by Jesus in the power of the Spirit (Matthew 12:25–29; Colossians 1:13; 2:15). Yet final destruction of Satan and complete victory over all evil is part of a future eschatological consummation (Revelation 20:10).

We believe in the premillennial return of Christ before the thousand-year period described in Revelation 20. We believe that we are living in the last days of the present age. The next major fulfillment of Bible prophecy will be the Rapture, at which time the dead in Christ will be resurrected and the Church will be caught up from the earth, forever to be with the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:51,52; 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17). We believe that the rapture of the Church is imminent (Mark 13:32–37), that it will take place before the Great Tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4:17,18; 5:9), and that it is the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) to which we look even while signs in the heavens and on earth signal the approaching end of this age (Luke 21:25–28).

The second coming of Christ not only includes the physical rapture of the saints but it is also followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on the earth for one thousand years (Zechariah 14:5; Matthew 24:27,30; Revelation 1:7; 19:11–14; 20:1–6). Satan will be bound and inactive for the first time since his rebellion and fall (Revelation 20:2). This millennial reign of Christ will institute a time of universal peace (Psalm 72:3– 8; Isaiah 11:6–9; Micah 4:3–4) for the first time since before the fall of man. As promised in the Scriptures, “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) and brought into the millennial reign (Ezekiel 37:21,22; Zephaniah 3:19,20; Romans 11:26,27).

The Kingdom and the Church

The kingdom of God is not the Church. Yet there is an inseparable relationship between the two. The true Church is the Body of which Christ is the head (Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18). It is a spiritual fellowship that includes all who have believed, or will believe, in Christ as Savior from the Church’s inception until the time God takes it out of the world.
The kingdom of God existed before the beginning of the Church and will continue after the work of the Church is complete. The Church is therefore part of the Kingdom, but not all of it. In the present age the kingdom of God is at work most visibly through the Church. When the gospel of the Kingdom has been proclaimed “in the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (Matthew 24:14), the drama of end-time events will begin. Finally, Christ will reign in majesty over His eternal Kingdom, which will include the Church glorified.

The Kingdom of God and the Kingdoms of Earth

The kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world exist side by side at the present time. However, these kingdoms will not be one and the same until Christ returns and the kingdoms of this world become “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Revelation 11:15). The kingdom of God may operate within, but is not to be identified with, any present political system. Believers take the gospel of the Kingdom into the world so that individuals may voluntarily choose the lordship of Jesus Christ.

While revealing that all human government is currently, to some extent, under the influence of the evil one (Daniel 10:13,20; John 12:31; 14:30; Ephesians 6:12; 1 John 5:19), the Bible nonetheless teaches that government is ordained by God to maintain order and punish evildoers (Romans 13:1–7). Governmental authorities are God’s servants (Romans 13:6) whether they recognize it or not. Ideals of justice and decency found in government and society are the legacy of God’s grace in the world (Romans 1:20; 2:14). Though they may be in rebellion, the kingdoms of the world are yet responsible to God and must be called to account for injustice and wickedness.

Although the kingdom of God is not a present political entity, the citizens of the Kingdom are responsible to exert a positive influence on their society. While the Bible does not give clear guidelines for Christian action in combating the social evils embedded in the structures of our society, and sincere believers will differ on the means to be employed, Christians clearly are to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13,14). They are to be concerned about the needy (James 1:27; 2:16) and the oppressed (James 5:4–6). Filled with the Spirit, and given the opportunity to influence society, they are impelled to denounce unjust laws (Isaiah 10:1,2) and to seek justice and goodness (Amos 5:14,15; Micah 6:8).

At the same time, and without contradiction of their servant role, God’s children should be in the world, but not of it (John 17:11,14,16). The kingdom of God (God’s rule in our lives) is demonstrated in and through us by “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).

The kingdom of God is not the blueprint for a radical cultural change based on some carnal theocratic or revolutionary agenda. Instead, it radically changes human personalities and lives. Through men and women who recognize its authority and live by its standards, the kingdom of God invades the stream of history. This process began with godly preflood humans, found early expression in theocratic Israel, drew near in the person of the Messiah, has been advancing through the Church, and will be completed in the dominion of Christ at the end of the age.

Erroneous Views of the Kingdom of God

Doctrines regarding the kingdom of God tend to err toward one of two extremes. One extreme assumes that the Kingdom accomplishes too little during the Church Age. The other maintains that the Kingdom accomplishes too much. Some emphasize the heavenly nature of the Kingdom, and expect little supernatural expression on earth. Since the fulfillment of the Kingdom is yet future, the Church may too quickly retreat from social and civic responsibility. Others locate the Kingdom primarily on earth. They claim that most of the supernatural power of the Kingdom is currently available to a militant Church and that the fulfillment of the Kingdom will occur during the Church Age. Both of these extremes must be avoided.

Your Kingdom Come

Christ taught His disciples to pray, “Your kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10). The Kingdom is already among us in that it has invaded Satan’s domain and has assured final victory. The Kingdom comes in a measure whenever a person receives Christ as Savior, is healed or delivered, or is touched in any way by the divine. Yet the future consummation of the kingdom of God—the time when all evil and rebellion will be eliminated—is the fervent hope of the Christian. So, with the disciples we pray, “Your kingdom come”—both now and when Christ returns.

The rapture of the Church, the coming of Christ for His own, will set in motion the events that lead to the consummation of the eternal Kingdom. “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 11:15). With John the beloved revelator we say, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).

 

NOTES

---

1All Bible quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New International Version (NIV).

THE BELIEVER AND POSITIVE CONFESSION

This statement on the believer and positive confession was approved as the official statement by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God on August 19, 1980.

---

The Assemblies of God from its early days has recognized the importance of the life of faith. It has been given prominent emphasis because Scripture gives it prominence.

The writer to the Hebrews points out that without faith it is impossible to please God. Then he describes faith as believing two things-that God is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).

All the blessings which God has for His people are received through faith. Salvation (Acts 16:31), baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-17), divine preservation (1 Peter 1:5), inheritance of the promises which include healing and provision of material needs (Hebrews 6:12), and motivation for witnessing (2 Corinthians 4:13) are among the many provisions of God’s grace.

Today, as in every generation, it is important for believers to be mindful of the example in Scripture of being strong in faith (Romans 4:20-24). They must be on guard against anything which would weaken or destroy faith. They need to pray for its increase (Luke 17:5) and constantly seek to cultivate it through reading the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

The Believer and Positive Confession

Occasionally throughout church history people have taken extreme positions concerning great Biblical truths. Sometimes teachers have advocated these extremes. On other occasions followers have gone beyond the teachings and reflected adversely on the cause of Christ.

Positive and negative confession are expressions which in recent years have received acceptance in an extreme form in some circles. Both the definition in writing and the pattern of usage give some insight into the implications of these terms.

The fact that extremes are brought into focus does not imply rejection of the doctrine of confession. It is an important truth. The Bible teaches people are to confess their sin (1 John 1:9). They are to confess Christ (Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:9, 10). They are to maintain a good confession (Hebrews 4:14; 10:23, ASV).

But when people, in emphasizing a doctrine, go beyond or contrary to the teaching of Scripture, they do not honor that doctrine. Conversely, they bring reproach upon it and the work of the Lord. For this reason, it is important to call attention to these excesses and show how they are in conflict with the Word of God.

Some Positions of the Positive Confession Teaching

The positive confession teaching relies on an English dictionary definition of the word confess: “to acknowledge, or to own; to acknowledge faith in.” Confession is also described as affirming something which is believed, testifying to something known, and witnessing for a truth which has been embraced.

This view goes a step further and divides confession into negative and positive aspects. The negative is acknowledging sin, sickness, poverty, or other undesirable situations. Positive confession is acknowledging or owning desirable situations.

While there are variations of interpretation and emphasis concerning this teaching, a conclusion seems to be that the unpleasant can be avoided by refraining from negative confessions. The pleasant can be enjoyed by making positive confessions.

According to this view, as expressed in various publications, the believer who refrains from acknowledging the negative and continues to affirm the positive will assure for himself pleasant circumstances. He will be able to rule over poverty, disease, and sickness. He will be sick only if he confesses, he is sick. Some make a distinction between acknowledging the symptoms of an illness and the illness itself.

This view advocates that God wants believers to wear the best clothing, drive the best cars, and have the best of everything. Believers need not suffer financial setbacks. All they need to do is to tell Satan to take his hands off their money. The believer can have whatever he says whether the need is spiritual, physical, or financial. It is taught that faith compels God’s action.

According to this position, what a person says determines what he will receive and what he will become. Thus, people are instructed to start confessing even though what they want may not have been realized. If a person wants money, he is to confess he has it even if it is not true. If a person wants healing, he is to confess it even though it is obviously not the case. People are told they can have whatever they say, and for this reason great significance is attached to the spoken word. It is claimed the spoken word, if repeated often enough, will eventually result in faith which procures the desired blessing.

It is understandable that some people would like to accept the positive confession teaching. It promises a life free from problems, and its advocates seem to support it with passages of Scripture. Problems develop, however, when Bible statements are isolated from their context and from what the rest of Scripture has to say concerning the subject. Extremes result which distort truth and eventually hurt believers as individuals and the cause of Christ in general.

When believers study the life of faith and victory God has for His people, it is important, as in all doctrine, to seek for the balanced emphasis of Scripture. This will help to avoid the extremes which eventually frustrate rather than help believers in their walk with God.

Believers Should Consider the Total Teaching of Scripture.

The apostle Paul gave an important principle of interpreting Scripture which calls for “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:13). The basic thrust of this principle is to consider everything God’s Word has to say on a given subject in establishing doctrine. Only doctrine based on a holistic view of Scripture conforms to this Biblical rule of interpretation.

When the positive confession teaching indicates that to admit weakness is to accept defeat, to admit financial need is to accept poverty, and to admit sickness is to preclude healing, it is going beyond and is contrary to the harmony of Scripture.

For instance, King Jehoshaphat admitted he had no might against an enemy alliance, but God gave him a marvelous victory (2 Chronicles 20). Paul admitted weakness and then stated that when he was weak, he was strong because God’s strength is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9,10).

It was after the disciples recognized they did not have enough to feed the multitudes and admitted it that Christ marvelously provided a more than adequate supply (Luke 9:12, 13). It was after the disciples admitted they had caught no fish that Jesus directed them to a most successful endeavor (John 21:3-6).

These people were not told to replace negative confessions with positive confessions which were contrary to fact. They stated conditions exactly as they were rather than pretending, they were something else. Yet God marvelously intervened even though they made what some would call negative confessions.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture makes it clear that positive verbal expressions do not always produce happy effects, nor do negative statements always result in unhappy effects. To teach that leaders in the early days of the Church such as Paul, Stephen, and Trophimus did not live in a constant state of affluence and health because they did not have the light on this teaching is going beyond and contrary to the Word of God. Doctrine will be sound only as it is developed within the framework of the total teaching of Scripture.

The Greek word translated “confess” means “to speak the same thing.” When people confess Christ, it is to say the same thing as Scripture does concerning Christ. When people confess sin, it is to say the same as Scripture does concerning sin. And when people confess some promise of Scripture, they must be sure they are saying the same thing about that promise as the total teaching of Scripture on that subject.

The words of Augustine are appropriate in this regard: “If you believe what you like in the gospel and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Believers Should Consider Adequately the Will of God.

When the positive confession doctrine indicates a person can have whatever he says, it fails to emphasize adequately that God’s will must be considered. David had the best intentions when he indicated his desire to build a temple for the Lord, but it was not God’s will (1 Chronicles 17:4). David was permitted to gather materials, but Solomon was to build the temple.

Paul prayed that the thorn in his flesh might be removed, but it was not God’s will. Instead of removing the thorn, God gave Paul sufficient grace (2 Corinthians 12:9).

God’s will can be known and claimed by faith, but the desire of the heart is not always the criterion by which the will of God is determined. There are times when the enjoyable or pleasurable may not be the will of God. James alluded to this when he wrote, “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:3). The word translated “lusts” does not refer to perverted desire but to pleasure or enjoyment; that which the heart desires. Several translations use the word “pleasure” rather than “lust.”

In Gethsemane Jesus asked that if it were possible the cup might be removed. That was His desire, but in His prayer, He recognized the will of God. He said, “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42).

The Bible recognizes there will be times when a believer will not know what to pray for. He will not know what the will of God is. He may even be perplexed as Paul sometimes was (2 Corinthians 4:8). Then, rather than simply making a positive confession based on the desires of the heart, the believer needs to recognize the Holy Spirit makes intercession for him according to the will of God (Romans 8:26, 27).

God’s will always must have priority over the believer’s plans or desires. The words of James should be kept constantly in view: “Ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:15).

Getting what the believer wants is not as simple as repeating a positive confession. Pleasant things might be out of the will of God; and, conversely, unpleasant things might be in the will of God. It is important for the believer to say as Paul’s friends did, “The will of the Lord be done” (Acts 21:14)-more important than to demand a life free from suffering.

Believers Should Recognize the Importance of Importunate Prayer.

When the positive confession view teaches that believers are to confess rather than to pray for things which God has promised, it overlooks the teaching of God’s Word concerning importunate prayer. According to some who hold this view of positive confession, God’s promises are in the area of material, physical, and spiritual blessings; believers are to claim or confess these blessings and not to pray for them.

The instruction not to pray for promised blessings is contrary to the teaching of God’s Word. Food is one of God’s promised blessings, yet Jesus taught His disciples to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). Wisdom is a promised blessing of God, yet Scripture states, if any man “lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not” (James 1:5). Jesus called the Holy Spirit the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49), and yet He also taught that God would give the Holy Spirit to them that ask (Luke 11:13).

While there were times God told people not to pray, as in the case of Moses at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:15), there are many Scriptures reminding believers to pray, and that, without ceasing (Romans 12:12; Philippians 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:17).
Jesus emphasized the importance of importunity in prayer. The illustration of the persistent friend who came at midnight asking for bread to set before his guests became the basis for Christ’s statement, “Ask, and it shall be given you” (Luke 11:5-10). The parable of the widow and the unjust judge became the occasion for our Lord to emphasize importunity in prayer (Luke 18:1-8). These people were commended for importunity and not for prayerless positive confession.

While God’s ways are above man’s ways, and we cannot understand the reason for every command in Scripture, we do know that in His wisdom God has ordained prayer as part of the process included in meeting a need. Rather than an indication of doubt, importunate prayer can be an indication of obedience and faith.

Believers Should Recognize They Can Expect Suffering in This Life.

The positive confession teaching advocates reigning as kings in this life. It teaches that believers are to dominate and not be dominated by circumstances. Poverty and sickness are usually mentioned among the circumstances over which believers are to have dominion.

If believers choose the kings of this world as models, it is true they will seek the trouble-free life (although even kings of this world are not free from problems). They will be more concerned with physical and material prosperity than with spiritual growth.

When believers choose the King of kings as their model, however, their desires will be completely different. They will be transformed by His teaching and example.

They will recognize the truth of Romans 8:17 which is written concerning joint-heirs with Christ: “If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. “Paul even went so far as to glory in his infirmities instead of denying them (2 Corinthians 12:5-10).

Though Christ was rich, for our sakes He became poor (2 Corinthians 8:9). He could say, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20).

While God in His providence has endowed some with the ability to accumulate greater wealth than others, something is tragically lacking if there is not a willingness to do the will of God and surrender all, if need be, including creature comforts.

Jesus never ceased to be God, and through the power of the Holy Spirit performed many miracles; yet He was not free from suffering. He knew He must suffer many things of the elders (Matthew 16:21; 17:12). He desired to eat the Passover with the disciples before He suffered (Luke 22:15). After His death, the disciples recognized that Christ’s suffering was a fulfillment of prophecy (Luke 24:25, 26, 32).

When believers realize that reigning as kings in this life is to take Christ as the model of a king, they will recognize suffering can be involved; that sometimes it is kinglier to stay with unpleasant circumstances than to try to make all circumstances pleasant.

Paul had been shown he would suffer (Acts 9:16). Later he rejoiced in his sufferings for the Colossians. He saw his suffering as filling up “that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Colossians1:24).

God promises to supply the needs of believers, and He knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation; but reigning in life as Christ did may also include suffering. The committed believer will accept this. He will not be disillusioned if life is not a continual series of pleasant experiences. He will not become cynical if he does not have all the desires of his heart.

He will recognize the servant is not greater than his Master. To follow Christ requires denying ourselves (Luke 9:23). This includes denying our selfish desires and may include admitting our problems.

Problems are not always an indication of lack of faith. To the contrary, they can be a tribute to faith. This is the great emphasis of Hebrews 11:32-40:

“And what shall I more say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to fight the armies of the aliens.

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trial of cruel mocking and scourging, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts, and in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth.

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.”

To hold that all suffering results from negative confessions and indicates a lack of faith contradicts the Scripture. Some heroes of faith suffered greatly, some even died through faith, and they were commended for it.

Believers Should Recognize the Sovereignty of God.

The positive confession emphasis has a tendency to include statements which make it appears that man is sovereign and God is the servant. Statements are made about compelling God to act, implying He has surrendered His sovereignty; that He is no longer in a position to act according to His wisdom and purpose. Reference is made to true prosperity being the ability to use God’s ability and power to meet needs regardless of what the needs are. This puts man in the position of using God rather than man surrendering himself to be used of God.

In this view there is very little consideration given to communion with God in order to discover His will. There is very little appeal to search the Scriptures for the framework of the will of God. There is little emphasis on the kind of discussion with fellow believers which results in two or three agreeing what the will of God might be. Instead, the desire of the heart is viewed as a binding mandate on God. It is seen as constituting the authority of the believer.

It is true that Jesus said, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13). But Scripture also teaches that the asking must be in harmony with the will of God. “This is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us: and if we know that he hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 John 5:14, 15).

“Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10) is still an important injunction today. God is God. He will not surrender His glory or sovereignty to anyone. No one will compel God to action.

The authority of the believer exists only in the will of God, and it is the believer’s responsibility to discover and conform to the will of the sovereign God even in the things he desires. Paul’s words are still applicable: “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17).

When believers recognize the sovereignty of God and properly become concerned with the will of God, they will not talk in terms of compelling God or using God’s power. They will speak of becoming obedient servants. They will desire to become yielded instruments in the hands of God.

