The Samaritan and the EIGO EMI

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

 

“The Samaritan and the I AM”

DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION

BY

NATHANAEL HOWARD

 LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

04 JULY 2010

            John records seven metaphorical “I AM” sayings of Jesus. “An eighth claim Christ makes is an even greater statement about Himself. Jesus simply says, “I AM.” […]. This is a statement of identification with Old Testament deity. Christ is implying, “I am … I am,” the self-existent One. He is claiming to be their God” (Towns 2002). Jesus makes seven of these identification “I AM” statements. They can be found in John 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:13, 19; 18:5-6, 8. This paper will deal specifically with John 4:26, how this “I AM” shows the deity of Christ, and how the “I AM” is linked to the Old Testament revelation of God.

            In John chapter 1, we read of the introduction of Jesus, both as God and as man. In John 2, we read of the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. John 3 holds the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, who is considered a ruler among the Jews. John 4:1-42 introduces us to a discourse that will change not only a woman at a well, but will move an entire town to a saving knowledge of Christ, as well as the first “I AM” statement recorded by John.

            In John 4:1-3, Jesus departs from Judea and heads toward Galilee. “The necessity for Jesus to pass through Samaria was not absolute. Strict Jews, like the Pharisees, disliked the Samaritans so intensely that they avoided their territory as much as possible. Their route from Jerusalem to Galilee lay through the region beyond the Jordan [River]. This was considerably longer, but it avoided contact with the Samaritans. Those who were not so strict went through Samaria” (Morris 1977). Yet, this same Samaria, normally avoided by devout Jews, is exactly where Jesus will pass through- not because of time, but because of spiritual guidance.

            In John 4:4, we read the statement, “And he must needs go through Samaria.” The Greek for the phrase, “must needs” (die,rcesqai dia.) speaks of a special bidding or guiding.  “Actually the geography of the country did not require that Jesus had to go through Samaria in order to get to Galilee from Judea. The verb ‘had to’ translates the same verb that appears in John 3:14, 30, where it denotes a divine necessity. The intimation is that it was God’s will or purpose that Jesus should pass through Samaria” (Newman 1980). Furthermore, this mission will demonstrate to the disciples (and those Christians to come after) that the message of the gospel is not just for Jews such as Nicodemus, but also for the world- the despised, the outcast, and the looked-down-upon, to those who people avoid- for they too are included in God’s call.

            John 4:5-8 record the specific location and the details of who is involved. The time is about noon, or “the sixth hour” according to verse 5[1]. Jesus is wearied from his travels and sits at Jacob’s well, which is near the town of Sychar in Samaria (vs. 5-6). He is alone since the disciples went into Sychar to buy meat [food]. At about this time, a woman of the village comes up to draw water. She is not named and is considered by some to be an outcast since she is alone and it is roughly noontime when she goes to draw water. Jesus then does the unthinkable- He speaks to the Samaritan woman. “Jewish men did not talk to Samaritan women. […]. Jesus chose not to engage in an ethnic-oriented debate with the woman but rather turned the focus to the ‘gift of God’ (4:10). While some commentators interpret this gift as the living water, it is more probable that the gift is Jesus Himself, the Messiah, given by God (John 3:16)” (Towns 2002, 39).

            This mention of “living water” draws out the woman’s interest who finally asks to receive this water (vs. 11-14). Jesus, however, knows her heart is asking for the water so that she may never thirst again physically. “Hence, she yearns for the water which not only quenches but prevents thirst. […]. There is, however, a close connection between the woman’s request and Christ’s command. Does the woman desire living water? Then there must be a thirst for this water. This thirst will not be truly awakened unless there be a sense of guilt, a consciousness of sin. The mention of her husband is the best means of reminding this woman of her immoral life. The Lord is now addressing himself to her conscience” (Hendriksen 1972).

            Jesus is now applying his omniscience concerning this woman. The woman initially replies that she has no husband and Jesus quickly rebuttals the argument be stating that she is correct, but that she has had five husbands, and the man she is living with is not her husband (vs. 17). The woman then realizes that she is not talking to a normal Jewish male, but someone with some sort of special gift (specifically prophecy in vs. 19). “The Samaritans acknowledged no prophet after Moses other than the one spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:18, and him they regarded as the Messiah. For her to speak of Jesus as a prophet was thus to move into the area of messianic speculation” (Morris 1977, 266).