Believers Should Apply the Practical Test.

In reviewing the efforts of those who advocate this positive confession teaching itis evident that the basic appeal is to those who are already Christians living in an affluent society. They encourage a spiritual elitism in which adherents say, “We believe the same things you do. The difference is that we practice what we believe.”

A practical test of a belief is whether it has a universal application. Does the teaching have meaning only for those living in an affluent society? Or does it also work among the refugees of the world? What application does the teaching have for believers imprisoned for their faith by atheistic governments? Are those believers substandard who suffer martyrdom or grave physical injury at the hands of cruel, ruthless dictators?

The truth of God’s Word has a universal application. It is as effective in the slums as in suburbia. It is as effective in the jungle as in the city. It is as effective in foreign countries as in our own nation. It is as effective among deprived nations as among the affluent. The test of fruit is still one way of determining whether a teacher or teaching is of God or of man. “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).

Believers Should Accurately Deal with the Word Rhema.

Because there is very little literature among those who espouse the positive confession teaching concerning the Greek word rhema, it is necessary to consider it as used primarily in oral communication.

A distinction is generally made by proponents of this view between the word’s logos and rhema. The first, it is claimed, refers to the written word. The second, to that which is presently spoken by faith. According to this view whatever is spoken by faith becomes inspired and takes on the creative power of God.

There are two major problems with this distinction. First, the distinction is not justified by usage either in the Greek New Testament or in the Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament). The words are used synonymously in both.

In the case of the Septuagint both rhema and logos are used to translate the one Hebrew word dabar which is used in various ways relative to communication. For instance, the word dabar (translated, word of God) is used in both Jeremiah 1:1 and 2. Yet in the Septuagint it is translated rhema in verse 1 and logos in verse 2.

In the New Testament the words rhema and logos are also used interchangeably. This can be seen in passages such as 1 Peter 1:23 and 25. In verse 23, it is “the logos of God which . . . abideth forever.” In verse 25, “the rhema of the Lord endureth forever.” Again, in Ephesians 5:26 believers are cleansed “with the washing of water by the rhema.” In John 15:3 believers are “clean through the logos.”

The distinctions between logos and rhema cannot be sustained by Biblical evidence. The Word of God, whether referred to as logos or rhema, is inspired, eternal, dynamic, and miraculous. Whether the Word is written or spoken does not alter its essential character. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

A second problem also exists among those who make a distinction between the word’s logos and rhema. Passages of Scripture are sometimes selected without regard to context or analogy of faith, which they claim to speak by faith. In this kind of application of the so-called rhema principle, adherents are more concerned with making the Word mean what they want it to mean than in becoming what the Word wants them to become. In some instances, it becomes obvious they love God more for what He does than for who He is.

It is important for believers to avoid any form of Christian existentialism which isolates passages of Scripture from the context or makes some passages eternal and others contemporary.

Conclusion

In considering any doctrine it is always necessary to ask whether it is in harmony with the total teaching of Scripture. Doctrine based on less than a holistic view of Biblical truth can only do harm to the cause of Christ. It can often be more detrimental than views which reject Scripture altogether. Some people will more likely accept something as truth if it is referred to in the Word of God, even if the teaching is an extreme emphasis or contradicts other principles of Scripture.

God’s Word does teach great truths such as healing, provision for need, faith, and the authority of believers. The Bible does teach that a disciplined mind is an important factor in victorious living. But these truths must always be considered in the framework of the total teaching of Scripture.

When abuses occur, there is sometimes a temptation to draw back from these great truths of God’s Word. In some cases, people even lose out with God altogether when they discover that exaggerated emphases do not always meet their expectations or result in freedom from problems.

The fact that doctrinal aberrations develop, however, is not a reason for rejecting or remaining silent concerning them. The existence of differences of opinion is all the more reason why believers should continue diligently to search the Scriptures. It is why servants of God must faithfully declare the whole counsel of God.

THE RAPTURE of THE CHURCH

This statement is the report of the committee to study the rapture of the Church. The report was adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 14, 1979.

---

Under the section “The Blessed Hope” in the Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God, is the following statement:

“The resurrection of those who have fallen asleep in Christ and their translation together with those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord is the imminent and blessed hope of the Church (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17; Romans 8:23; Titus 2:13; 1 Corinthians 15:51,52).”

Jesus taught that He will return to earth. He was careful to warn His disciples to be constantly prepared for this (Matthew 24:42-51; 25:1-13; Mark 13:37; Luke 12:37).

They understood that the present age will end with His coming (Matthew 24:3). The assurance of His return was one of the truths with which He comforted His followers before His death (John 14:2, 3).
At the time of Christ’s ascension two angels came to the group of watching disciples to repeat the promise that He will return. They declared it would be in the same manner as He went away (Acts 1:11). This clearly means His second coming will be literal, physical, and visible.

The New Testament Epistles refer often to the Second Coming, and the theme of imminence runs through all the passages of Scripture dealing with this subject. Though there would be a period of time between the first and second comings (Luke 19:11), the whole body of teaching concerning the return of the Lord emphasizes that it will happen suddenly without warning; that believers should be in a state of continual readiness (Philippians 4:5; Hebrews 10:37; James 5:8, 9; Revelation 22:10).

Believers in the early days of the Church lived in this state of expectancy (1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10). Paul’s “we” in 1 Corinthians 15:51 and 1Thessalonians 4:17 shows that he maintained the hope he would be alive when Jesus comes back.

A comparison of passages of Scripture relating to the Second Coming shows that some speak of a visible event seen by all mankind and involving the judgment of sinners. Others describe a coming known only to believers and resulting in their deliverance from earth.

The latter is referred to among evangelicals as the Rapture. This word is not in the English Bible, but has been used so widely that one of the definitions of “rapture” in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged is: “Christ’s raising up of His true church and its members to a realm above the earth where the whole company will enjoy celestial bliss with its Lord.” The word raptured could well be used to translate the expression “caught up” of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Jesus said His coming will result in one individual being taken from a location while another is left. This indicates a sudden removal of believers from the earth with unbelievers left to face tribulation (Matthew 24:36-42).

Jesus spoke of His return as a time when the nations of the earth shall mourn as they see Him (Matthew 24:30). The apostle Paul spoke of the Lord’s return as a time of judgment and wrath upon the wicked (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, he considered a different aspect of the Second Coming. This brief passage is the most direct and clear teaching on the Rapture in the New Testament. It speaks only of believers, living and dead. Nothing is said about the wicked seeing Christ at this time. Paul described Jesus as coming in the air, but nothing is said about His feet touching the earth, as we are told elsewhere, they will at His return (Zechariah 14:4). It is the moment when 1 John 3:2 will be fulfilled, and we shall be like Him.

The same Greek word used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 for “caught up” is used in Acts 8:39 to describe Philip’s being “caught away” after baptizing the Ethiopian. The latter verse states that the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away—identifying the source of the power that will remove believers from earth at the Rapture.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Paul called the Rapture “our gathering together unto him.” The Greek word for “gathering” is the same as the one used for “assembling” in Hebrews 10:25, referring to the assembling of Christians for worship. It is a picture of the saints congregating around Christ at His coming for them.

The supernatural removal of godly individuals from earth is not unknown in Scripture. The outstanding event in the life of Enoch was his miraculous disappearance from earth after years of walking with God (Genesis 5:21-24). The author of Hebrews called this experience a translation, bypassing death (Hebrews 11:5).

Although some aspects of Elijah’s translation differed from Enoch’s, it also involved the sudden removal of a believer from the world without experiencing death (2 Kings 2:1-13).

First Corinthians 15:51-54 deals with the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Here also Paul spoke of the changes that will take place in both living and dead believers at the Rapture. He called this a mystery (1 Corinthians 15:51), a truth previously unrevealed but made known to him by the Holy Spirit.

In Philippians 3:21 Paul connected the Lord’s coming to the time when “our vile body” will be changed—another reference to the Rapture.

Passages which pertain to the Rapture describe the coming of the Lord for His people. Passages which refer to the revelation of Christ describe the coming of the Lord with His saints. Colossians 3:4 speaks of believers appearing with Christ at His coming. Jude 14 also foresees the Lord’s return with His people to execute the judgment referred to in many other passages relating to His public appearing.

Since Scripture does not contradict itself, it seems reasonable to conclude that the passages describing Christ’s coming for the saints and with the saints indicate two phases of His coming. We believe it is scripturally correct to assume that the intervening period between the two is the time when the world will experience the Great Tribulation,involving the reign of Antichrist and the outpouring of God’s wrath on the wicked (Daniel 12:1, 2, 10-13; Matthew 24:15-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).

Although God’s people may endure severe trials before the Lord comes, the Church will be raptured before the period called the Great Tribulation.

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul indicated certain things must take place before the Day of the Lord (of which the Great Tribulation is a part) can begin. An individual called the man of sin (Antichrist) will appear. The mystery of iniquity has been at work since Paul’s time but is being restrained by the power of the Spirit working through the true Church. Only when the Church is removed from earth by the Rapture can this man come forward publicly.

In 1 Thessalonians 5, following the passage on the Rapture in chapter 4, Paul taught about the Day of the Lord. He warned of the destruction it will bring to the wicked(vv. 2, 3). He was quick to assure Christians that those who abide in Christ will not be overtaken by it (v. 4).

Still speaking of the Day of the Lord Paul wrote: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 9). It seems clear that he meant the deliverance of believers from the judgments of the Day of the Lord, including the Great Tribulation.

Christians are told repeatedly in the New Testament to be watchful for the Lord’s appearing. Never are they taught to watch for the Great Tribulation or the appearance of Antichrist. To expect that such things must happen before the Rapture destroys the teaching of imminence with which the New Testament is replete.

Believers are told to wait “for his Son from heaven,” not the Great Tribulation (1 Thessalonians 1:10). When the signs of the end of the age are evident, they are to look up and lift up their heads in expectation of their redemption, not the Great Tribulation (Luke 21:28).

The signs of the Lord’s coming will be fulfilled before His public appearing, but they do not have to be fulfilled before the Rapture. Any teaching that certain events must transpire before the Rapture is out of harmony with the doctrine of imminence.

It is consistent with God’s dealings with His people in the Old Testament to believe that the Church will be removed from the world before the Great Tribulation. God did not send the Flood until Noah and his family were safe in the ark. He did not destroy Sodom until Lot was taken out.

The weight of Scripture supports a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Wherever teaching about the Second Coming occurs in the New Testament, imminence is underscored. To interpose other events before the Rapture does violence to such teaching.

While Christians are looking forward to the coming of the Lord, it is well to remind themselves of Paul’s words to Titus: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:11-14).

AN ASSEMBLIES of GOD RESPONSE to REFORMED THEOLOGY [POSITION PAPER]

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1 & 3, 2015)

The growing popularity of Reformed theology among younger ministers and ministerial students has caught the attention of the contemporary evangelical movement in the Americas and elsewhere. On the one hand, the love for Scripture and theology and an accompanying passion for Christ and His work is a source of great encouragement. On the other, there is some concern that in hastily embracing Reformed theology, some from more Wesleyan-Arminian backgrounds may not carefully have considered the essential differences between these respective traditions.

There is in fact an enduring philosophical debate over the balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility that bears on this discussion. At one extreme, God, fate, or some other force is asserted to be the only active agent in the universe, with humans as powerless subjects being acted upon. At the other extreme, it is argued that humanity can do as it wills and does not answer to any higher power, for indeed, there may be none. Christianity rightly rejects both extremes as unbiblical. At the same time, sincere Christians assert differing balances between God’s divine control and man’s responsibility. Currently, the two main positions in Protestant Christianity are generally labeled Reformed theology and Arminian theology.

The diversity of various Reformed and Arminian groups must also be noted. Both groups encompass charismatics as well as cessationists, and many other expressions of theological difference. For many, the most noticeable and influential expression of Reformed theology is through those often called “Neo-Reformed.”

This paper intends to identify in a respectful and irenic spirit the areas of agreement and difference, offering a basis for increased conversation, understanding, and also reasoned disagreement. Many among us have learned much in study and dialogue with esteemed Reformed teachers and friends whom we appreciate and admire, though we have come to different conclusions on certain aspects of personal salvation.

How It All Started

Reformed theology is often called Calvinism, after John Calvin (1509–1564). This designation is not entirely accurate. Many ideas associated with Reformed thinking find expression in the writings of Augustine more than a thousand years earlier. Calvin was succeeded by Theodore Beza (1519–1605), who significantly restructured Calvin’s ideas. After Beza’s death, the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) gave Reformed theology its essential and current form. Thus, much of what is called Calvinism, or Reformed theology, actually developed after Calvin died. Furthermore, Calvin’s central concept was God’s grace. For him, God’s sovereignty was primarily expressed in grace rather than in election to salvation and/or damnation. Many historians and theologians, including a number that identify themselves as Reformed, agree that Calvin would not necessarily be a “Calvinist” in full agreement with mainline Reformed theology.

The position most typically held in the Assemblies of God is called Arminianism, after Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). Arminianism would receive further development by John Wesley, and some may be more familiar with and accepting of the Wesleyan rather than the Arminian label. Arminius had been a student of Beza and was commended by him. In the process of defending Reformed concepts, he ended up disagreeing with Calvin and Beza on the topics of irresistible grace, predestination, and free will. After his death, Arminius’s followers further developed his thinking in the Five Articles of the Remonstrants (also called Five Articles of Remonstrance) in 1610.

Reformed theologians responded at length at the Synod of Dort about nine years later with a document called Canons of Dort. This response contained many “articles” and “rejections of errors” for each of the Five Articles of the Remonstrants. A more succinct summary came into use in the early 1900s, often referred to by the TULIP acronym and also labeled the Five Points of Calvinism. Not all Reformed scholars agree that these Five Points precisely convey the Canons, but they are a useful framework to express the essential differences between the classic Arminian and Reformed positions.

The first Baptists, in seventeenth-century England, were labeled as “General” for their teaching of “general” or unlimited atonement and were broadly speaking Arminian. The “Particular Baptists,” who adhered more to Reformed thought, came into existence somewhat later. John and Charles Wesley became prominent supporters of Arminian theology, bringing it into a dominant position in American theology. By contrast, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards held to Reformed thinking. Even so, Wesley and Whitefield were friends and coworkers, their theological differences notwithstanding.

In the American denominational landscape, Presbyterian churches are almost exclusively Reformed, as are denominations with the word “Reformed” in their name. The United Church of Christ is another prominent American denomination that is Reformed in heritage. Methodists, most Baptists (other than “Particular” or “Reformed” Baptists), and charismatic and Pentecostal denominations tend to be Arminian. Many denominations, including Anglicans/Episcopalians, include a range of perspectives. Most Southern Baptists are Arminian, with some holding to the perseverance of the saints (“eternal security”). Others are more Reformed, an increasingly accepted position for many younger Southern Baptist pastors.

Reformed thinkers have produced a greater volume of writing, particularly in theology. This results from what might be called the Reformed “construct.” Arminian, or Wesleyan theology, does not demand a complex philosophical argument, as it seems to more naturally fit a straightforward reading of the Bible and real life. That is, human experience and our understanding of God and Scripture agree to the point that the Arminian stance does not require the creation of a complex theological system to justify an evangelistic appeal to all persons. Reformed thinking, by contrast, starts with a theological approach to what God is like (particularly His sovereignty contrasted with man’s inability) and then constructs a system around that idea.

The “Standard” Theological Distinctives

Arminianism (as derived from the Five Articles of Remonstrance, 1610):

1. The salvation or ultimate condemnation of a person is “conditioned” by or is the result of the God-given faith or unbelief of that person;
   2. The divinely provided atonement is sufficient for all persons but is applied only to those who trust in Christ. Thus it is limited to believers, not by God but by the person who trusts or fails to trust;
   3. No person can save himself or herself. Without the help of the Holy Spirit, no one can respond to God’s will that all be saved;
   4. God’s grace, applied by the Holy Spirit, is the sole source of good and of human salvation, yet this grace may be resisted; and
   5. God’s grace in the life of the believer enables resistance of sin and Christ will keep them from falling. Whether one who has experienced this grace can ultimately forsake God “must be more particularly determined.”

Reformed Theology (with commentary):

The most recognizable form of mainline Reformed theology is expressed in the TULIP acronym, as given below:

T – Total Depravity: every person is enslaved by sin and unable to choose God. This does not mean that every person is as evil as they could be or that there is an absolute absence of anything one might call “good,” but that every part of human life has been degraded by sin.

Both Arminian and Reformed thinkers agree on this issue of human inability to save oneself. No mainline system of Arminian or Wesleyan theology believes that persons are of themselves able to enter into right relationship with Him.

U – Unconditional Election: God has chosen from eternity those He will save. This choice is based solely in His mercy rather than any foreseen merit or faith in those chosen. By not choosing the others, God thus also chooses to withhold mercy from some, effectively condemning them by this choice.

Reformed theologians argue that all humans have earned God’s wrath (see “Total Depravity”) and that the salvation of any person is thus purely a demonstration of God’s grace. Arminian theologians believe that God’s grace is granted to all persons to enable them to respond in faith. All humans will ultimately bear responsibility not only for their condition prior to this response but also for their acceptance or rejection of this enabling grace.

L – Limited Atonement: the death of Christ paid the price only for the sins of the elect. This limitation does not mean that the atonement of Christ is not sufficient to save all, but it is intended only for the elect.

This is one of the areas of greatest divergence among modern Reformed thinkers. Some assert that the Atonement benefited all but does not provide eternal salvation for all. Others, sometimes labeled “Four Point Calvinists,” do not subscribe to this limiting of atonement at all. At Dort, the consensus seems to have been that Christ’s death was sufficient for all but only efficacious for some. Arminians argued that the atonement is potentially effective for all with its actual effectiveness based on the individual’s choice which is enabled by the Spirit (“prevenient grace”), and God’s foreknowledge of this choice. The Synod of Dort drafters argued that the atonement is effective based solely on God’s election.

It is important to note that both Arminians and mainline Reformed thinkers agree that the gospel should be preached or offered to all. In Arminian theology, this is because the presentation of the gospel is a crucial element in the working of God’s enabling grace. Most Reformed thinkers (other than those designated as “hyper-Calvinist”) believe that all should be offered the gospel, as only God knows who the elect are.

I – Irresistible Grace: those whom God has determined to save will inevitably come to saving faith. The work of the Holy Spirit in this regard cannot ultimately be resisted, though there may be resistance by the elect prior to their ultimate response.

This goes along with the belief in Unconditional Election, asserting that there is essentially no human agency in responding to God’s call to salvation. The Arminian perspective here is clearly otherwise: grace can indeed be resisted.

P – Perseverance of the Saints: all those who have been chosen by God (the “elect”) will continue in faith. Any who “fall away” either were never among the elect or will repent and return to a life of faith.

While the Remonstrant chose not to affirm or dismiss the possibility of ultimately forsaking God, most current Wesleyan or Arminian thinkers agree that just as God does not force persons into relationship with himself, so also, He does not force those who change their mind to stay in that relationship.

Arminian thinkers do not believe that the faith of the individual as such saves them. Rather Spirit-enabled faith accepts God’s salvation. This is not a works-based salvation, either for entry into (“election”) or for maintenance of (“perseverance”) the Christian life.

The Assemblies of God does not accept the doctrine of “Eternal Security” and in particular the “once saved, always saved” extension of that teaching. At the same time, “eternal insecurity” (any idea that one must be saved over and over again, or is always at risk of losing their salvation) does not accord with Scripture or with Assemblies of God belief. The believer’s salvation is secure in Christ but can be abandoned by willful choice. (See the Assemblies of God position paper on this topic.)

Points of Agreement

As the primary general issue of difference between Reformed and Arminian believers has to do with God’s and humans’ roles in salvation, this is the focus of this discussion of points of agreement and disagreement. There are other issues that transcend soteriology and they will be explored under “More Recent Developments” below.

It is important to recognize that both Reformed and Arminian groups, especially in their moderate expressions, are fully Christian. Holding a high view of Scripture, both affirm that humankind is in need of salvation, that God alone can provide salvation, and that Christ is God’s provision for our need. In fact, members of both groups are usually together in evangelism and discipleship, though differing on certain points of theology.

Points of Disagreement

The primary differences lie in what may easily be construed as the removal of human responsibility (particularly with regard to irresistible grace and election), the logical inference that missions work is not needed or desirable, the hopelessness of reprobation, and the haughtiness of perseverance.

Reformed thinking taken to the extreme has led some to conclude that evangelism may not be necessary since it is entirely a work of God in which humans do not participate. If election is indeed unconditional and grace irresistible, then missional efforts may seem irrelevant. This belief fails to reflect the life and activity of the Early Church as well as Christ’s commands to go to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel and making disciples. In addition, if salvation and reprobation are entirely activities of God without human choice, God is dishonored and made to appear unjust, indeed cruel. Why seem to offer a gift that cannot be accepted? It is difficult to see as “good” a supposedly loving God who elects some and passes over, or even deliberately damns, others. Such a view damages the biblical presentation of God as loving, kind, and just.

If all is truly preordained and God’s choice is the only active agent in salvation, it might be argued that the sinner should not be blamed for God’s decision to reprobate him or her. Ultimate responsibility in such a case seems to lie with God and not the person, for the individual is helpless to choose and should therefore not suffer for what was imposed on them. Removal of ability carries with its removal of responsibility.

A further issue relates to perseverance taken to an extreme, which is sometimes identified as “once saved, always saved.” The Assemblies of God position paper on Eternal Security offers further expansion of the issues and dangers of this extreme.

It must be noted that there are dangers to the extreme expressions of both groups. One extreme form of Arminianism can be labeled Pelagianism, where believers seem essentially to save themselves by the quality of their life and faith. An extreme form of Reformed theology is sometimes called Hyper-Calvinism, where the individual, as noted above, has no involvement in either salvation or reprobation. Neither of these is biblically supportable, or a satisfactory explanation for the realities of life.
It must also be noted that there is no single expression of either Arminian or Reformed theology that is definitive for all who identify as either group. Therefore, caution is to be urged against stereotyping and vilifying either group. As previously noted, there is much in common between believers who are identified as Reformed and those who are Arminian, and there is broad cooperation, particularly within the English-speaking Christian world. This was very evident already in the eighteenth century with the cooperation between the Wesley’s (Arminian) and Whitefield (Reformed), and it continues today through such parachurch organizations as the National Association of Evangelicals. We also have broad agreement on the doctrine of Scripture, Trinity, Incarnation, the nature of the Atonement, and other points. We agree more than we disagree.

More Recent Developments (or Branches of the Tree) 

While the core difference between Reformed and Arminian thinkers (including the Assemblies of God in the latter) has to do with soteriology, there are other points of divergence that often adhere to Reformed theology and in particular the Neo-Reformed movement. Many of these so-called “Young, Restless, and Reformed” thinkers do not tightly hold to all five aspects of TULIP, with Limited Atonement as the most commonly questioned tenet. Thus, some are identified as 4- or 3.5-point Calvinists. Others among the Neo-Reformed are more severe in their soteriology than many moderate Calvinists, again highlighting the danger of considering all those identified as Reformed as a homogenous group.

While the Reformed movements in general have been cessationist in pneumatology, rejecting present-day manifestations of the Holy Spirit, there are some in the Neo-Reformed ranks who are open to charismata or speak in tongues themselves.

A fairly consistent issue promoted by Neo-Calvinists is complementarianism, with its rejection in some cases of any ministerial role for women, and in other cases a sharply limited sphere of ministry for women. This is an issue on which the Assemblies of God disagrees, as expressed in our position paper on Women in Ministry.

Conclusion

While there are clear distinctions between those who self-identify as Arminian and as Reformed, there is indeed more that unites than divides us in theology. The extremes of both positions are to be rejected. While individual teaching and preaching of pastors in both camps may be controversial at times, we agree on the imperative of presenting the gospel to the lost. It is when Reformed thinking is extended and taken to the extreme of removing all human response that we must reject it and remain true to the call and example of Christ and His disciples, calling all to Him and genuinely offering salvation to all.

SANCTITY of HUMAN LIFE: ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 9-11, 2010)

The Assemblies of God bases its understanding of the nature of human beings on the Bible, which reveals that God created the universe, the world, and all living things (Genesis 1:1,11,21,25). Humans are the highest form of God’s creative activity, and He is intentional in both their creation and destiny. “‘Let us make man in our image’ . . . So, God created man in his own image, . . . male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:26,27). “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7).¹

By making human beings in His own image, God set them above all other forms of life on earth.  The term “image of God” signifies that, like their Creator, men and women are personal and spiritual beings, rational and relational. It implies that humans are intended for eternal fellowship with their Creator and requires both sexes for full expression. Though marred when the first human pair fell into sin (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12), the image of God is still intrinsic to human nature (Genesis 9:6), insuring that men and women are capable of response to their Maker. Creation in the divine image is not only an expression of the incalculable value God places upon human life, it also signifies that God has sovereign power over life. He is both giver and sustainer of life; He alone has the power to determine its beginning and ending.²

The nobility of human beings is seen in the divine mandate: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:28). Superior to all other life forms, humans are to assume the role of responsible custodians of the earth.

Every human life, from conception through death, is therefore to be valued, respected, nurtured, and protected. Every human life is to be lived in obedience to God and His Word. The Bible describes a moral order to which all persons are responsible. At the end of life, all persons will stand before God to give account for their actions. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Therefore, human beings are responsible to bring the light of God’s Word to decisions that bear on the sanctity of life. To this end, the Assemblies of God offers the following biblical perspectives:

The Beginning of Life

Contraception. The Assemblies of God, finding no clear scriptural mandate, does not take an official stand on the appropriateness of contraception within a heterosexual marriage for purposes of regulating the number of children, determining the time of their birth, or safeguarding the health of the mother. These are matters of personal conscience as godly spouses prayerfully covenant with God about the growth of their families. While there are important ethical issues in determining to have a family, the prevention of pregnancy is understood to be qualitatively different from the termination of pregnancy since the sperm has not fertilized the ovum and human life has not yet begun. The biological processes themselves teach us that in God’s creative design not every sperm or ovum is intended to survive and unite. It should be remembered, however, that some methods commonly regarded as contraception, such as the IUD and the morning-after pill, are actually agents that abort, rather than prevent, pregnancy.

The Bible teaches that in the institution of marriage, children are divinely ordered both to fulfill God’s divine purposes for the race and for the repopulation of the earth. The mandate to the first pair was, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). Throughout Scripture, children are regarded as God’s gift: “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him” (Psalm 127:3). There are certain circumstances where couples may choose not to have children for very good reasons.  However, the use of contraception merely to avoid the demands of child rearing ought to be prayerfully examined in terms of the purity of one’s motives and the personal implications of the divine mandate.

In Vitro Fertilization. From a study of the Scriptures, God’s plan for human conception is sexual union between a man and woman in a legal marriage covenant. Children of such a covenant ought to be the result of a joyous and loving sexual relationship in which the husband and wife are responsible for birthing and rearing godly offspring. However, infertile heterosexual couples who have pursued without success all viable treatments may be confronted with a decision to utilize in vitro fertilization.

There are numerous ethical issues to be evaluated in such a process, including the financial costs, the harvesting of sperm and ova, and the nurturing of multiple living human embryos, not all of which likely will be implanted in the uterus. The disposal of unused embryos is an acute ethical issue since they represent the beginning of human life.

Further, there may also be serious danger to the life of the mother in the event that multiple babies survive to full term, which might call for the selective abortion of one or more of the babies.

Given these grave concerns, it is imperative that those who elect this procedure prayerfully seek godly and knowledgeable counsel, and engage medical professionals with compatible ethical standards. We disapprove any procedure that results in the destruction of unimplanted embryos.

Reproductive Cloning. The Assemblies of God believes that reproductive cloning is immoral and a matter of grave concern. In the cloning process, the person is not conceived from the union of the father’s sperm and the mother’s ovum. The genetic material is drawn from only one person and manipulated in the laboratory, with some risk of contamination, before implantation in the surrogate.  There are also grave physical risks for persons who may be cloned. Animal cloning has demonstrated the potential for birth defects and premature aging. Scientists have no way of knowing what type of horrors may be visited upon cloned individuals or upon humankind at large through such a process.

Abortion. The Assemblies of God views the practice of abortion as an evil that has been inflicted upon millions of innocent babies and that will threaten millions more in the years to come. Abortion is a morally unacceptable alternative for birth control, population control, sex selection, and elimination of the physically and mentally handicapped. Certain parts of the world are already experiencing serious population imbalances as a result of the systematic abortion of female babies. The advocacy and practice of so-called partial birth abortion of babies is particularly heinous.

Sexual responsibility. Contemporary demands for abortion often flow from the practice of sexual freedom without corresponding responsibility. The Scriptures speak definitively against premarital and extramarital sexual intercourse and declare such activity to be sinful (Exodus 22:16; Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:9,13,18; Galatians 5:19). To add abortion as an after-the-fact birth control device is to deepen and compound the sin with resultant guilt and emotional distress. The Assemblies of God affirms the biblical mandate for sexual purity and responsibility that, when obeyed, will obviate and eliminate situations in which abortion might otherwise be contemplated.

The personhood of the unborn. The Scriptures regularly treat the unborn child as a person under the care of God.

1. The Bible recognizes that a woman is with child even in the first stages of pregnancy. When the virgin Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus, an angel made this announcement to her: “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son [huios]” (Luke 1:31, NASB). The angel then informed Mary that her cousin Elizabeth was pregnant: “Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child [huios, “son”] in her old age” (Luke 1:36). Scripture makes it clear that in the prenatal phase both Jesus and John the Baptist were recognized as males well before the time of delivery. Moreover, John before birth is recognized as a “baby” (brephos) (Luke 1:41,44). This translates a Greek word used for children both before and after birth (cf. Acts 7:19). The Bible always recognizes the prenatal phase of life as that of a child and not a mere appendage to the mother’s body to be aborted at will.Even when pregnancy in Bible times was due to an illicit relationship, the sanctity and value of that life was not questioned. The daughters of Lot willfully became pregnant by incestuous relationships (Genesis 19:36), and Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon though her marriage to King David came about through an adulterous relationship (2 Samuel 11:5). In none of these cases is the life of the unborn considered to be unworthy and requiring an abortion.
2. The Bible recognizes that God is active in the creative process of forming new life. Concerning Leah, the wife of Jacob, Scripture says, “When the Lord saw that Leah wasnot loved, he opened her womb . . . Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son” (Genesis 29:31,32). When Job compared himself to his servants, he asked, “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15).

   That each person yet unborn has equal value and status before God is indicated in Job’s declaration that God “shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands” (Job 34:19).

   God spoke through Isaiah: “ ‘This is what the Lord says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant’ ” (Isaiah 44:2). And again, “ ‘This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things’ ” (v. 24).

   David summed it up, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13–16).

3. The Bible recognizes that God has plans for the unborn child. Only He knows the potential of this new life. When God called Jeremiah to his prophetic ministry, He indicated the ordination was prenatal when He said: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). When Zechariah the priest was ministering at the altar of incense, an angel announced that his wife, Elizabeth, would give birth to a son who should be called John. Then it was revealed that God had definite plans for this child. He was to be a forerunner of Jesus (Luke 1:11–17).
4. The Bible recognizes that God is sovereign in all things, including the quality of life of the unborn child. When people reject God, they may more easily cheapen human life and make it relative. Some are considered worthy to live; others are considered expendable. Who but God knows whether someone destroyed in the Holocaust might not have discovered a cure for cancer. Who but God knows what blessing millions of children killed before birth might have brought to improve the quality of life. When people set themselves up as God to determine if a life is worth living—whether before or after birth—they are usurping the sovereignty of the Creator. There are also things finite humans cannot understand. God’s ways are above human ways. While medical technology may now allow prenatal diagnoses of some medical conditions, it is critical to remember that God’s love is unconditional and above any consideration of physical or mental limitations. Thus, while it may be permissible to pursue prenatal testing so as to better provide for the needs of an unborn child, it is impermissible to use prenatal testing to determine whether or not an unborn child should be allowed to live.

The killing of innocent persons. God’s Word is very explicit concerning the taking of innocent human life. “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) is not only one of the Ten Commandments, but also a moral imperative that recurs throughout Scripture (cf. Matthew 19:18; Romans 13:9).

God inspired Moses to include in the Scriptures a law that brings the sanctity of the lives of unborn children into focus. “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:22–24).

It should be noted that the value of the life of both the mother and the child is such that even if there is no critical and lasting harm to either, the responsible party must be fined. However, if either the mother or the premature child is seriously injured or dies, then the severe penalties of the law are to be applied, possibly in this case, those having to do with manslaughter (Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35:22–25). It is clear that the life of the unborn child is precious, and even a non-premeditated injury inflicted on the unborn is a serious crime.

God’s attitude toward the killing of innocents is clear. No one is guiltless who takes the life of another, with the possible scriptural exceptions of capital punishment administered by a system of justice (Genesis 9:6; Numbers 35:12), unintended killing in self-defense (Exodus 22:2), or deaths occasioned by duly constituted police and war powers (Romans 13:4,5).

John Calvin expressed the horror of abortion in commenting on Exodus 21:22,23: “The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of his mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”³

Danger to the life of the mother. In the modern era, situations in which pregnancy seriously and imminently threatens the life of the mother are exceedingly rare. If, however, responsible diagnoses confirm that childbirth is likely to result in the death of the mother, historic Christian faith usually has favored the life of the mother above that of the unborn child. Unlike the unborn child, the mother is a mature person with established family and societal relationships and responsibilities.

However, vague threats to the mother’s physical or emotional health must not become an excuse to place the child at risk. Any intervention required must have the intent of saving the mother’s life, not the prior intent of causing death to the child. As in any emergency, in such times God’s children ought to fervently and earnestly pray for divine intervention. In doing so, the persons involved must prayerfully evaluate the medical diagnoses with  the assistance of humane physicians and godly leaders and make, responsibly and with a clear conscience, what will be a very painful decision.

The emotional and spiritual toll. The abortion industry rarely advises pregnant women of the potential impact of abortion on their spiritual and mental health. Desperate women who find themselves in an acutely embarrassing or inconvenient position because of an illicit affair or an unplanned pregnancy, and who are often coerced by selfish lovers and/or embarrassed families, are led to see abortion as a “quick fix.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are usually unaware of the depression, guilt, and shame that may plague them for a lifetime. While God can and does forgive and heal the broken hearts of repentant sinners who come to Him for forgiveness, the actual deed can never be undone and probably will be remembered with pain and regret.

The woman’s right to choose. In recent years, the argument is made that since the woman alone bears the physical consequences of pregnancy, she should always have the right to choose freely an abortion. The laws of many nations now guarantee that “right” within varying durations and circumstances of pregnancy. As this study has shown, however, there is no biblical basis for a pregnant woman to terminate her unborn child.  The long historical tradition of orthodox Christianity prohibits abortion. The legality of abortion in modern cultures is rooted in concepts of individual rights, autonomy, and privacy pushed far beyond scriptural teaching. We therefore expressly deny that this supposed legal “right” automatically confers upon the pregnant woman the moral right to abort her unborn child.

Biomedical Research

The Assemblies of God affirms and encourages reverent and responsible scientific research intended to enhance the health and well-being of persons created in the image of God. Christian faith is not to be interpreted in ways that needlessly hinder greater understanding of the human body and the discovery of cures for and prevention of dreaded diseases and defects. However, there are many temptations to pursue the life sciences for ignoble reasons. Therefore, all biomedical research should be monitored and regulated so as to insure respect for the sanctity of human life and the essential dignity of human beings who are created in the image of God. All researchers are finally answerable to God.

Stem Cell Research. Stem cell research shows great promise for the cure of numerous diseases and should proceed under appropriate ethical guidelines regularly reviewed and revised. There are stem cells, such as adult stem cells, that are readily available for research and whose procurement does not compromise the sanctity of human life.  However, the practice of cultivating stem cells from the tissue of aborted fetuses (embryonic stem cells) perpetuates the evil of abortion and should be prohibited. Likewise, the cultivation of stem cells from the unused embryos left with fertility clinics raises serious ethical concerns for human life. Great care must always be exercised in the cultivation of stem cells to insure that the sanctity and dignity of human life are not compromised.