            This allows Jesus to move into the spiritual beliefs of the Samaritans, such as places of holy worship (vs. 20), a change of worship (vs. 21), and knowledge of worship (vs. 22) are discussed. Throughout this discourse, He is allowing her to make the cognitive realization that the prophecy of the Messiah may have come at last. This is the point of her statement in verse 25, “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” Jesus then makes the declarative statement, “I that speak unto thee am he” (vs. 26). Literally, “ .Egw, ei.mi, o` lalw/n soi” (Barbara Aland 2001), which translates, “I AM, I who am talking to you.”[2]

            This powerful statement is two-fold. First, Christ is identifying Himself as the Messiah, and second Christ uses the “I AM” in declaring His deity and oneness with the God of the Old Testament. “In later Judaism, the expression ‘I AM’ is definitely used as a name for God. Thus in those passages in John’s Gospel where Jesus uses the ‘I AM’ in an absolute sense, he is identifying himself with God” (Newman 1980, 124). Exodus 3:14 is a specific example of the “I AM” phrase used to identify God (since it is God doing the identifying). The Septuagint translates this phrase as, “.Egw, ei.mi” as well. To use this specific phrase the way Jesus did was to identify Himself as the God of Israel, and to identify Himself as the Messiah was to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of both the Samaritans as well as the Jews.

            Because of this simple, yet profound statement, the woman left her water pot and ran down to tell the rest of the town that the Messiah had come at last. Because of Jesus’ omniscience and the application of that knowledge, an entire town came to know Jesus as Savior and Messiah, the “I AM”.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland. "The Greek New Testament, 4th Edition." 327. Germany: C. H. Beck, 2001.

Bruce, F.F. "The Gospel and Epistles of John." Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1982.

Hendriksen, William. "John, Two Volumes in One." In New Testament Commentary, 164-165. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.

Hodges, Zane C. and Arthur L. Farstad. "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text." Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.

Morris, Leon. "The Gospel According to John." 255. Grand Rapids: Eerdman's , 1977.

Newman, Barclay M. and Eugene A. Nida. "A Handbook on the Gospel of John." 109. New York: United Bible Societies, 1980.

Tasker, R.V.G. “The Gospel According to John.” In Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1977.

Towns, Elmer. "The Gospel of John, Believe and Live." xiv. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002.

 NOTES

---

[1] William Hendriksen makes an argument for 6pm as the time when Jesus approached the well. This specific argument is found on pages 157-158 and his argument for using the Roman time can be found on pages 104-105. Leon Morris sees this time as noon (pg 258), as does Towns (pg 39), F.F. Bruce (102), and Newman and Nida (pg 111). Comparing John 1:39 with the phrase, “the tenth hour” to represent 4pm, this paper will use ‘noon’ to represent the “sixth hour” with the Hebrew measurement of time.

[2] See also The Majority Text by Zane Hodges, pg 301, as well as the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus. The main variation is the punctuation between the phrases “Jesus saith unto her” and “I that speak unto thee am he.”

A Survey of Speaking in Tongues in Acts

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

 

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:

A COMMENTATIVE SURVEY FROM ACTS CONCERNING TODAY

 

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY ONLINE

 

BY

NATHANAEL RYAN HOWARD

 

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

DECEMBER 11, 2009

OUTLINE

       I.            The Beginning

A.    The Promise- Acts 1:8

B.     Pentecost- Acts 2:1-4

    II.            Four Examples

A.    Samaria- Acts 8:17

B.     Paul- Acts 9:17

C.     Cornelius- Acts 10:44-47 cf. 11:15-16

D.    Twelve Disciples of John- Acts 19:1-7

 III.            Eligibility and Today

A.    Who is Eligible and how is it applicable?

B.     What should be studied in retrospect?

THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The baptism of the Holy Spirit has been associated with salvation for centuries. Its beginnings, however, bridged social boundaries and propelled a humble group of believers into the ancient limelight of Rome. There are five recorded baptisms in Acts, and yet, there are differences in each one. Why is that?

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all together with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:1-4).