Genetic Intervention. The Assemblies of God is supportive of morally responsible genetic research and therapies. Genetic research conducted with reverence for life appears to have great potential for the health of human beings through the identification of and intervention in the genetic roots of hundreds of diseases. By the same token, used for proud and selfish ends, genetic screening and intervention also have the potential to bring great harm to the entire human race. In addition, the Assemblies of God believes legislation is necessary to prevent intrusive genetic screening and resultant discrimination as well as misguided experimentation and termination of life.

Christian Action:

Whenever abortion and other immoral life-threatening practices present themselves, Christians have an obligation to address these evils in public forums and to seek legislative and judicial redress. Among the steps Christians should take are the following:

1. Christians should pray earnestly for God’s intervention and the wisdom and resolve to resist abortion and questionable biomedical research and experimentation.
2. Christians should provide biblical moral instruction in their homes and all possible public forums. The church, rooted in the eternal truths of God’s Word, should seek to lift the standards of society by overcoming evil with good.
3. Christians should actively support candidates who embrace the sanctity of life and should lobby on behalf of legislation to protect the unborn.
4. Christians should work through legislative and governmental agencies to insure appropriate ethical review of all biomedical research and to impose constraints on that which is evil or misguided. While strongly and fervently opposing immoral laws, Christians should exert their influence in peaceable ways consistent with scriptural principles (1 Peter 2:11,12).
5. Christians should counsel those with unwanted pregnancies about alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. They should generously support responsible Christian adoption agencies with their prayers, finances, and time as well as facilitate placement of unwanted babies in loving Christian homes.
6. Christians should compassionately minister to those who suffer remorse and guilt from having had abortions, or participated in abortions and other life-destroying activity or research, reminding them of these words of Jesus: “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). Nonviolent Opposition Current laws virtually permit abortion-on-demand, at least in the early trimesters of pregnancy. The Assemblies of God strongly believes such laws are immoral and contravene the law of God. Every legal means should be employed to reverse the effects of these laws and dismantle the immoral industries they spawn. While opposing immoral laws that permit and protect the destruction of life, the Assemblies of God also denounces violent and lawless acts against both the purveyors and the participants in the abortion industry, occasionally carried out by people claiming to be Christians. Conclusion This paper cannot possibly address every single issue or dilemma that may arise. In rare and unusual circumstances where the Bible does not speak directly, affected individuals ought to prayerfully seek godly counsel and the guidance of the Spirit of God. All persons must finally give account to God for any actions that rob others of life, health, or dignity. With these eternal issues in view, the Assemblies of God intends to be both a witness to the truth of Christ and a healing and redemptive agency to assist, through its numerous ministries, those who may be caught in these dilemmas.

NOTES:

---

1 All biblical citations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New International Version (NIV).

2 The Bible does provide precedents for justly administered death sentences for capital crimes as well as for the exercise of self-defense and duly constituted police and war powers (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 22:2; Numbers 35:12; Romans 13:4,5).

3 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, trans. Charles William Bingham, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 3:41–42.

SANCTITY of HUMAN LIFE: SUICIDE, PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE, AND EUTHANASIA

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 9-11, 2010)

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade, introduced a sustained and divisive public debate over the value of human life. By lifting protections for the unborn, the Court retreated from a sacred view of life and recognized instead a woman’s personal autonomy in the decision to abort her child, the popularly expressed “right to choose.” Not unexpectedly, this retreat has extended to end-of-life decisions, with efforts to sanction euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide under the principle of an individual’s “right to die. “As Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop observed in 1979, “With arbitrary abortion already declared legal, the speed with which the other forms of killing are being accepted must take even their advocates by surprise.”1

Many factors have energized the right-to-die movement, including sincere concerns over excessive reliance on life-sustaining technologies and inadequate pain-relief care for the terminally ill. Its driving force, however, is a mistaken, deceptive, and evil philosophy that devalues suffering people. Consequently, our opposition to the termination of human life must be understood in spiritual terms and must be guided by biblical principles. Specifically, the Church must (1) proclaim humankind’s dignity as God’s sovereign creation, (2) reassert God’s authority over life from conception to death, and (3) affirm meaning and hope for suffering humanity.

Understanding the Issues

We must first clarify the terminology used in discussions of end-of-life ethical issues. Suicide is the act of deliberately and purposefully causing one’s own death. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia may be differentiated as follows: “Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a medical means for death, usually a prescription for a lethal amount of medication that the patient takes on his or her own. In euthanasia, the physician directly and intentionally administers a substance to cause death.”2 Both are acts of killing, distinguished by the agent (self-versus other) who administers the life-ending medication or substance. Euphemistic expressions for physician-assisted suicide, such as assistance-in-dying, are specifically used to mask the true content of these actions and should be rejected. Further, physician-assisted suicide must be distinguished from informed decisions by patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment in ways that compassionately respect individual autonomy.

In His Image

The claim that human life is valuable, even sacred, has its foundation in God’s creation of humankind: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him” (Genesis 1:27). This truth imparts extraordinary value to every life, independent of gender, race, socioeconomic position, age, or health status. Those who hold to biblical creation must attach great worth to human life and will stand in its defense. Holding to the prevailing materialist model, which explains our existence as the chance outcome of
impersonal physical forces, leads to finding the value of life to be relative and incidental.

Our creation in God’s image is at the heart of the biblical injunction against murder: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Genesis 9:6). By placing His mark upon humankind, God clearly established His own authority over human life and holds accountable those who would usurp it.

The intrinsic value of human beings is confirmed by God’s expression of love in the sacrifice of His Son who paid the price for human sin and transgression. God rightly claims ownership of those He has purchased: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19,20).

Not only does God forbid the claims of others against our lives, He also forbids our own claims against our lives. Murder is condemned in the Bible in the severest terms (Genesis 9:6; Deuteronomy 5:17). Suicide, the deliberate killing of one’s self, finds no support in the Bible, and the few cases recorded there imply divine displeasure (1 Samuel 31:4; Matthew 27:5).

Advocates of suicide, by whatever means, must deny these standards and reject this valuation of human life. Specifically, they must contend for personal autonomy over one’s own existence. The argument is as follows:

“I am my own;
The time and means of my dying lie at the heart of my private life;
I therefore retain the ‘right to die’, and no-one may take it from me.”3

This assertion of personal sovereignty holds the promise of freedom but delivers self-destruction. It resonates with the falsity of Satan’s reasoning with Eve: “You will not surely die . . . For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4,5). As with any exercise of personal choice outside the parameters of God’s law—abortion, euthanasia, drug abuse, homosexual practices, and heterosexual promiscuity—the invariable consequence is physical and spiritual death.

Conversely, the righteous decision to obey God’s commands brings true freedom. Within the parameters of His law, the individual may anticipate the joy of His blessing. God confronts each of us with the stark alternatives: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before your life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him” (Deuteronomy 30:19,20).

The Boundaries of Life

God determines the boundaries of life and holds in His hands the two fragile ends of human experience. He is active in the conception of life and the conclusion of life, in birth and in death.

Of his beginning, the Psalmist writes, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. . .. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place” (Psalm 139:13,15). The womb is the place of God’s creative handiwork. It is there each life is endowed with unique personality, unique physical traits, and a unique spiritual nature. The glimpses we have seen of this work through the eyes of biomedical advance only intensify our awe at God’s techniques. We may be less discerning, on the other hand, of God’s activity in the final moments of death. We naturally shrink from death and view it as an adversary reluctantly yielding, in the end, to its inexorable demand upon us.

Of course, death was not God’s ideal. Death was introduced by rebellion and subsequently spread from one man to the entire race: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin . . . in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). God’s plan is to deliver us from this last enemy. “‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:55–57).

For the believer, death is not a final defeat but a transition in which the perishable is exchanged for the imperishable, the temporal for the eternal, the imperfect for the perfect. The believer experiences assurance even when facing death. Job concludes, “You will call and I will answer you; you will long for the creature your hands have made” (Job 14:15). The Psalmist implies the symmetry of God’s activity in his birth and death when he writes, “All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:16).

If life’s beginning at conception and life’s end at death are in God’s hands, both abortion and suicide, assisted or otherwise, represent violations of His prerogative. Abortion steals from the womb a life yet to be started; suicide hastens to the grave a life yet to be completed.

The argument for suicide also ignores the profound spiritual implications of the transition from life to death. Its proponents and practitioners offer no insights into the spiritual reality beyond the grave. There is no acknowledgment of mortality or final judgment. This apparent naiveté is indicative of the spiritual deception underlying the right-to-die philosophy.

The Meaning of Suffering

Our difficulty in understanding God’s activity in death is matched only by our difficulty understanding His activity in human suffering. From the biblical perspective, however, suffering is potentially purposeful and refining. From the perspective of the proponents of suicide and euthanasia, suffering is meaningless and degrading; it is to be avoided and, if possible, eliminated.

Job offers the prototype of meaningful suffering. He endured pain and disfigurement. “So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head” (Job 2:7). His wife’s callous response is curiously contemporary: “Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9). Rejecting her advice, Job held to his integrity, affirming his ultimate confidence in God, saying, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God” (Job 19:25,26).

Suffering becomes comprehensible when we look upon the One who “was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering” and who “took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:3,4). Jesus’ passion assures us of His identity with our suffering and His faithfulness to preserve us through the inevitable tests and trials of life. This is the hope of all who suffer and the only true consolation in the face of unrelenting pain. Christ identifies with suffering humanity, affirms suffering humanity, and heals suffering humanity.

his biblical perspective suggests a life-affirming alternative to suicide for the terminally ill. It acknowledges that fear, helplessness, pain, depression, and isolation are real factors. It also provides, in the person of Christ, a worthy example of compassionate involvement in the suffering of others, which may lessen the very pain and distress that motivate death wishes.

Combining effective medical care with emotional and spiritual help, the hospice movement has demonstrated that few individuals request assisted suicide once their pain and symptoms are addressed. A hospice president has observed, “The public perception is that people are (choosing suicide) every day. But these are people in their own homes, they have the means, they have lots of medication, and they don’t choose death.” 4 Suffering people want their existence and meaning affirmed, not a convenient escape into the alleged nothingness offered by assisted suicide.

A biblical view of suffering also resists the slippery logic of the right-to-die philosophy, a logic which argues that the value of life is in some way or another conditional. For the terminally ill, the value is conditioned upon quality of life. But what of other categories of people that are not healthy, young, and vigorous? Encouraging or assisting the suicide of the terminally ill sets an ominous precedent that opens the door to a more general devaluation of life and the broader practice of euthanasia. Even the American College of Physicians has expressed concern that assisted suicide may lead to actions against the poor, the chronically ill, the demented, the disabled, and the very young.5

History justifies this concern. German physicians in the 1920s began to entertain the notion that “there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived” and to embrace the practice of euthanasia for the chronically ill, later acquiescing to ever broader categorizations of “unfit” persons.6 More recently, the Netherlands has legalized voluntary euthanasia, only to open the door permissively to the practice of involuntary euthanasia, where the elderly and chronically ill may be terminated against their wishes. Already, “death with dignity” laws have gained voter approval or enactment by judicial fiat in certain states in our own land.

At this critical juncture in our own history as a nation, it is imperative that we return to an absolute, timeless standard of human value rooted in biblical truth. We must return to the divine appraisal of the worth and dignity of life, whether born or unborn, young or old, healthy or suffering. We must recognize once again the One in whose image we are made, the One who determines the time of our beginning and the time of our end, and the One who provides meaning and hope to suffering people through the redemptive work of the Cross.

A Christian Response

Having developed a biblical perspective on the practice of suicide, it is important to translate our ethical concerns into corresponding action. To that end, the following suggestions are offered for Christians individually and for the Church corporately toward the objective of eliminating the demand for and practice of assisted suicide:

1. Seek First His Kingdom. The battle in our day is not between those for and those against suicide. The real battle is being waged between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of this world. Fundamental changes in society are not affected by social or political activism alone. People will be won over to a pro-life perspective through the changing of hearts. Christians must be salt and light; the Church must be the clear expression of Jesus’ ministry to the world. After Jesus’ example, we pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
2. Love with Actions. The strongest statements in favor of the terminally ill and against suicide are made by those who provide spiritual support in hospice facilities, serve as hospital chaplains, render loving care in nursing homes, and otherwise minister to the suffering and dying. As the apostle John urges, us, “Let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Let us affirm our high valuation of suffering people by loving suffering people. Be sensitive to the needs of those with mental health disorders, some of whom may be suicidal and need special care. Visit the friend who has cancer; give time as a volunteer to a nursing home; support a hospice program. Such actions will make the difference for someone who is terminally ill and also set a forceful example of Christian love.
3. Contend for Truth. It is also necessary that we publicly acknowledge biblical truth as it pertains to the critical issues of our day, including assisted suicide. The Church must express in uncompromising terms its core moral values and spiritual convictions as they pertain to abortion and euthanasia. We must hold elected officials accountable for voting records, support pro-life legislation, oppose referendums in favor of assisted suicide, challenge our physicians, and articulate our opinions in public forums.
4. Provide Wise and Sensitive Pastoral Care. The church is not immune to the tragedy of suicide. In its wake, families are devastated, questions about eternal destiny are raised, and the church is left to grapple with a sense of failure. But it is at this point that the gospel of grace can begin to flow in healing power as pastors, family members, friends, and the believing community responds with wisdom and sensitivity.

No one other than our Lord himself can know the depths of depression or illness out of which the decision to end one’s life may have sprung. Suicide entails reasoned and deliberate action. However, one who is clinically depressed or emotionally unbalanced is not normally regarded as fully responsible. Therefore, questions that deal with eternal destiny cannot be decided by the survivors. They must be left in the hands of God who is all knowing, all loving, and forever merciful and just. Recognizing the limits of human knowledge and the gracious nature of the Lord, the church can minister effectively in the midst of brokenness and pain.

NOTES:

---

1Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, “Whatever happened to the human race?” in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. v. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 337.
2American College of Physicians Ethics Manual, 4th ed. Annals of Internal Medicine (1998), 128:576–594.
3Nigel M. de S. Cameron, “Autonomy and the ‘Right to Die’ ” in Dignity and Dying: A Christian Appraisal (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 23.
4J. Loconte, “Hospice, Not Hemlock,” Policy Review 1998, 44.
5American College of Physicians Ethics Manual.
6L. Alexander, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” New England Journal of Medicine (1949), 241:44.
All Scripture references in this paper are taken from the New International Version.

the ROLE of WOMEN inMINISTRY

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 9-11, 2010)

Supernatural manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit have played a distinctive role in the origin, development, and growth of the Assemblies of God. Since the earliest days of our Fellowship, spiritual gifting has been evident in the ministries of many outstanding women who pioneered and directed a wide spectrum of ministries. It was not uncommon for a married woman to minister in partnership with her husband. Occasionally, husbands worked at secular professions to support the active ministries of their wives. Many women chose to forego marriage to better fulfill the ministries to which the Lord had called them. Courageous women served on mission frontiers at home and abroad as missionaries, evangelists, church planters, pastors, educators, and in other roles.

Pentecostals believe that the outpouring of the Spirit begun in the early twentieth century is a true fulfillment of prophecy, “Your sons and daughters will prophesy . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28,29; cf. Acts 2:16–18).1 That women as well as men are to prophesy is indicative of their inclusion in the ministries of the new covenant age.

The Bible as Final Authority

While the history and practice of the Assemblies of God appears to demonstrate that God blesses the public ministry of women, debate continues as to the proper role of women in spiritual leadership. Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, it is important to do a fresh study of its teachings and ensure that our approach is not merely subjective and pragmatic.

It is our intention to examine the biblical text as carefully and objectively as possible, using established rules of exegesis and interpretation. We will note both historical and theological guidance. We will also carefully evaluate texts traditionally used to limit or deny the ministries of women.

Always, it is our intention to be faithful to the teachings of the Bible, God’s inspired and infallible Word to humankind. At the same time, we want to be charitable toward those from other traditions who sincerely may disagree with our findings. We recognize that, occasionally, practical compromises in nonessential aspects of ministry practice may be in order to most effectively plant the Church in traditionally patriarchal contexts.

Historical and Global Precedent

Historians have observed that in the early days of most revivals, when spiritual fervor is high and the Lord’s return is expected at any time, there is often ready acceptance of dynamic, pioneering women ministers. Over time, however, as young churches move toward a more structured ministry, and institutional concerns come to the forefront, the spiritual leadership of women is less readily accepted and church leadership tends to become predominantly male.

The experience of the Assemblies of God has been no exception. Notable women ministers among the early Pentecostals included Maria B. Woodworth-Etter, Aimee Semple McPherson, Alice Reynolds Flower, Anna Ziese, and Marie Burgess Brown. But even though women had great freedom to minister in the early days of the Fellowship, the proportion of women in leadership dropped dramatically beginning in the early 1920s. More recently, the trend is again upward and the number of credentialed women is growing.

Throughout their history, Pentecostals around the world have struggled to apply biblical truth in widely divergent cultural contexts. In some settings, female spiritual leadership is readily accepted; in others, where women have limited ministry, leadership posts are withheld from them. At times there is inconsistency between the leadership a female missionary, for example, has at home and that which she has on the field. There may also be a difference between her ministry opportunities on the field and those of women in the culture she serves. Without doubt, particular cultures have influenced, and continue to influence, the nature and extent of female leadership. While the Church must always be sensitive to cultural concerns, it must nonetheless consistently look to Scripture for principles and directions that rise above particular contextual practices.

Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry

Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership in many roles. The following are striking examples: Miriam was a prophet to Israel during the Exodus, alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, both a prophet and a judge, directed Barak to lead the army of Israel into successful combat against Israel’s oppressors (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28).

The New Testament also shows that women filled important ministry roles in the Early Church. Tabitha (Dorcas) initiated an effective benevolence ministry (Acts 9:36). Philip’s four unmarried daughters were recognized prophets (Acts 21:8,9). Paul singled out two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers” (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3,4). In Romans 16, Paul greets numerous ministry colleagues, a large number of them women. In these greetings, the word Paul uses to speak of the work (kopiao), or labor, of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Romans 16:6,12) is one he uses extensively for the labor of ministry (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17).