            This is the earliest known baptism of the Holy Spirit. Polhill states, “The coming of the Spirit is described in three carefully constructed parallel statements, each pointing to an aspect of the event: a sound came…and it filled the house (v. 2); tongues appeared…and one sat on each of them (v. 3); they were filled with the Holy Spirit…and began to speak in other tongues (v.4).”[1]

            Fitzmyer questions this account:

Only Luke among NT writers, who was not himself present, makes much of this occasion. Paul was aware of the gift of the Spirit to Christians (Gal 3:2; Rom 8:4-11; cf. Eph 1:13), but he speaks of no significance of Pentecost. John speaks of the reception of the Spirit on the day of the discovery of the empty tomb (20:22), but knows nothing of a Pentecost. All of this raises the question, When did the apostles and other early Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the first time? The story of Pentecost may be Luke’s historicization of aspects of Christ’s resurrection/exaltation […]. He dramatized that tradition into the story of the outpouring of the Spirit on the apostles as the preliminary for Peter’s proclamation in Jerusalem.[2]

However, Fitzmyer’s view of the Lucan account is problematic. First, John’s gospel ends before Christ ascends. Second, Paul has no need to write about the Pentecost because neither he nor the churches he started were direct results from the Pentecost. Third, Jesus’ quote in John’s gospel is only that, a quote. John does not record that Holy Spirit actually came, just that Jesus said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22). Last, the Spirit could not have come until Jesus ascended and the eleven became twelve again.[3]

Marshall correctly states,

Luke alone refers to the story of how the Spirit came upon the church for the first time, but the essential historicity of the incident is firmly assured. Its placing in Acts corresponds to the position of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel [of Luke], and its significance is that the church is now equipped for the task of witness and mission, and proceeds straightway to undertake it. The story […] describes how the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit; more correctly, it is the first occurrence of this experience.[4]

            Polhill states,

From this point on in Acts, the gift of the Spirit became a normative concomitant of becoming a Christian believer (Acts 2:38). The expression of this differs; in 9:17, Saul is said to have been ‘filled’ with the Spirit, as here. Sometimes this experience is described as a ‘baptism’ in the Spirit (1:5; 11:16). In other instances the word ‘poured out’ is used (2:17f; 10:45) or ‘came upon (8:16; 10:44; 11:15) or simply ‘receive’ (2:38; 10:47). All these instances refer to new converts and point to the Spirit’s coming in various ways, not always signified by tongues, as a permanent gift to every believer. This should be distinguished from other references to ‘filling’, where the Spirit comes upon one who is already a believer in a time of special inspiration and testimony to the faith (cf. 4:8, 31; 7:55; 13:9).[5]

The reason the baptism began with the group of believers assembled in the upper room was to show three things. First, that they do worship the true God. Second, if they had not received the Holy Spirit, how would they understand the significance of future believers who did receive the Holy Spirit? Last, this opens the door to the new dispensation: the church age.                

A key point is that the baptism did not occur on unbelievers. “Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them in his own language” (Acts 2:6). Had the Holy Spirit descended upon the unbelieving crowd, they would have had immediate understanding and comprehension, not bewilderment and scoffing. Johnson correctly states,

In context, this is the appropriate translation of heterais glossais, for Luke stresses the communicative rather than the ecstatic dimensions of their speech […]. Luke emphasizes that the Spirit itself directed (edidou= ‘was giving’) each one’s speech. The translation ‘declaim’ aims at the sententious character of the proclamation suggested by apophthengomai (compare 2:14 and 26:25).[6]

The second baptism is found in Acts 8:17, “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:12 says, “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Polhill rightly asks a question concerning the text. “The current passage is the most difficult case of them all [Spirit baptisms]. Why was the receipt of the Spirit so disconnected from the Samaritans’ baptism?”[7]

Bock states, “Normally the Spirit comes with faith in the NT (Acts 2:38; I Cor. 12:3, 13), but these are special circumstances that make a break in the pattern to underscore a fresh move of God […].”[8] Kent, Jr. denotes the historical and social implications of this event,

The answer to this problem must not ignore the social and historical situation. The Samaritans needed to be shown the truth that ‘salvation is of the Jews’ (John 4:22). The schism which had plagued the Jews and Samaritans would doubtless have been carried over into the church, unless some method should be devised to preserve the unity of the church. There could very easily have been Jewish Christians who would have ‘no dealings with’ Samaritan Christians (cf. John 4:9). By withholding the Spirit’s coming until the apostles arrived, God insured that the work of Philip was united with that of the Jerusalem apostles.[9]

Fitzmyer correctly points out that there is no recorded physical manifestation or sign given, as Luke would have recorded such a manifestation.[10] Bock, however, feels that some sort of physical manifestation is possible, if not probable. This assumed manifestation leads Bock to Simon Magus’s question later in the chapter.[11] The scriptures, however, do not record such a manifestation, and therefore one cannot know for sure.[12]

The third baptism is found in Acts 9:17. Paul has had his vision of the Christ on the road to Damascus and awaited Ananias’s arrival. Ananias arrived, after receiving his own vision, “[…] and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightiest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 9:17).

Bock states, “The purpose of laying on hands in this scene is obvious. The Spirit is connecting Saul to his brothers, as Ananias’s opening address affirms [‘brother’]. He also is empowered for witness […].”[13] Fitzmyer also holds that Saul receives through the mediation of Ananias the gift of the Spirit as well as the cure of his blindness by the imposition of hands.[14]

However, Marshall and Polhill both have issues concerning this account. Polhill states, “Paul’s receipt of the Spirit is not narrated. It did not seem to have come with Ananias’s laying his hands on Paul. Recovery of his sight followed that. Perhaps it [baptism of the Spirit] accompanied his baptism, since the two generally are closely connected in Acts.”[15] Marshall agrees, “This act is certainly to be understood as a symbol of healing (Luke 4:40) through the conveying of divine blessing. It is not clear whether in the present context it is also regarded as conveying the gift of the Spirit to Paul, and indeed this seems unlikely since here it precedes baptism, with which reception of the Spirit would normally be associated.”[16]

Marshall’s use of the word “normal” would mean that Paul’s epiphany experience should be expected as a normative feature of conversion. However, this is not the case. “Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake” (Acts 9:15-16; cf. Acts 22:14-16). Paul is a specifically chosen individual, much as the prophets of the Old Testament, and is set aside for special ministry, which required a unique manifestation.

However, the text of the Bible alludes that the Holy Spirit baptism precedes Paul’s water baptism. Bock, Kent, Jr., and Fitzmyer see the act of the Holy Spirit being given at the same time as the healing, and then water baptism follows [cf. Acts 10:44-47- the Holy Spirit baptizes the Gentiles, and then they are baptized with water]. Whereas Polhill and Marshall see it as concomitant with his physical, water baptism in Acts 9:18. In Acts 22:16, Paul refers back to this in his defense: “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

When Paul actually received the baptism of the Spirit cannot fully be known. However, it is assured that Paul was specially chosen of God. Lastly, Kent, Jr., points out that “The choice of Ananias for this task made it clear that Saul of Tarsus was not dependent upon the twelve, and also that an apostle was not required for bestowing the Spirit (as might have been concluded from the case in Samaria).”[17]

            The fourth baptism of the Spirit is found in Acts 10:44-47:

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Kent, Jr. states,

It was while Peter was still speaking that the Holy Spirit came upon the hearers. […] Certain differences will be noted.  The Spirit’s coming was not dependent upon public confession or an interval of time after accepting Christ. The Holy Spirit was not prayed for. His coming did not follow water baptism or the laying on of anyone’s hands. He came upon these gentiles as they listened with receptive hearts to the message of Peter.[18]

Johnson, however, sees this event with some authoritative tampering. “Luke has the event ‘interrupt’ Peter’s speech, but of course he has said all that Luke wants him to […].”[19] This view fails contextually. Peter’s defense in Acts 11 shows that he was still speaking when the Holy Spirit “fell on them as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).

Polhill further brings to light, much as in Acts 8 with the Samaritans, the worldview held by some Jewish believers. “This was especially important in this instance. Peter had already shown his own hesitancy to reach out to Gentiles. More conservative elements in Jerusalem would be even more reticent. Only an undeniable demonstration of divine power could overrule all objections, and God provided precisely that in Cornelius’s house.”[20]

The miracle of tongues associated with this event is questioned (ecstatic utterances vs. known languages) by Bock and Marshall pace Johnson, Kent, Jr., and Fitzmyer who compares this to Acts 2:4.[21] Polhill compares two textual variations, but draws no conclusion.[22]

However, this baptism upon the Gentiles opens the door to the last half of Acts- the inclusion of Gentile churches into the family of God. Furthermore, the fact that this spiritual baptism occurred before water baptism speaks of God’s direct involvement in opening the door.[23]

The last baptism of the Spirit is recorded in Acts 19. Paul, at Ephesus, encounters twelve disciples of John the Baptist. “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” (Acts 19:4-6).