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, translation biases have often obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” (NIV, NASB, ESV). Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul regularly used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated “deacon” or “minister.” Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (e.g., RSV, because Phoebe was female), the Greek diakonos is a masculine noun. Therefore, it seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church and the proper translation for Phoebe’s role is “deacon” (TNIV, NLT, NRSV) or “minister.”

Moreover, a number of translations reflect similar biases by referring to Phoebe as having been a “great help” (NIV) or “helper” (NASB) of many, including Paul himself (Romans 16:2). The Greek term here is prostatis, better translated by the NRSV as “benefactor” with its overtones of equality and leadership.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). Beginning in the thirteenth century, a number of scholars and translators masculinized her name to Junias, apparently unwilling to admit that there was a female apostle. However, the name Junia is found more than 250 times in Rome alone, while the masculine form Junias is unknown in any Greco-Roman source. Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry.

These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with scripturally commended leadership roles affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.

A Biblical Survey of the Role of Women in Ministry

Of primary importance in defining the scriptural role of women in ministry is the biblical meaning of “ministry”. Of Christ our great model, it was said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served [diakoneo], but to serve [diakoneo], and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45; cf. Matthew 20:28). The New Testament leadership modeled by Jesus portrays the spiritual leader as a servant, whether male or female. The question of human authority is not of primary significance, though it naturally arises as organization and structure develop.

Genesis 2:18–25 Some expositors have taught that all women should be subordinate to adult men because Eve was created after Adam to be his “helper” (NIV; “help meet”, KJV). Yet the word ezer (“helper”) is never used in the Hebrew Bible with a subordinate meaning. Seventeen out of the twenty times it is used, it refers to God as the helper. Eve was created to be a help (kenegdo) “suitable” or “corresponding to” Adam, not a subordinate.
Some argue that God created men and women with different characteristics and desires, and that these differences explain why leadership roles should be withheld from women. Others attribute these perceived differences to culture and social expectations imposed on children from birth to adulthood. Physical differences and distinctive biological functions are obvious; but it is only by implication that gender differences can be made to suggest leadership limitations.

Paul’s Emphasis on Charismatic Ministry

Ministry in the New Testament is charismatic in nature. It is made possible and energized as the Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts (charismata) to each member of the body of Christ (Romans 12:6–8; 1 Corinthians 12:7–11,27,28; Ephesians 4:7–12; 1 Peter 4:10–11). While some gifts are a spontaneous work of the Spirit and others are recognized ministry gifts to the Body, all are given for service without regard to gender differentiation. For example, the gift of prophecy is explicitly for both men and women: “Your sons and your daughters will prophesy” (Acts 2:17). The New Testament confirms that women received and exercised this gift of the Spirit (Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

If Peter found certain statements by Paul hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16), it is no surprise that we, removed by nearly two thousand additional years of history, would share his struggle in interpreting some Pauline passages. While the original audiences were familiar with the problems that Paul addressed, we are left to reconstruct them and apply his prescriptions as best we can in light of the larger context of his letters and biblical revelation. And we, like Peter (2 Peter 3:15), must respect and love our brothers and sisters who hold alternative interpretations on issues that are not critical to our salvation or standing before God. We only request that those interpretations be expressed and practiced in love and consideration for all of God’s children, both men and women.

First Corinthians 11:3–12
The statement that “the man is the head of the woman” has for centuries been used to justify the practice of male superiority and to exclude women from spiritual leadership. Two alternative translations for kephale (“head”), debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars, are (1) “authority over” and (2) “source” or “origin.” Both meanings are found in literature of Paul’s time.

Taking the passage as a whole, the second meaning fits as well as or better than the first meaning, leading to the summary statement of verse 12: “As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” Even the relationship between the eternal Son and the Father— “the head of Christ is God” (11:3)—fits better as “source” than “authority over” (cf. John 8:42). Without attempting definitively to resolve this debate, we do not find sufficient evidence in kephale to deny leadership roles to women (in light of biblical examples of women in positions of spiritual authority, and in light of the whole counsel of Scripture).

First Corinthians 14:34–36 There are only two passages in the entire New Testament that might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12). Since these must be placed alongside Paul’s other statements and practices, they can hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women. Instead, they seem to be dealing with specific, local problems that needed correction. Therefore, Paul’s consistent affirmation of ministering women among his churches must be seen as his true perspective, rather than the apparent prohibitions of these two passages, themselves subject to conflicting interpretation.

There are various interpretations of what Paul was limiting when he said, “women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:34). Paul uses a word to limit the speech of women (sigato) that previously has been used to limit the speech of those speaking in tongues if there is no interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:28) and prophets if a prophecy is given to another person (v. 30). It is only under such specific circumstances that the speech of tongues speakers, prophets, and women are to be silenced in the church. Under what circumstances then, is the speech of women to be limited?

Options include (1) chatter in public services, (2) ecstatic disruptions, (3) certain authoritative ministries (such as judging prophecies), and (4) asking questions during the service. It is apparent that Paul permitted women both to pray and prophesy in public worship at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:5). Moreover, Paul advised that those who prophesy (evidently including women) should be among the ones to judge prophecies (1 Corinthians 14:29). Therefore, as with Paul’s constraints on both men and women tongues speakers and prophets, it may be that Paul’s additional constraints on women have to do with other forms of disruptive speech.

While the precise nature of Paul’s prohibition in this text is a matter of ongoing study, we do conclude that it does not prohibit female leadership, but like the rest of the chapter, it admonishes that “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:40).

First Timothy 2:11–15
The meaning and application of Paul’s statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:12), have puzzled interpreters and resulted in a variety of positions on the role of women in ministry and spiritual leadership.

From the above survey of passages on exemplary women in ministry, it is clear that Paul recognized the ministry of women. There were obvious problems in Ephesus, some relating to women. Some women were evidently given to immodest apparel and adornment (1 Timothy 2:9). The younger widows were “into the habit of being idle . . . And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13). In his second letter to Timothy, Paul warned against depraved persons (possibly including women) who manipulated “weak-willed,” or “gullible,” women (2 Timothy 3:6).

A reading of the entire passage of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 strongly suggests that Paul was giving Timothy advice about dealing with some heretical teachings and practices specifically involving women in the church at Ephesus. The heresy may have been so serious that he had to say about the Ephesian women, “I am not allowing women to teach or have authority over a man.” Other passages show that such exclusion was not normative in Paul’s ministry.

First Timothy 3:1–13
This entire passage has been held by some to confirm that all leaders and authorities in the Early Church were supposed to be males. The passage deals primarily with male leadership, most likely because of majority practice and expectations. But there is also significant support for female leadership.

Typical of modern English versions, the New International Version translates verse 11, “In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect”. The NIV translators arbitrarily decided that the verse refers to the wives of deacons (even though there is no reference in the preceding qualifications of elders to their wives).

However, the word translated “wives” is the plural of the Greek word gyne which can be translated as either “woman” or “wife” depending on the context. Recognizing this, the NIV translators did include the word “deaconesses” as an alternate reading in their footnotes. But the NASB and the NRSV render the plural form of gyne as “women.” Thus, literally, the verse is addressing the qualifications of women in spiritual leadership who, in this context, might easily be called “deacons.”

Although the first-century cultural milieu produced a primarily male church leadership, this passage along with other biblical evidence of female spiritual leadership (e.g., Acts 21:9; Romans 16:1–15; Philippians 4:2,3) demonstrates that female leadership was not prohibited, either for Paul’s day or for today. Passages that imply most leaders were male may not be taken to say that all leaders were male, since the biblical record speaks approvingly of numerous female leaders.

Galatians 3:28
Those who oppose allowing women to hold positions of spiritual leadership place contextual limitations on Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Some interpreters restrict the meaning of this triad to salvation by faith or oneness in Christ. That truth is certainly articulated throughout Scripture. Yet the verse carries a ring of universal application for all our relationships, not just an assurance that anyone can come to Christ. “Neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”—these are basic relationship principles to which faithful followers of Christ must give highest priority.

The God of the Bible “does not show favoritism” (Romans 2:11; cf. also 2 Samuel 14:14; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Acts 10:34; Ephesians 6:9). He calls whom He will and gives gifts and ministries as He chooses; humans must not put limitations on divine prerogatives. The strained relationship between Adam and Eve, including the statement that “he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16), comes as a result of the curse, making it clear that this was not a part of God’s original and durable design for humankind. In Christ we are truly set free from sin and its curse, which separate us from God and each other and cause us to elevate or demean according to race, social standing, or gender.

Therefore, We Conclude

After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.

We are aware that the ministry and leadership of women are not accepted by some individuals, both within and outside the Christian community. We condemn all prejudice and self-promotion, by men or women. The existence of bigotry against women in our world, and all too often in the church, cannot be denied. But there is no place for such an attitude in the body of Christ. We acknowledge that attitudes of secular society, based on long-standing practice and tradition, have influenced the application of biblical principles to local circumstances. We desire wisely to respect yet help redeem cultures that are at variance with Kingdom principles. Like Paul, we affirm that the Great Commission takes priority over every other consideration. We must reach men and women for Christ, no matter what their cultural or ethnic customs may be. The message of redemption has been carried to remote parts of the world through the ministry of dedicated, Spirit-filled men and women. A believer’s gifts and anointing should still today make a way for his or her ministry. The Pentecostal ministry is not a profession to which men or women merely aspire; it must always be a divine calling, confirmed by the Spirit with a special gifting.

The Assemblies of God has been blessed and must continue to be blessed by the ministry of God’s gifted and commissioned daughters. The Bible repeatedly affirms that God pours out His Spirit upon both men and women and thereby gifts both sexes for ministry in His Church. Therefore, we must continue to affirm the gifts of women in ministry and spiritual leadership.

Surely, the enormous challenge of the Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) requires the full deployment of all God’s Spirit-gifted ministers, both men and women.

Bible Translations and Versions Abbreviations
NIV New International Version
NASB The New American Standard Bible
ESV English Standard Version
RSV The Revised Standard Version
TNIV Today’s New International Version
NLT New Living Translation
NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NOTES

---

1 All biblical citations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New International Version (NIV).

TRANSGENDERISM, TRANSSEXUALITY, AND GENDER IDENTITY

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 5 & 7, 2017)

According to Scripture, when God created human beings, He created them “male and female” and blessed their marital union (Genesis 1:26–28; 2:20–25). Later authors of Scripture interpreted this twofold act of creation and blessing to entail moral norms such as the mutual cultivation of intimacy between husband and wife and the prohibition of sexual immorality and divorce (c.f., Matthew 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–12; 1 Corinthians 7:12–20; Hebrews 13:4). The prophet Moses, Jesus the Messiah, and the apostle Paul are united in common witness to the goodness of humanity’s biological complementarity and the moral norms that should govern male-female sexual behavior.

Recent decades have witnessed the steady erosion of biblical moral norms governing sexual behavior. As these norms regarding, among others, nonmarital sexual intercourse, homosexual activity, marital fidelity, procreation, and divorce have given way in the broader culture to more permissive understandings, new, more fundamental challenges have emerged to the very notion of biological complementarianism itself. This “transgender moment,” as it has been called—in which a person can select a gender identity at variance with their biological sex—requires a biblical and theological appraisal.

How, then, should the Assemblies of God respond to transgender persons?

In this position paper, we set out to answer that question by first understanding the experience of transgender persons in social-scientific terms. Then, we turn to a theological evaluation of the matter in light of what the Bible teaches about the sanctity of the body and about transgender behavior.  Finally, we offer guidelines for the church’s ministry to people who struggle with gender identity, a struggle that is difficult for the vast majority of persons—Christian or otherwise—to understand.

A Social-Scientific Analysis of Transgenderism

Gender Identity versus Sexual Identity. “Transgender” is represented by the “T” in the popular initialism LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, with the “+” standing in for any other designation).  While the demographics are difficult to come by, transgenderism may be the smallest group within the larger LGBTQIA community.  For comparison, homosexuality may represent 1–2 percent of the US population (with men outnumbering women), bisexuality 2–4 percent (with women outnumbering men), intersex 1–4 percent, asexuality 1 percent, and transgenderism at 0.6 percent based on a broad definition of the term (though some researchers have it even lower than 0.1 percent).¹

“Transgender” can refer to any individual whose gender identity (culturally defined as an internal sense of gender) differs in some way from their birth or biological sex.  The term “transsexual” is typically used for those who seek medical assistance to change their biological or birth sex.   A significant step in the modern conception of transgenderism was the separation of gender as a social construct from biological sex as a given at birth. To be born female no longer meant someone was limited as a woman according to the expectations of society. As this understanding developed, its fluidity offered significant explanatory power for the transgender experience of gender incongruence (experiencing an internal sense of gender that is at odds with one’s birth or biological sex).

Even though by definition transgenderism is not the same thing as homosexuality, there is enough overlap between the two that some regard transgenderism as homosexuality by another name.  For example, if a transgender individual is biologically male but perceives his identity to be female, and is sexually attracted to men, it would be considered a homosexual attraction for those who see the individual as male. On the other hand, that same person might count it as heterosexual because of the identification as female.  But what would be the determination if the transgender individual had undergone a sex reassignment surgery?  Our culture does not agree on the answer.

Regardless of their inclusion within the LGBTQIA+ initialism, shared political benefits, and the overlap between the transgender and gay communities, transgenderism remains culturally distinguishable from homosexuality, as the former deals with gender identity (identifying as male, female, or other) while the latter deals with sexual orientation (sexual attraction to the same sex).  While the overlap between the transgender and homosexual community is recognized, it is important to remember that those who identify as transgender are not necessarily homosexual.

Today “transgender” is typically used as the umbrella term for the myriad of ways in which individuals can experience and express incongruence between their birth sex and their gender identity. “Transgender” has been applied to individuals as varied as children struggling with their sense of gender, drag queens, and intersex individuals born with both male and female traits that do not allow easy identification (though for the reason that they were born without a clear birth sex, many intersex individuals will not accept the trans label).  Cross-gender behavior may also cover a variety of expressions ranging from secretly cross-dressing to undergoing sex reassignment surgery.  There is no one-size-fits-all explanation of transgenderism, nor a one-size-fits-all response to the pain experienced by transgender individuals.

Understood as a Medical Condition. A common assumption among some doctors is that there is a biological basis for transgenderism, but years of research and debate within the medical community regarding the cause of transgenderism have been inconclusive. Even if a biological basis for transgenderism could be proven, is that basis determinative or does it only provide a disposition for transgenderism that must also take environmental and cultural factors into account?  Some recent studies have questioned whether any biological basis can be found for gender as something other than birth sex.  Those studies do not suggest that those who experience gender incongruence with their birth sex have chosen that experience, but that factors that seem out of their control in regards to their sense of gender have a psychological and cultural cause along with, or rather than, a biological cause.

Today mental health professionals work to help individuals with their experience of gender incongruence rather than the gender incongruence itself.  The third edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) first defined “Gender Identity Disorder” as a mental disorder in which someone identified with a gender other than one’s birth sex.  By the fifth edition of the DSM (2013), “Gender Identity Disorder” was replaced with “Gender Dysphoria” to remove the stigma associated with the word “disorder.”  The diagnosis has shifted from gender incongruence as a mental disorder signified by behavior to the discomfort or dysphoria experienced by an individual due to their gender incongruence.  Under the new classification, not all people who would be identified as transgender would also be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, such as someone who no longer reported a sense of dysphoria after a sex reassignment surgery.  Considering that 41 percent of individuals who experience gender dysphoria will attempt suicide, this tendency in the mental health field to focus on distress is understandable.²

There are four possible outcomes for those seeking treatment for gender dysphoria: (1) gender dysphoria might remain unresolved, (2) it might be resolved in favor of birth sex, (3) it might be managed with intermittent cross-gender behavior (e.g., cross-dressing), or (4) it might be resolved by choosing to fully adopt their preferred gender over their birth sex (including medical options such sex reassignment surgery).
While some studies of transgender individuals have shown a short-term psychological benefit to sex reassignment surgery, other studies have also shown that the rates of suicide are still abnormally high among those who have fully transitioned.  Some blame the cause of continued psychological distress after surgery on the lack of full acceptance by society, but that theory alone may not account for the high number of suicides.  Treatment that emphasizes a resolution toward preferred gender could mask problems that resolution alone does not solve.  A few mental health professionals have questioned the morality of sex reassignment surgery, especially in light of the lack of hard evidence for a biological cause to transgenderism.  An invasive surgical response, involving the disposal of healthy organs, may not be the ethical solution to what may be a deep-rooted psychological condition. In that case, it may not solve the root problem in the long run.  Because of these concerns, some hospitals no longer permit sex reassignment surgeries.

In children diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the treatment options include a wait-and-see approach, encouraging the child to identify as their birth sex, or encouraging the child to identify in accordance with their gender incongruence.  This last option may even include providing hormone blockers to delay puberty so that children will have time to enter adolescence before they make the choice of how to resolve their gender incongruence.  This last treatment seems irresponsible considering the potential risks of sterility, the impact on bone mass and brain development, and that the majority of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria will not carry that diagnosis into adulthood.

Gender dysphoria does occur throughout the transgender community and brings with it some negative and dangerous behaviors, from body harming activities such as cutting to suicide.  To say that it is a psychological condition in need of treatment does not take away from the spiritual dimension of gender dysphoria specifically, or transgenderism in general.  This spiritual dimension also calls for help.  According to Dr. Mark Yarhouse, an evangelical psychologist, transgender individuals should not be seen as soldiers in a culture war, but rather as its victims.  The question that needs to be answered is how the church should respond to the issue of transgenderism and to transgender individuals in a way that is fully in line with God’s redemptive plan for all.

A Christian Response

In light of the body.  Beyond certain behaviors that can be interpreted as reflections of transgenderism, Scripture does not specifically address a contemporary understanding of gender as a socially constructed concept different from biological sex.  A Christian response to transgenderism is better established through a biblical theology of the body rather than by combing the Scriptures for applicable proof texts in light of specific behaviors.