This baptism is used to show two things. First, that John the Baptist did point to the true Messiah; and second, that Paul was a true messenger of Christ.[24] Marshall, however, merely sees the link to Paul as a “secondary motif.”[25] Fitzmyer sees Paul “acting on behalf of the twelve.”[26] Johnson correctly states, “The fact that it is the apostle Paul who is the medium for this bestowal has a legitimating function: these erstwhile Johannine disciples are brought within the apostolic community and authority.”[27] This links the ministries of Paul and the twelve as one ministry, but Paul is not under the twelve, he is with the twelve.

Marshall says, “such manifestations took place spasmodically and were not the general rule; in the present case some unusual gift was perhaps needed to convince this group of ‘semi-Christians’ that they were now fully members of the Christian church.”[28] Polhill agrees with this, and goes on to say, “There is no set pattern. The Spirit came at various times and in various ways. What is consistent is that the Spirit is always a vital part of one’s initial commitment to Christ and a mark of every believer.”[29]

In light of the historically unique settings, who is eligible for spiritual baptism and how it is applicable in today’s realm? Kent, Jr. says, “The Holy Spirit is thus God’s provision to men when they truly believe in Christ. Faith is the common denominator in all of the instances described in Acts, and any differences should be considered in light of the historical factors that existed.”[30] What happened in Acts was meant to be unusual and undeniable. Today, the Holy Spirit baptizes believers at the point of salvation; there is no separation of time between the two.

In retrospect, what one needs to determine for today’s church is whether or not the list of gifts given by the Holy Spirit and recorded by Paul in I Corinthians 12 should include the sign gifts. Who is right, the cessationists who hold that no sign gifts exist, or the Charismatics who say they do? Furthermore, are the miracles of tongues recorded in Acts ecstatic language or are they actual languages, consistent with Acts 2; and, how does it line up with I Corinthians 14?

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell L., Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Acts, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Kent, Jr., Homer A., From Jerusalem to Rome, Studies in the Book of Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Marshall, I. Howard, Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2008.

Polhill, John B., Acts, The New American Commentary, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Scofield, C.I., Ed. The King James Bible, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

NOTES

---

[1] Polhill, John B., Acts, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992) p 97.

[2] Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Acts of the Apostles, The Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday, 1998) p 232.

[3] Bock, Darrell L., Acts, BECNT, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) p 87.

[4] Marshall, I. Howard, Acts, TNTC, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2008) p 72.

[5] Polhill, Acts, 98.

[6] Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992) p 42. See also Fitzmyer: 239; Marshall: 75; Bock: 100; Kent, Jr.: 30.

[7] Polhill, Acts, 218.

[8] Bock, Acts, 331; See: Marshall: 166-167; Polhill: 218; Johnson: 150-151.

[9] Kent, Jr., Homer A., Jerusalem to Rome, Studies in the Book of Acts, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p 79.

[10] Fitzmyer, Acts, 406; cf. Acts 2:4; 10:45- physical signs associated with baptism of the Holy Spirit; Marshall, p 167.

[11] Bock, Acts, 332.

[12] Polhill, Acts, 219; See also Acts 9:17- Ananias with Paul; Acts 19:6- Paul and the disciples of John; for the laying on of hands.

[13] Bock, Acts, 362.

[14] Fitzmyer, Acts, 429; So also Johnson: 165.

[15] Polhill, Acts, 238.

[16] Marshall, Acts, 182.

[17] Kent, Jr., From Jerusalem to Rome, 84.

[18] Ibid, 94; see also Marshall: 205; Fitzmyer: 467; Bock: 400.

[19] Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 193.

[20] Polhill, Acts, 264.

[21] Fitzmyer, Acts, 467; Johnson: 194 (indirectly); Kent, Jr.: 95 (“more likely”) cf. Marshall: 206; Bock: 401.

[22] Polhill, Acts, 263.

[23] Bock, Acts, 401; so also Marshall: 206; Johnson: 195; Fitzmyer: 460.

[24] Ibid, 600.

[25] Marshall, Acts, 326.

[26] Fitzmyer, Acts, 644.

[27] Johnson, Acts, 338.

[28] Marshall, Acts, 326.

[29] Polhill, Acts, 400.

[30] Kent, Jr., Jerusalem to Rome, 95.