At the heart of the transgender experience is gender incongruence, an internal sense of gender at odds with one’s birth sex.  A common way to deal with that incongruence is to show a preference for one’s internal sense of gender as representing one’s true self over against one’s body.  Some within the church have argued in support of a range of expressions of transgenderism by saying that one’s inner self, identified with the soul, should determine gender rather than the body.  In other words, if someone with male genitalia has an internal sense of being female, then he should be properly understood as she.  The body does not have the vote.

A biblical theology of the body, however, argues for the essentiality of the body in determining our identity.  The scriptural witness of the sanctity of the body remains regardless of the shifting cultural understanding of gender.  Scripture does not speak about transgenderism as it is understood today, but it still speaks to the transgender community and the church.  A biblical theology of the body can aid the church in developing a response to the issue of transgenderism that respects God’s intention for and redemption of human beings.

A biblical theology of the body necessarily involves three central Christian doctrines—the creation of humanity, the incarnation of Jesus, and the resurrection of believers.  Through these doctrines the scriptural witness about the human body can be fully appreciated.  These doctrines also serve as a background for understanding passages which apply more directly to behaviors related to transgenderism.

Genesis 1:26–31 is the record of God creating, blessing, and commanding humanity as male and female.   Humans are created in the “image of God” as male and female.  The “image of God” refers at least to the role of humanity over creation as representatives of the authority of God.  God’s blessing of humanity, like God’s other blessings throughout Genesis, pertains to continuance, which in this case, means procreation.  If humanity is meant to represent God over the earth, then human beings must fill the earth.  Hence, God’s first command to humanity is to be fruitful and multiply.  Creation as male and female makes human fruitfulness, and by extension the calling to act as God’s image, possible.

In all of this, the bodily aspect of maleness and femaleness is paramount.  To be female and male makes possible the ability to reproduce sexually.  Even after the fall of humanity, reproductive ability remains credited to God who created humans as male and female (Genesis 4:1), as does humanity’s ongoing status as creations in God’s image (Genesis 5:1–3; 9:6).  God’s creation of humanity as male and female is, at least, because God intends for humans to reproduce.

At most, God’s intention for humanity to be female and male may be related to human incompleteness apart from a sexually differentiated other.  Genesis 2:18–25describes the initial relationship between woman and man with God’s recognition that “it is not good for the man to be alone.” The “building” of woman from man leads man to recognize himself as male just as he recognizes her as female.  Until verse 23, the Hebrew for “man” is adam, related to the Hebrew word for ground, adamah.  “Man” is formed from the dust of the earth in Genesis 2:7 and is named in relationship to the ground.  After the creation of woman, ishshah, man is identified for the first time as “ish,” for woman, ishshah, came out of man, ish.  Man as male remains incomplete without his biologically sexual other, without whom neither she nor he could be known or know themselves as female and male.  As many theologians since at least Karl Barth have noted, God may intend humanity to be in His image as male and female together because it makes humans necessarily relational beings who, not finding completeness apart from each other, also realize their incompleteness apart from God.  Our gendered bodies serve as testimonies to our responsibility to live as God’s image and to our incompleteness in ourselves individually.

The biblical recognition of two distinct human sexes, female and male, from the creation of humanity as male and female in Genesis 1:26–27, is affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6. The Old Testament also narrates the role that sin plays in corrupting human nature, beginning in Genesis 3. The New Testament affirms this corruption of humanity even to the extent of affecting sexual desires (Romans 1:18–32).  There is not one aspect of being human or the human experience that is unaffected by fallen-ness, including, but not limited to, biology, reason, spirituality, self-identity, and the relations between all aspects of humanity. The relationship with the Creator and the rest of creation, including other human beings, is also affected by human fallen-ness. Salvation, found in Christ, includes a healing of the effects of fallen-ness so that no aspect of being human or the human experience should be unaffected by God’s redemption through the incarnate Lord.

The human body receives no greater honor than in the doctrine of the Incarnation.  That the Word of God would become flesh and dwell among humanity (John 1:14) shows that the human body as created by God can embody the presence of God.  Jesus was born, lived, and died a fully human life as God in the flesh, yet without sin.  His resurrection was a bodily resurrection as a human being, the firstfruits of all those whom God will raise (1 Corinthians 15:20–23).

Jesus lived with all the experience of a human body and all the differentiation a human body possesses in comparison with other human bodies.  Jesus grew to a certain height with specific features that made Him identifiable to all who knew Him.  He was born with an ancestry that marked Him as Jewish within Israel and the greater Roman world.  He had a sexual makeup that identified Him as male.  Even the scars on His body, which helped identify Him as the Risen Lord to His followers, remain part of His bodily life after the Resurrection.  Jesus experienced all the limitations of a human body, including sleep, hunger, sweat, and pain.  While not everything about the body of Jesus is described (His height, weight, complexion, hair color, eye color, etc.), what is described reveals Jesus as a fully embodied human with all that goes with a body, from a genetic heritage to daily hunger.

Jesus remained a fully embodied human being after His resurrection.  Jesus is the only concrete example of a final human resurrection.  If Jesus rose from the dead with a body that was identifiable, not only as human but as Jesus still bearing the scars of the Crucifixion, then all bodies will be redeemed in the resurrection and still be identifiable.  The body then will be continuous with the body now, though made different by the resurrecting power of God.

The full extent of the redemption of fallen humanity, and thus true human identity, is understood in light of the resurrection of the body.  The most significant teachings on the resurrection of the body in the New Testament come from the resurrection accounts of the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15.  Both sources highlight the continuity and discontinuity between human bodies before and after the resurrection, but embodiment itself is assured.  In Luke 24 and John 20, Jesus must prove that His resurrection is neither the resuscitation of a corpse nor the apparition of a spirit.  Jesus shows He is not an apparition by offering His body to be touched by the disciples and by eating in front of them; His scars prove that He is the same Jesus who was crucified (Luke 24:37–43, John 20:20–27).  Proof of His resurrection depends on His continued embodiment, which in turn becomes the guarantee of our physical resurrection.  Jesus is no less incarnate as the Risen Lord.
According to many commentators, Paul explains the doctrine of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 because some within the Corinthian church were denigrating the body to the point of denying the truth or necessity of the Resurrection.  He defends the teaching in light of the proven resurrection of Jesus (vv.1–11), which guarantees the future resurrection of humans (vv.12–34).  In the last half of the chapter, Paul describes the resurrection through comparison with the body’s present expression.  Resurrected bodies will be continuous with present bodies like a plant is continuous with the seed from which it springs. While the former bodies are perishable, weak, and “dusty,” the resurrected bodies will be imperishable, powerful, and “spiritual.” It is the “flesh and blood” of the current bodies that cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but God will grant glorified bodies that can.  The difference between the natural and glorified bodies is a difference of mortality, not a difference of embodiment.

The doctrine of the resurrection establishes the continuation of the human body as the intention of God in the salvation of humanity.  The God who created humans as whole beings (comprised of body and an immaterial nature) intends for life in the age to come to be as whole beings.  Redemption is not complete until bodies are raised to life.  While this does not mean that there is no experience of God between physical death and resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:6–8), it does mean that wholeness is not expressed without bodies.  The Bible presents human beings as whole unities, as bodies of dust initially enlivened by the breath of God (Genesis 2:7) who will one day become bodies of glory vitalized by the Spirit of God.  No account of heaven that makes the final resurrection anticlimactic can be considered a Christian view of the afterlife.

True human identity is what is being realized in relationship with Christ, body and an immaterial nature, which will culminate in the Resurrection.  No account of humanity that asserts the interior life as the true self over against the body is a biblical understanding of humanity.  The true self is a whole being, redeemed and restored through the work of Christ to a glorious resurrection that reflects God’s final intention for embodied humanity.  That resurrection involves the whole body, because gendered bodies were part of God’s good creation and not a result of the Fall, because humanness will not be less as redeemed than it was as fallen, and because the assumption from the Gospels’ accounts is that Jesus was still recognized as a whole being after His resurrection.

One biblical teaching of Jesus that may call this into question is found in Matthew 22:23–32 and Mark 12:18–27.  The Sadducees had challenged the belief in the resurrection by offering Jesus a case concerning one woman who, in accordance with the law of Moses, had married seven brothers in turn but outlived them all without producing children.  Their question as to whose wife she would be in the resurrection was intended to show the problems introduced by a literal resurrection for their belief in the eternal validity of the Law.  Jesus responded by challenging their knowledge of both the Law and the power of God.  He teaches that in the resurrection humans will be as the angels in neither marrying nor giving away someone in marriage (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25).  Some have taken this to mean that resurrected bodies will be like angelic bodies, with the assumption that if angels are not gendered, then neither will we be gendered in the resurrection.  However, Jesus is only saying that the institution of marriage will not exist after the resurrection any more than it exists among the angels.  The purpose served by marriage in this age will not be needed in the age to come.  This passage should not be taken to mean that the body will be lacking in the resurrection in comparison to the present body.

The promise of the resurrection serves as a focus for a developing identity in Christ, for completed humanity in Christ will be fulfilled at the resurrection of the body.  It is the resurrection even more than the doctrine of creation that highlights the sanctity of the body, as it is clear that God’s final intention for humans is existence as embodied beings.  This theology of the body as essential to our true self cannot be denied when dealing with gender incongruence no less than the pain of gender incongruence can be ignored when ministering to those who suffer from gender dysphoria.  The desire on the part of many who suffer gender incongruence to find resolution by changing their body is a sign of the importance of the body to human identity.

True sympathy must be extended to those in pain even if a solution that so completely prioritizes the interior over the exterior cannot be embraced because of belief in the sanctity of the body and the wholeness of human beings. This does not mean that those who struggle with gender incongruence are sinning, nor does it mean that attempts to resolve the incongruence against the body should be regarded as intentional rebellion against God rather than as a fight for survival.  A community in which 41 percent of its members attempt suicide is a community of people in pain.   While the Bible does not directly address transgender identity or a transgender lifestyle as such, it does recognize that individuals may make choices that are purposely at variance with their birth sex. No one has a full understanding of what causes gender incongruence, but certain behaviors which reflect a transgender identity are morally inappropriate in accordance with a Christian theology of the body.  This is not to say that there should be an entirely rigid and unreasonable standard for expressing a particular gender based on cultural stereotypes. Not all behaviors carry the same meaning regardless of culture or context.  However, the absence of any standards or boundaries, and the refusal to recognize our collective bodily human existence as male and female as the intentions of our Creator, leads to a confusion that negatively affects our culture as a whole.

In light of behavior. The most commonly cited verse on cross-gender behavior is Deuteronomy 22:5, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (NIV).  This verse is found in a section of Deuteronomy 22 which focuses on the respect for both human and animal life (verses 1–8).  Verses 9–11 remind people not to mix what should remain distinct while the last half of the chapter covers regulations for protecting the integrity of marriage and individuals wronged by others sexually. Read together, these laws are concerned with the protection of life both within nature and within marriage.  Life and sex go hand in hand, and protection of the former calls for protection of the latter.  If, as many commentators believe, Deuteronomy 12 through 26 should be understood as ordered in light of the Ten Commandments, then Deuteronomy 22 contains laws pertaining both to the sixth and seventh commandments, prohibiting murder and adultery.

The judgment on cross-dressing in verse 5 is that it is a “detestable thing” (toebah) or an abomination to God.  The Hebrew toebah is used throughout the Old Testament for ritual and ethical activities that God detests including idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:25) and sexual immorality (Leviticus 18:29), but also for other violations of proper order including unethical business practices (Deuteronomy 25:13–16) and troublemaking (Proverbs 6:16–19).  Cross-dressing in this verse has been interpreted to be a reference to homosexuality (cross-dressing understood as a kind of sexual role-play) or a reference to transvestite behavior found in the pagan worship of other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, as in the cult of Ishtar or Canaanite fertility cults.  It may be in that context that any behavior which dissolved distinctions between the sexes offered support for pagan versions of prostitution or goddess worship.  However, even if prostitution or goddess worship is no longer the context, the text does not support behavior which disrespects a biologically based gender.

When read within the context of both Genesis 1:26–27 and Deuteronomy 22 as a whole, this behavior is prohibited because it does not respect the sanctity of human bodies as male and female, for whatever reason those distinctions are dissolved.  It is not a prohibition against a culturally specific form of dress, but a prohibition against cross-dressing as cross-dressing, the intended dressing as the opposite sex as understood within that culture without respect for a biologically based gender.  Like other laws in Deuteronomy, this law is written in light of the practices of surrounding nations because Israel is called as a people set apart by God.  Witnessing to the good order of God’s creation represents a significant way that Israel can stand apart among the other nations.  Humanity survives and thrives as female and male.  Otherwise, humanity cannot fill the earth and thus fulfill God’s command to act as God’s image over all creation, which includes the care of all life, animal as well as human (Deuteronomy 22:1–8).  Israel is called to represent the order of creation (Deuteronomy 22:9–11).  Deuteronomy 22:5 must be read in light of the call for humanity to act as God’s image and for Israel to reflect God’s order to other nations.

A final verse in Deuteronomy that is sometimes referenced by critics of transgender behavior is Deuteronomy 23:1, “No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.”  Deuteronomy 23:1–8 deals with those who may not enter the assembly of Israel, either in the context of worship or the context of leadership.  Eunuchs were made such in the Ancient Near East for both religious reasons and certain forms of political service. That particular restriction is abolished by the time of Isaiah (Isaiah 56:2–5).   As the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 makes clear, eunuchs are acceptable to God through Jesus.  To apply the restriction of eunuchs from the assembly of God’s people in Deuteronomy 23 to transsexuals today, regardless of the weakness of that application, is meaningless in light of the lifting of that restriction in Isaiah 56 and the example from Acts 8.  Jesus himself declares one can become a eunuch for the sake of God’s kingdom in Matthew 19:12 (a reference to the abstention from marriage for the sake of service to God).

Another passage cited against transgender behavior is 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 where Paul lists a series of “wrongdoers” who will not enter the kingdom of God including malakos and arsenokoites.  While the latter term denotes a homosexual as one who lies with a man as with a woman, there is debate over the meaning of the first term, which can be translated “soft one.”  Most scholars believe it refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship, with arsenokoites referring to the active partner.  Some argue that malakos is a reference to effeminate men or men who in some significant way play the part of a woman.  Under this interpretation, transgender behaviors like cross-dressing are condemned by Paul.  As malakos comes between two words for sexual wrongdoers, it is safer to assume sinful sexual behavior is what Paul intends by this word rather than behaviors we might associate with transgenderism.

The latter half of 1 Corinthians 6 may be more instructive in regards to certain behaviors associated with transgenderism.  Paul rebukes members of the Corinthian church for visiting prostitutes.  Many commentators assume that their rationalization for this behavior was an overly spiritualized or dualistic understanding of Christianity whereby actions committed by the body did not matter in light of the importance of the soul.  Paul responds by highlighting the centrality of the body as part of our Christian identity.  The physical body is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, as that body will be resurrected by God.  If the body is a member of Christ, then it cannot become one flesh with a prostitute.  Paul stresses the sanctity of the physical body.  It was paid for by God, united with Christ, and is now a temple of the Holy Spirit.  The body is no longer one’s own to do with as one pleases.  Even though Paul’s command to glorify God with the body is in response to sexual immorality, the justification he gives for that command covers more than avoidance of sexual immorality.  If the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, belonging to God, which will be one day resurrected, it should not be rejected or devalued in the meantime.

Finally, 1 Corinthians 11:2–12 is sometimes cited with the assumption that cross-dressing is the problem Paul is seeking to address.  Paul commands women to pray with their heads covered while men should pray with their heads uncovered in respect to their gender in the context of worship.  One contested explanation of this passage has been that worship within the pagan temples of Corinth involved cross-dressing, and Paul is concerned to distinguish Christian worship from pagan worship by ensuring gender distinction is respected.  Regardless of the background, Paul clearly argues for the respect of gender distinction in worship.

Paul stresses the importance of woman and men respecting their nature in the course of their worship and ministry to the church, for men and women need one another (see again Genesis 2:18–24).  Differences of gender do not restrict women from praying or prophesying any more than men.  The call is to value each one’s gender so that the community will be complete by respecting the differences therein, but in communion with each other.  Dissolving those distinctions disrespects one sex as much as it does the other, and may disrespect the body overall.  The call is to glorify God with the body (1 Corinthians 6:20) and to respect their identities as male and female in the context of worship and Christian community (1 Corinthians 11:2–12).

A Practical Application of the Theology of the Body

How should the Assemblies of God respond to transgender persons?

The question should be reframed in terms of the Great Commission, which is to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Framed this way, the Church’s ministry to transgender persons is essentially the same as its ministry to all persons: evangelism that leads to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, symbolized by baptism, and discipleship that teaches converts to obey the commandments of Jesus Christ in ever-increasing measure.

This is not to deny that transgender persons present unique discipleship challenges. For example, how should children’s ministers respond—both to the child and to his or her parents—when a child in the church expresses gender dysphoria? If a transgender person (who has undergone surgery and hormone treatment to acquire the external appearance of a member of the opposite sex) comes to faith in Jesus Christ, what does repentance look like for him or her?

Given the theology of the body articulated in the preceding paragraphs, it should be clear that the Church’s ministry to transgender persons should help them experience increasing integrity between their birth sex and their gender identity. This is a long-term discipleship goal. However, it is not the only discipleship goal, nor even the first issue that needs to be addressed in the lives of transgender persons. The most fundamental issue in the lives of all persons, after all, is whether they are “in Christ,” to use the apostle Paul’s term. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17).   The practical question, then, is how to create an optimal environment for transgender persons to experience new life in Christ.

The first characteristic of such an environment is self-examination. Jesus’ famous saying regarding the speck and the plank (Matthew 7:3–5) is germane. Bible-believing churches rightly critique contemporary society’s warped understandings and immoral practices when it comes to sex. However, there is often a failure to address unloving attitudes toward people with views and practices that are different. Ministry to transgender persons—and LGBT persons more generally—acknowledges and repents of unloving words and deeds that have been spoken or done toward them.

Hospitality is the second characteristic. Social science indicates that transgender persons experience elevated levels of violence, rejection, loneliness, and suicidal thoughts. Contemporary political discourse—which treats transgenderism as a front in the culture war over sexual mores—exacerbates their feelings of alienation and unwelcomeness. A pastoral response to transgender persons cannot even begin if they experience an unloving, unwelcome environment in the local church. Hospitality, by contrast, welcomes people at the point at which they are met. The Pharisees and scribes said of Jesus, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them” (Luke 15:2). Shouldn’t the Church follow Jesus’ lead in this regard?

A third characteristic of an optimal environment is holism. The temptation pastors must face down is the reduction of transgender persons to their gender dysphoria and related behaviors, as if the adjective transgender exhausted the meaning of the noun person. Gender dysphoria is a discipleship issue to be sure, but so are lack of faith, prayerlessness, biblical illiteracy, theological error, the deeds of the flesh, etc. Pastors who neglect to address these issues are failing to help transgender persons develop a relationship with Jesus Christ, a biblical worldview, spiritual practices, and a gospel-centered narrative that will in turn help those persons address their gender dysphoria and related behaviors.
A final characteristic is patience. Gender dysphoria is shaped over a lifetime by complex causes. Experience teaches that feelings of incongruity between one’s birth sex and gender identity usually do not instantly disappear when a transgender person converts. Of course, the same is true for besetting sins, bad habits, and long-term struggles such as substance addiction. While there are genuine testimonies of instantaneous deliverance, these are rare. Discipleship usually consists of “a long obedience in the same direction,” as one writer has described it. And, as transgender persons undertake this long obedience, a pastoral response to them must be patient, encouraging, correcting, and forgiving of them all along the way. “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4).

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version of the Bible.

NOTES

---

1. Statistics on the population of LGBTQIA population in the United States and in the world are notoriously difficult to estimate. See Gary Gates, “How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender?” The Williams Institute, April 2011; “A Survey of LGBT Americans: Attitudes, Experiences and values in changing times” from the Pew Research Center, June 13, 2013; “Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2013,” National Health Statistic Report, June 14, 2014; “How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis,” American Journal of Human Biology 12:151–166; and “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United States?” The Williams Institute, June 2016.
2. See “Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults: Findings of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey,” The Williams Institute, January 2014.

WORSHIP in the BIBLE

POSITION PAPERS ARE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY ITS GENERAL PRESBYTERY.

This statement on worship in the Bible was approved as the official statement by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God on August 13, 2008.

---

Disagreement over worship styles is one of the most divisive issues in Christian congregations today. Those who grew up singing traditional hymns and gospel songs, more often the older members of the congregation, frequently find themselves perplexed and uncomfortable with the contemporary lyrics and rhythms preferred by their younger brothers and sisters in Christ. More often than not, younger believers who have grown up in an intense and varied media environment find it difficult to relate to music and hymnody that often seems to them to be archaic. Such differences in musical tastes are often generational, but not always. Some elders do prefer the contemporary; occasionally the young are in search of an “ancient-future” church with a venerable music tradition.

As congregations attempt to resolve these preferences by moving exclusively to one style or the other, or by blending both, conflict often erupts. The popular term “worship wars” is doubtless overdone, but the disruption in many congregations at times makes it seem apropos. All too often, congregations split over the issue, or significant numbers withdraw for association with a congregation with a worship style more to their liking. As a result, the body of Christ is often weakened and deflected from its mission.

The intent of this paper is not to develop a case for any particular worship style. Rather, it is an effort to set forth for all sincere worshippers what the Scriptures say about worship. How is worship defined biblically? And what are the implications for the health and stability of local congregations?

Terms for Worship

The English noun “worship” is well suited to convey the biblical understanding of reverence, honor, and praise to God. It derives from the combination of two Middle English and Anglo-Saxon terms meaning respectively “worthy” and “ship,” thus is often loosely rendered as “worth-ship.” Etymologically, its early meaning was expressed by such terms as “honor,” “repute,” “credit;” “dignity,” “importance,” “rank;” or “a person of standing or importance.” The second and now dominant meaning is “the reverence or veneration tendered a divine being or supernatural power,” or “an act, process, or instance of expressing such veneration by performing or taking part in religious exercises or ritual.”1

“Worship” is therefore a comprehensive English word that encompasses attitudes as well as various private and public, individual and corporate ritual practices. It is not restricted to any particular part of a religious gathering, e.g. prayers, singing, musical performances, preaching, and so forth. Nor is it restricted to religious gatherings.

Biblical theology, of course, must always be drawn, not from English, but from relevant Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words and concepts in the Old and New Testaments. In this case, the English word “worship” appears well-suited to describe the proper relationships of human beings to their Creator God as taught in Scripture. Nonetheless, the Christian understanding and practice of worship must first be shaped by study of the biblical text.

Old Testament Terms for “Worship”

While there are numerous Hebrew words for worship in the Old Testament, three are particularly significant.2

Hawâ. The most significant is the verb hawâ, which occurs 173 times and primarily means willingly “to bow down” to human beings, idols, or God. Describing a specifically religious act, the term occurs 110 times. For example, when Abraham rushed to meet his visitors in Genesis 18:2, he “bowed low to the ground.”3

With regard to pagan gods, Yahweh had commanded, “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” (Exodus 20:5). Nonetheless, disobedient Israelites as well as pagans worshipped idols. So, over one-half of the incidents of religious bowing down in the Old Testament are, in fact, to pagan deities. When King Amaziah of Judah defeated the Edomites, he confiscated their gods and promptly “set them up as his own gods, bowed down to them and burned sacrifices to them” (2 Chronicles 25:14).

Proper worship for the God of Israel is found in such admonitions as Psalm 29:2: “Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name; worship (hawâ) the Lord in the splendor of his holiness,” and Psalm 95:6, “Come, let us bow down (hawâ) in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.” True worship also includes praise. “Then David said to the whole assembly, ‘Praise the Lord your God.’ So, they all praised the Lord, the God oftheir fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate (hawâ) before the Lord and the king” (1 Chronicles 29:20).

Yare’. The verb yare’, found 317 times, may denote both terror toward humans or gods as well as awe and worship of the God of Israel. Thus Moses is commanded not to “be afraid (yare’)” of Og, king of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:2). However, Israel is to “fear (yare’) the Lord your God, [and] serve him only…” (Deuteronomy 6:13).

‘Abad. The verb ‘abad, found 290 times, means essentially “to serve” and is used in both public and religious life. The concepts of serving God and worshipping Him tend to overlap. Thus, in Exodus 3:12, “God said, ‘I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship (‘abad ) God on this mountain.’ ” And in Malachi. 3:18: “You will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve(‘abad) God and those who do not.”

Old Testament Terms for “Praise”

Words associated with “praise” are used about as often in the Old Testament as the words for “worship” above.

Barak. The verb barak is found 327 times and is usually translated “to bless.” It has to do with people blessing others, God blessing His people, and people blessing God. When people “bless” God in the Psalms, the NIV usually translates it “praise” as in Psalms 63:4: “I will praise (barak) you as long as I live, and in your name will I lift up my hands.”

Halal The verb halal is used 146 times, most often in the Psalms, and means “to praise, boast, [or] exult,” and usually refers to praise of God, often in conjunction with music and singing. “I will praise (halal) the Lord all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live” (Psalms 146:2; cf. 149:1; 150).

Yadâ. The verb yadâ, used 111 times, means “to praise, (give) thanks, [or] confess” as an acknowledgment of His person and work. The majority of references are found in the Psalms. For example, Psalms 106:1: “Praise (halal) the Lord. Give thanks (yadâ) to the Lord, for he is good; his love endures forever” (cf. Psalms 107:1; 136:1­3,26).

New Testament Terms for “Worship”

The Greek New Testament relies on one basic word for “worship” but there are several others used occasionally.

Proskyneo. Used 60 times, proskyneo is the key Greek verb for “to worship.” It means “to fall down and/or worship someone or something” and seems to have meant originally “to kiss” a deity (which would require falling down before or bending to the idol).4 Such worship is properly addressed only to God or Jesus. Thus, the man blind from birth, healed by Jesus, responded, “Lord, I believe,” and “he worshiped (proskyneo)him” (John 9:38).

To be sure, proskyneo is sometimes used to denote reverence paid to humans, idols, demons, or Satan. But when worship is thus solicited (Revelation 9:20; 13:4,8,12), it is a usurpation of that which belongs rightly to God.5

Latreuo. The verb latreuo is used 21 times to denote religiously oriented service, whether to God or idols. In Stephen’s sermon, God said of captive Israel: “Afterward they will come out of that country [Egypt] and worship (latreuo) me in this place [Sinai]” (Acts 7:7; see also Hebrews 9:14; 12:22-28). Later, because of disobedience, God “gave [Israel] over to the worship (latreuo) of the heavenly bodies (Acts 7:42).

Sebo. The verb sebo, also meaning “to worship,” is found 10 times in the NewTestament; it includes the ideas of reverence and awe. One example is Matthew 15:9: “They worship (sebo) me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” Paul’s observation in Romans 1:25 utilizes both the preceding terms: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped (sebo) and served (latreuo) created things rather than the Creator.”

Worship in the New Testament

In New Testament teaching, worship clearly is to be directed only to God, meaning the Triune God. When tempted by the evil one, Jesus emphatically declared the exclusivity of Christian worship, “ ‘Worship (proskyneo) the Lord your God, and serve (latreuo) him only’ ” (Matthew 4:10). Jesus is worshipped as God.

The nature of worship is perhaps best described in the words of Jesus as He addressed the wayward Samaritan woman: “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship (proskyneo) the Father in spirit and truth (en pneumati kai aletheia), for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit,and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth (en pneumati kai aletheia)” (John 4:23,24). Translators frequently have rendered “spirit” with a lower case “s,” as in NIV. This interpretation identifies “spirit” as the human spirit and thus calls human worshippers to sincerity and a right attitude.

However, John appears deliberately to have drawn together the term’s “spirit” and “truth” so as to mean, in effect, “Spirit of truth.” Exegetes assert that such an understanding better suits the grammar and immediate flow of thought, as well the larger context of John’s teaching on the Spirit (1:32f.; 3:5-8,34; 6:63; 7:39; 11:33; 13:21; 14:17,26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22; and the Paraclete, 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).6 Thus, Jesus is saying that believers can truly worship only with the help of the Spirit of truth who sanctifies and illuminates them by means of the truth of God’s Word—the truth about God and the truth about humans, their sin and salvation. “In true worship there is an encounter with God for which God must make man capable by His grace.”7

In view of the above, Paul’s comment seems particularly apt: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship (latreuo) by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh…” (Philippians 3:3).

It should be noted, however, that worship is often usurped by Satan as in the temptation of Jesus, “‘All this I will give you…if you will bow down and worship (proskyneo) me’” (Matthew 4:9). Speaking of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation, Paul wrote, “He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped (sebasma), so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Of this same time, John in the Revelation observed, “Men worshiped (proskyneo) the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped (proskyneo) the beast and asked, ‘Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?’ ” (13:4; cf. vv.8,12). Even after the Great Tribulation judgments of the seals and trumpets, surviving humans “did not stop worshiping (proskyneo)demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk” (Revelation 9:20).

Worship as Lifestyle

While the focus of this paper is on the nature of worship in the gathered Christian community, worship is to be much more pervasive. The Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke was fixated on places of worship. Jesus told her the time would come when neither the Samaritan holy place, Mount Gerizim, nor the Jewish temple in Jerusalem would be significant. What is important, He said, is that “true worshipers…worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:21,24), requiring neither buildings nor rites. Paul urged the Romans “to offer your bodies as living sacrifices (thysia), holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship (latreia; from the verb latreuo)” (Romans 12:1). Paul used the language of the tabernacle/temple sacrifices and services to communicate that worship of God is properly a constant, living reality in every dimension of the believer’s life. Worship must pervade a person’s heart in daily living before it can be properly expressed in public.

Music and Song in Worship

Music and musical instruments appear near the beginning of the biblical record. As early as Genesis 4:21, Jubal is mentioned as the “father of all who play the harp and flute.” The Old Testament mentions 16 or more musical instruments in both worship and non-worship settings. The New Testament mentions four (or five if the “gong “of 1 Corinthians 13:1 is included).

The Creator himself declared, “The morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy” at the dawn of creation (Job 38:7). David, “Israel’s singer of songs” (2 Samuel 23:1), said, “He [the Lord] put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God” (Psalms 40:3). And Isaiah prophesied, “You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12).

Organized music and choirs developed rapidly in David’s time, given his personal musical genius and his reverence toward the ark and the tabernacle/temple as God’s dwelling. David appointed Levites as “singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps, and cymbals” (1 Chronicles 15:16-22; cf. 2 Chronicles 29:25,26; 35:15). “Four thousand are to be gatekeepers and four thousand are to praise the Lord with the musical instruments I have provided for that purpose” (1 Chronicles 23:5; cf. 2 Chron. 5:12,13). In fact, the word “psalm” (psalmos, from psallo, originally “to pluck” or “to play”) itself implies use of musical instruments. Interrupted by the Exile, Israel’s musical tradition resumed following her return from captivity, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the completion of the second temple (cf. Nehemiah 7:1; 12:27).

Though there is little information in the Gospels and Acts, Jesus, the Apostles, and the believers of the Early Church would have been the beneficiaries of the musical ministries of the organized choirs and musicians of the temple. While the New Testament says nothing about musical instruments per se in the early Christian house churches, music and song were a part of Spirit-filled worship (Acts 16:25; 1 Corinthians 14:14,15,26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Apparently, there was a variety of styles and content in the congregational singing, though there is no evidence of church choirs or special numbers. The convictions of certain denominations against musical instruments notwithstanding, the New Testament does not prohibit any kind of musical instrument.

In fact, Revelation depicts repeated scenes of heavenly worship featuring musical instruments and songs, as well as verbal celebration of the glory and power of God. The worshipping throng of Revelation 5, some with harp in hand, climaxed their songs to God and the Lamb with “praise and honor and glory and power, forever and ever!” (Revelation 5:13). The 144,000 sang to the Lamb “a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders” (Revelation 14:3). Those who overcame the beast “held harps given them by God and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: ‘Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty’” (Revelation 15:3). The vision of the Lord descending in power and glory is also prefaced by shouts of worship and praise (Revelation 19:1-8). The final word of the angel in that setting is, “Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10).

While particular aptitude in the music arts is not specifically mentioned among the spiritual gift lists of the New Testament (cf. Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:8­10,28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Peter 4:10,11), remember that these lists are probably ad hoc and noncomprehensive. Just as God by His Spirit specifically gifted Bezalel and Oholiab for the artistry of the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 35:30-35)—another gifting not mentioned in the New Testament—it seems evident that He gifted David (2 Samuel 23:1; Psalms 40:3) for music and psalms and continues similarly to gift yielded believers.

Places and Buildings in Worship

Certain places and buildings, often appointed by God himself, have been utilized in worship by God’s people through the centuries. Abraham built altars and called upon the name of God as he journeyed through Canaan (Genesis 12:8; 26:25). God revealed himself to Jacob at Bethel whereupon Jacob set up and anointed a pillar of stone (Genesis 28:10-22). Jacob later returned to Bethel and built an altar there (Genesis 35:1). Upon meeting Moses at Sinai, God gave him a sign that, when the Israelites came out of Egypt, they would “worship God on this mountain” (Exodus 3:12). God had a particular place chosen in advance where He would enter into covenant with His chosen people.

God himself gave Moses the plan for the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 39:42). The Israelites supplied the materials by means of a free-will offering (Exodus 35:1-29). God gifted Bezalel and Oholiab by His Spirit in order to accomplish the construction (Exodus 35:30-35). And when the tabernacle was completed and dedicated, God honored the efforts of Moses and the people by descending upon it in glory (Exodus 40:34). The tabernacle complex was strategically located in the midst of the people symbolizing God’s dwelling with them, yet carefully safeguarded to signify His holiness (Numbers 3:38).

While the first temple in Jerusalem was constructed under the leadership of Solomon, the complex was designed by David who said “the Spirit had put in his mind [the plans] for the courts of the temple of the Lord and all the surrounding rooms” (1 Chronicles 28:12). The basic interior design of the temple remained that which God had revealed to Moses for the original tabernacle.

Worship centered in the tabernacle and temple utilized furnishings and vessels of God’s design, including the ark of the covenant, the table for bread, the lamp stand, the altar of incense, the laver for washings, and the altar of burnt offerings (Exodus 37-40). Even the utensils for the sacrifices and other rituals of the tabernacle were determined by the Lord and especially dedicated to His service. Belshazzar’s irreverent use of these confiscated temple vessels in dissipated, idolatrous revelry was the immediate occasion of God’s announcement of doom for the Babylonian empire (Daniel 5).

The extensive sacrificial rituals of tabernacle and temple were instituted by the Lord himself as the Book of Leviticus asserts in great detail. Through physical accouterments and observable rites, God visually instructed His people as to the reality and seriousness of their sins and the means of their atonement. As the Book of Hebrews reminds us, the blood sacrifices and other practices foreshadowed the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When worship becomes corrupted, however, God is not permanently bound to places and furnishings He may have previously blessed, not even the Jerusalem temple and its furnishings. The departure of the glory of God from the temple and Jerusalem (Ezekiel 10), only to return at the time of eschatological cleansing and restoration (Ezekiel 43:1-5), is a vivid picture of divine rejection of corrupt religious institutions.

Early Christians gathered first in the temple which was beautifully restored by Herod the Great. They appear also to have utilized their local synagogues. But they also began immediately to use alternate locations in various houses (Acts 2:46; 5:42; Luke 24:53). The Upper Room (Acts 1:13), perhaps the same room as that of the Last Supper—which may well have been John Mark’s mother’s house (Acts 12:12)—was one such place. Aquila and Priscilla had churches in their homes at Ephesus and Rome (1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:5), and probably in Corinth as well, as did Titius Justus (Acts 18:7). Nympha had a church in her home in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15); Philemon had a church in his home in Colossae (Philippians 2). Lydia appears to have had a church in her home in Philippi (Acts 16:15,40). Doubtless these home churches were multiplied many times over.

The temple of Jesus’ day was no more sacrosanct than Solomon’s temple that had been destroyed at the time of the exile. Jesus proclaimed himself greater than the temple (Matthew 12:5,6), seems to have cleansed it at both the beginning and end of His ministry (John 2:12-22; Mark 11:15-28; par. Matthew 21:12-16; Luke 19:45-47), and predicted its impending destruction because of Israel’s rejection (Matthew 24:1,2; cf.23:37,38). Jesus, in His own person and redemptive ministry, displaced the temple and made it obsolete (Acts 7:48; Hebrews 9:23-26; 8:1,2).

Rituals in Worship

Human beings have always used certain objects and rituals, or ceremonies, to facilitate their worship. Historic churches often use the word “liturgy” for these worship practices. Liturgy comes from the Greek word group leitourgeo/leitourgia having to do with public, and often religious, service (Acts 13:2). A good definition is “prescribed forms of ritual for public worship in any of various Christian churches.” While most often used of high church rites, the term “liturgy” may be applied to any religious ritual, simple or highly stylized, high church or low.

Cain and Abel settled on certain ways to present their respective offerings to God; one accepted and the other not (Genesis 4:2-5). Abraham’s particular approaches to God were found acceptable as were those of Isaac and Jacob. The tabernacle utilized developed rituals ordered by God himself that became even more extensive in the first and second temples.

The early Christian congregations had their own rituals. “Beyond doubt there were certain fixed elements in the worship of the Pauline congregation. But generally, ‘the liturgy in the first congregations is something extraordinarily alive, and liturgical formulae show no sign of being paralyzed (sic). All members take part in the liturgy.’ ”8 However, those liturgies, or rituals, that may be observed in the New Testament, such as teachings on water baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are relatively simple (yet profound), transportable and easily adaptable within different cultures. They set forth the essential truths of the gospel but without intent to prescribe any one perfect ritual to celebrate the various events memorialized by the Christian calendar. It is faithful and regular re­presentation of the gospel in community worship that is important. Paul’s correction of the Corinthian disrespect for the Lord’s Supper is an instructive model for healthy ritual practice (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).

Unacceptable Worship

Much of the worship recorded in the Bible is either worship of idols or a misguided effort to worship God on human terms. Samuel’s warning to the young and disobedient King Saul stresses the need for preparation of one’s heart. “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). The free-thinking preacher of Ecclesiastes warned, “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong” (Ecclesiastes 5:1).

The prophet Isaiah decried the empty and hypocritical worship of his day. “The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong…” (Isaiah 1:11-16).

The invasive human carnality that so often eroded the worship of the Old Testament community occasionally spilled over into the New as well. Ananias and Sapphira “lied to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:1-11). Simon’s greed and lust for power brought a stern rebuke of potentially dire consequences (Acts 8:20). The Corinthians had to cope with divisiveness and party spirit (1 Corinthians 1:10-12), jealousy and quarreling (chapter 5), tolerance of gross immorality (chapter 5), as well as pride, gluttony, drunkenness, and abuse of the poor in the observance of the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34).David’s cry for purity of heart in worship has a New Testament ring to it: “Who may ascend the hill of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false” (Psalms 24:3,4).

Pentecostal Dimensions of Worship

Many worship practices in the New Testament are decidedly Pentecostal. Paul’s oft-cited reminder to the Philippians is foundational: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship (latreuo) by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.” (3:3). “What is most noteworthy in all the available evidence is the free spontaneous nature of worship in the Pauline churches, apparently orchestrated by the Spirit himself.”9

Acts shows that, from time to time, the Spirit dramatically came upon worshippers (2:4; 4:31; 10:44) with frequent and observable Spirit baptisms accompanied by speaking with other tongues (directly stated or implied) in many settings (2:4; 8:17; 10:44; 19:6). Prophetic messages were common, often supernaturally imparting information and wisdom (11:28; 13:1,2; 20:23; 21:9,10). Signs, wonders, and miracles were by no means confined to worship gatherings but sometimes did happen in these settings (5:1-11; 20:7-12).

The New Testament letters provide insights into the Pentecostal nature of early worship. In perhaps his earliest letter, Paul admonished, “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21).

Paul directed believers to “be filled with the Spirit.” Being filled, they were to “speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (odais pneumatikais). Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:18,19). Paul also directed similar language to the Colossians: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (odais pneumatikais) with gratitude in your hearts to God” (3:16). Scholars have found it difficult to precisely distinguish between psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Some think all three are charismatic hymnody.10 At very least, the odais pneumatikaiswould seem to be something like “singing in the Spirit” (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:15).11 Pneumatikais (“spiritual”) here certainly implies a special work of the Holy Spirit as in “spiritual gifts [charisma…pneumatikon]” (Romans 1:11). Significantly, the only places where the word song (ode) appears, other than the two passages above, is in Revelation where the redeemed are singing in heaven (Revelation 5:9; 14:3; 15:3).

What is often unappreciated is the fact that “the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are part of believers’ addressing of one another in the assembly, serving as a means of edification, instruction, and exhortation” (cf. also Colossians 3:16, “teaching and admonishing one another”).12

Confronted with the undisciplined exercise of spiritual gifts in Corinth, Paul devoted 1 Corinthians 14 to their exercise and direction. He asserted the value of devotional tongues in private worship (14:2,4,5), and of interpreted tongues in public worship (14:26-28). Prophecies, being readily understood by all, were to be especially valued and prioritized (14:1,3,5,24,25,29-31), a point often missed in contemporary practice where the priority is more often on tongues and interpretation. Paul provided sensible guidelines for the frequency and testing of both prophecies and “messages” in tongues (14:27-31). He also encouraged broad participation on the part of the congregation in the exercise of a wide range of gifts: “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (14:1,5,12,13,26,31). All was to be done in the interest of building up the church (14:5,11,26).

Evidence of Pentecostal worship activity is within other New Testament books. The writer to the Hebrew said of the Lord’s salvation: “God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Hebrews 2:4). The verb expressing God’s testimony is synepimartyreo, “to testify at the same time,” and is a present active participle indicating that God is still testifying to His great salvation in Christ. “The present participle … implies that the corroborative evidence was not confined to the initial act of preaching, but continued to be displayed within the life of the community.”13 Moreover, “The bestowal of the charismatic gifts (merismos) of the Holy Spirit also served to attest the message proclaimed. It is presumably the perpetuation of the charisma in the life of the community (cf. 6:4,5) that provides indisputable evidence of God’s seal upon the word received by the congregation.”14

The apostle Peter mentioned the Pentecostal dimensions of worship as well. In addressing the use of spiritual gifts—note his use of charisma—he directed, “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God” (1 Peter 4:11).

Elements of Early Worship Services

From New Testament evidence, it seems likely that early believers integrated many of the practices of the synagogue into their worship. The major elements of the synagogue service and their order are well attested: the Shema [recitation of Deuteronomy 6:4], prayers, Scripture readings, a benediction, and a sermon.15 Indeed, for a time, Jewish believers and believing proselytes continued to worship in the synagogue before being excommunicated, or leaving for more commodious settings. New Testament study readily yields at least the following elements of early Christian services:

The Word of God. The reading of the Scriptures was the basic element of synagogue worship services (see Nehemiah 8:8,18; 13:1; Luke 4:16; Acts 13:27; 15:21).This practice was also adopted by the New Testament churches in their worship services. Paul’s missionary practice at Thessalonica illustrates: “As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2,3).His two years of exposition in Ephesus succeeded in reaching “all the Jews and Greeks…in the province of Asia [with] the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10). Paul instructed that his letter/s should “be read to all the brothers” (1 Thessalonians 5:27; cf.Colossians 4:16) and encouraged Timothy to devote himself “to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13).

Preaching and Teaching. Not only read, the Word of God was regularly preached and taught. The core of the early preaching (kerygma) was the story of Jesus and the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies through His incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection. The preaching of the cross was central (1 Corinthians 2:2). While we cannot easily separate teaching from preaching, the sermons in Acts and the content of the New Testament letters show us that early teaching (didaskalia) dealt at length with doctrine, including extensive ethical instruction.

Calls for Decision. There is no certain form of altar call in the New Testament, but there are many calls for decision that must not be overlooked. Peter followed his prophetic sermon on the Day of Pentecost with, “Repent…be baptized…And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Stephen called his hearers to account (Acts 7:51-53). The missionary preaching of Paul and Barnabas confronted hearers with the necessity of decision (Acts 13:38-41). The New Testament letters are filled with W. Bromiley, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). imperative calls for belief and behavioral change. Even the observance of the Lord’s Supper came with a call for self-examination prior to participation (1 Corinthians 11:27­32).

Spirit Baptism. So important is baptism in the Holy Spirit that the Baptist’s prophecy of Jesus as the coming Baptizer is included in all four Gospels and repeated by Jesus (Acts 1:5). Early Spirit baptisms were observable, powerful, life-changing events, initially evidenced by the sign of speaking with other tongues. Neither rationalistic reductionism nor sensational emotionalism replicates the vitality and power of the Spirit’s work in the Early Church. Peter set the tone, “Repent…be baptized…you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). All through Acts and the New Testament letters, a dynamic initial and continuing fullness of the Spirit is regularly taught and assumed.

Early Creeds and Confessions. Many particularly concise and rhythmic passages in the New Testament appear to be creedal statements regularly used for instruction and worship in the early churches. One of the best known is Philippians 2:6­11, which begins, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” Other passages often included are: Luke 1:46-55; John 1:1-18; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-5; Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:15-20; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18-22; Revelation 4:8, and Revelation 5:12.16

Hymnody. Some of the above passages, along with psalms, other hymns composed by believers, and “singing in the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 14:15), seem to have been included in the singing of early Christians. Jesus and His disciples sang hymns (Mark 14:26, par. Matthew 26:30), as did Paul and Silas while in the stocks at the Philippian jail (Acts 16:25). Paul wrote to his churches in the province of Asia that Spirit-filled people could be expected to communicate with and edify themselves and others through “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; cf. Romans 15:9). Some of this hymnody apparently was composed in advance while much was spontaneous and glossolalic.

Prayer. There are nearly 175 references to pray/er/s in the New Testament. One observes the Christian community gathered in prayer under many circumstances in Acts: in the Upper Room (1:14); at the gatherings of new believers after Pentecost (2:42); in the temple (3:1); under threat of persecution (4:24); by the apostolic leadership (6:4); in seeking and ordaining leaders (6:6); for baptism in the Spirit (8:15); for healing (9:40); and in a host of other circumstances. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to “be joyful always; pray continually…” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). In Ephesians, he admonished, “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests”(Ephesians 6:18). Fasting was sometimes a part of their times of prayer (Acts 13:2). “Whether set prayers were ever said in the Pauline churches cannot be known; in any case, spontaneous prayer by the Spirit is the norm.”17

Spiritual Gifts. Paul’s extensive instructions to the Corinthians about spiritual gifts and their proper role in congregational life make it clear that these gifts were a regular part of early worship gatherings (1 Corinthians 12-14). He was concerned to nurture spiritual gifts in the well-established congregation in Rome (Romans 1:11) and had already instructed the Thessalonians they must not “treat prophecies with contempt” (1 Thessalonians 5:20). The writer to the Hebrews reminded his readers of the vital role spiritual gifts played in their history (Hebrews 2:4). Peter reminded his readers that when they spoke via a spiritual gift, they were doing so “as one speaking the very words of God (logia theou)” (1 Peter 4:10,11). The Acts, of course, frequently show spiritual gifts at work in many different congregational and no congregational settings.

Healing. James wrote in his letter that, when believers fell ill, they were to “call the elders of the church to pray over [them] and anoint [them] with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). The gifts of healings (the literal rendering of 1 Corinthians 12:9) may be included among the spiritual gifts above and were often evident through the narratives of Acts. But it also seems the church regularly prayed for the healing of its members, whether assured of the manifestation of a spiritual gift or not. Though greatly used by God in miracles of healings, Paul noted on one occasion he had left “Trophimus sick in Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20).

Offerings. The Early Church brought money regularly to the leaders, probably in the course of their scheduled meetings, to ensure the needs of the community were met (Acts 4:34-37; 5:1,2). The church in Antioch gathered a gift, presumably monetary, to send to their Jerusalem brothers and sisters in a time of famine (Acts 11:29,30). Paul, himself often the recipient of gifts from his churches (Philippians 4:18), instructed the Corinthians, “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made” (1 Corinthians 16:2).

The Lord’s Supper. While there are no commands in the New Testament as to how often the Lord’s Supper is to be observed, it was certainly a regular and important part of early worship (cf. Mark 14:22-25; parallels, Matthew 26:17-30; Luke 22:7-23; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Early believers “broke bread in their homes and ate together…” (Acts 2:46), the Supper apparently included in some if not all those meetings. Paul’s correctives in 1 Corinthians 11 show that the Lord’s Supper was a regular part of early worship and was often included in a community meal, the Agape (Love) Feast. Paul’s words of institution in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 represent the earliest written record and explication of the Supper available to us. Paul, followed shortly thereafter by Luke, records the command, “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24,25; cf. Luke 22:19). Paul explained the meaning of the bread and the cup with reference to the Lord’s body and blood (11:24,25) and taught that it was an open proclamation of “the Lord’s death until he comes” (11:26). He called for regular and reverent participation by all believers, after careful self-examination (11:27-32).

Toward a Definition of Worship

Biblical worship has many facets, not all of which can be captured in a brief definition. However, the summation from David Peterson’s study on worship well expresses the findings of this paper.

Throughout the Bible, acceptable worship means approaching or engaging with God on the terms that He proposes and in the manner that He makes possible. It involves honoring (sic), serving and respecting Him, abandoning any loyalty or devotion that hinders an exclusive relationship with Him. Although some of Scripture’s terms for worship may refer to specific gestures of homage, rituals or priestly ministrations, worship is more fundamentally faith expressing itself in obedience and adoration. Consequently, in both Testaments it is often shown to be a personal and moral fellowship with God relevant to every sphere of life [italics ours].18

And, capturing the essential dynamic of the Spirit in worship, Peterson adds, “Fundamentally, then, worship in the New Testament means believing the gospel and responding with one’s whole life and being to the person and work of God’s Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.”19

Guidance for Contemporary Practice

A number of important inferences and imperatives for the guidance of the church may be drawn from this study. The following are by no means exhaustive:

1. True worship focuses on the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as His people praise and glorify Him. Worship is first of all about recognizing God for who He is and what He does. Only secondarily, is it about the worshippers.
   2. True worship of God brings a dynamic engagement with the Holy Spirit resulting in the edification of the individual believer and the church as a whole.
   3. True worship is a matter of the heart as individual believers develop a lifestyle that confesses and honors God in word and deed everywhere, they go.
   4. True worship dynamically connects believers through the Spirit to each other and to God’s mission to redeem all humankind.
   5. Careful attention should be given to the role of, and openness to, the Spirit in all aspects of worship: prayers, music and singing, giving, preaching and teaching, calls for decision, ministry in spiritual gifts, and so forth.
   6. Worship planning ought to give attention to the nature and role of the spontaneous spiritual gifts. Careful biblical instruction and loving, sensitive, yet firm guidance with clear explanations to the congregation are needed. Growth strategies that effectively negate the role of particular spiritual gifts in the worship and missional life of the church would appear to be at odds with the essential Spirit dynamic of Christian faith.
   7. Worship includes every part of the service from the invocation to the benediction. The joyous praises of music and song are powerful gifts to facilitate the worship of God’s people as the Psalms demonstrate. They are not, however, to be considered “the worship” to the exclusion of other parts of the service. Moreover, the music and singing, and other events prior to the preaching, are not “preliminaries.” Every element ought to bring praise and glory to God.
   8. While a particular individual who leads the music and singing may be designated the “worship leader,” the title may be misleading. A better title may be “minister of music,” or something similar. Every person who participates in the public leadership of the various parts of the service is, strictly speaking, a worship leader.
   9. Since every part of the worship service is to be focused on giving glory to God and presenting His Word for the edification of the church, the entire service ought to be planned and integrated, allowing space in theory and experience for spontaneous work of the Spirit.
   10. Similarly, in the interest of diligent instruction in the Word of God, worship planning should be long range and comprehensive so every element is edifying and the major seasons and doctrines of the Christian church are celebrated and explicated in the lives of believers.
   11. While the Early Church had powerful preachers such as Paul who, on occasion,held congregations spellbound (Acts 20:7), broad congregational participation by means of spiritual gifts, prayers, songs, giving, and so forth appears to have been the rule.
   12. Christian worship merits the best possible technical skills rendered by Spirit-gifted and Spirit-empowered people to glorify God. But the quest for excellence must also be rooted in prayerful humility and dependence upon the Spirit whose purpose it is to energize and lead the entire body in worship.
   13. Worship leaders will of necessity be sensitive to the worship forms and musical preferences of those they are presently serving. But they must also prayerfully consider the tastes of those they are attempting to reach. No one standard hymnody, whether traditional, contemporary, or blended, has a divine mandate to reach all persons at all times in all places. Spirit-led worship will be creative in mission, yet respectful of the imperative to “keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3).

In all things, to God be the glory.

NOTES

---

1 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Philip Babcock Gove, ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 2002).
2 For simplicity and consistency, the following Hebrew and Greek terms, their roots, transliterations, definitions, and statistics largely are drawn from the articles “Praise” and “Worship” in Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, William D. Mounce, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006).
3 Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New International Version (NIV).
4 Proskyneo, In the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, Colin Brown, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 876.
5 Ibid., 877.
6 See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii); The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1966), 180; also C. Brown, New International Dictionary, 2:878.
7 C. Brown, Ibid. The quotation is from R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, I (New York: Herder & Herder, 1968), 437.
8 Anthony D. Palma, The Holy Spirit in the Corporate Life of the Pauline Congregation, Th.D. dissertation, Concordia Seminary (1974), 82, citing Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance (London: SCM, 1953), 25.
9 Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 884.
10 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 238­239.
11 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 158-159, 380-381.
12 Andrew T. Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary, Ephesians, Vol. 42 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 345.
13 William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews 1-8, Vol. 47a (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 39.
14 Ibid., 40.
15 “Synagogue,” In The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, rev. ed., Geoffrey
16 For the listing and examination of these passages, see W. J. Porter, “Creeds and Hymns,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans, Stanley E. Porter ( Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 231-238.
17 Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 866.
18 David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 283.
19 Ibid., 286.