Acts 13:2 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
Acts 13.2
October 16th 2016
Milk
Alright we left off last week having covered verse 1 of chapter 13 which said

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

We talked about prophets and teachers in the church today. Verse 2

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

It seems that these devotions would have probably taken took place on some day set apart for fasting and prayer. And that being said it was probably what has been termed, “the Lord’s day,” or “the first day of the week,” which we know from scripture is Sunday.

The phrase, “ministered to the Lord” means they were engaged in service to him or in His name – this is how the Syriac translation puts the verse.

It’s a really really good phrase if you give it some thought. As believers (and in an attempt to keep ourselves in check before Him) asking ourselves this question might be really effective in our walk.

So when we are asked or if we have accepted or if we have volunteered to do something – anything really – we might ask ourselves:

“Who am I really serving?” in this particular activity.

I imagine we could summarize our reply down to three responses –

“We’re either serving God (from the heart), or we are serving others (from the heart) or we are serving ourselves (from the heart).”

The great thing about this “self-examination” is we know (in our heart of hearts) the answer – and so does God.

So why feign? And if we discover we are only serving ourselves in an action might as well admit it and not pretend otherwise.

Additionally, there are things we do for others because we love God. So that’s another sub-category to consider.

I’m kinda truly obsessed with the subject of motivations – I mean they really, really intrigue me personally and I think it’s because I used to do EVERYTHING – really truly everything . . . to be seen of men . . . so in other words to serve myself or my ego.

I believe that this would still be my way had Jesus not saved me from myself, and sending His Spirit helped change this very natural proclivity within me.

Do I continue to serve myself? Yes. But more and more I’ve seen the Lord BY AND THROUGH HIS SPIRIT become the focus of my service, then people in His name and cause.

The result is freedom from the bondage of inferior taskmasters. Nothing like it.

This passage also introduces us to another super interesting conversation. Did you catch it? Listen:

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord (or served in His name and cause), and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Two weeks ago I said that in all the emails we get one of the most asked question is, “How do we walk by faith?”

Also way up there is the question,

“How do we know that it’s the Holy Spirit that’s leading us verses some other spirit or motivation?

It’s a really good question. Here in verse 2 Luke writes that, “the Holy Spirit said.”

Pneuma epo – the Holy Spirit conveyed a message, either by writing or sign or signal or revelation or words – pnuema epo can mean them all.

Talk about MAJOR topics in the faith. And major debates and major abuse and major uncertainty – how exactly does the Holy Spirit communicate and how can we be certain that the communication is from God?

Here it is assumed that the Holy Spirit communicated to someone there, in all probability to one (or more) of the men listed in verse one.

Admitting to this, however, does NOT help us answer the questions that often ride in with such inspiration, which include:

How does it speak and how can we know that it is the Holy Spirit when it speaks?

Let’s talk for a minute about two words here used in scripture and in the faith – revelation and Inspiration.

Revelation

Means “an uncovering” and “a bringing to light of that which had been previously wholly hidden or only obscurely seen.”

To reveal something. Reveal-ation.

Not all revelations are from God. Some are from our own imaginations, and some apparently can come from dark sources as well.

In other words when a person says, “I have had a revelation,” they are saying that they have had received information that reveals something – but this does NOT automatically mean that their revelation is from God, God breathed or inspired.

I have revelations all day long – but most perhaps all – do not originate from God but from some other source.

Biblically God has communicated in various ways depending on the period of time involved. Hebrews 1 says:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds,

This being said we can confirm that God used to speak to human kind through prophets. But we also know that during the age of prophets God also “spoke” to individuals who were not prophets (in other words he spoke to regular old men or women).

In other words, personal revelation was alive and well at the same time that prophets would speak for God to the Nation.

Of course many prophets of Old recorded the Revelations they received and claimed them to have been from God or God breathed – INSPIRED.

Accepting this we have God’s words in written form today.

So we can see that “revelation and inspiration” are different matters.

Revelation is a communication of information to the mind – it can be personal, from God or not, and shared with others or not.

Inspiration, on the other hand, stamps whatever revelation received as God breathed.

Some maintain that all revelations are from God through the Holy Spirit. Not so sure on that one.

I have a hard time believing that all human revelations are inspired.

Anything revealed by God is inspired (or God breathed) but again, not all things revealed item meet this standard.

So prophets of Old would receive “revelations” and when they would share them the people would have to determine if the revelation was God breathed or not.

One of the ways prophets of Old and their words were deemed inspired is that they were never wrong.

They showed forth fruits or works of being representatives of God by professing or revealing things from Him and they were never wrong.

As the Revelations came forth they were recorded and read and vetted and considered inspired.

Here’s the deal – the same is true today.

We have gotten into the evangelical habit of saying that there are not any more revelations today. That is not true. There are revelations all day long.

The question might be then, “well is God revealing anything new today?” Many say “absolutely not.”

But that is hogwash. Of course He is revealing things to people today. Especially to and through believers by His Holy Spirit. What’s the point in having the Holy Spirit within us as believers if it isn’t revealing anything to us?

So we KNOW that revelations do certainly exist today and we know that some of them ARE in fact inspired (or God-breathed).

The real question we want answered is, “how can we tell which revelations are inspired (from God) and which are not?”

I would strongly suggest that there are a couple of factors we can use to know if we are receiving inspired revelations.

First of all, we have a body of inspired revelations presented to us that have come from those who were vetted by the lovers of God in their day.

We have the Old Testament books (vetted by the Jews) and we have the New Testament books (which had to have an apostolic hand in their production).

These books – compiled in our Bible – are understood to be inspired revelations – and are therefore trustworthy and worthy of our devout attention.

God is NOT a God of confusion and His true word is not contradictory therefore we take the revelations we receive and comparing them to His written word we are able to see whether our revelations bear up in the comparison.

If I have a revelation that I should enact a plan of revenge upon a neighbor who has slighted me I look to the revelations in the Word. It says, Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.

And my “revelation” is proven uninspired or not from God.

However, let say our neighbor insults us. We are deeply hurt and angry but we receive a revelation that says to not only to forgive her but to take her some of vegetables from our garden

This revelation is inspired, is from God, is in harmony with the Holy Word (“to forgive all AND to do good to our enemies and those that despitefully use us) and (here’s the important part) the action we are taking is OUTSIDE the parameters of scripture (too) as there is no biblical support for giving neighbors vegetables who have hurt our feelings.

Get it?

So first of all, we know that any revelation that would contradict what is already given in scripture could not be inspired.

Secondly, and taking what I just said, we know that since the Christian command taken from scripture is to believe on Jesus and to Love God and Man, then then know that anything that any revelation that lends to more faith or believing in Jesus and/or to expressions of love for God or Man is inspired by God.

For God is Love.

I say this because there is a tendency for some to justify some really unloving revelations and calling them inspired because they find support for them in the scripture and therefore rationalize them being done in their lives.

In other words, people can honestly believe that God has revealed to them that they should go and scream that God hates fags at a pride parade, and can and will use scripture to justify screaming from the street corner at others.

But they ignore the fruit of the Spirit passages that speak of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc.

So JUST because something is in scripture does not always mean scripture supports our revelations.

Love, which is the fruit of the Spirit, which is what we live by in this day and age, is the equalizer to all apparent revelations we receive from God.

And this love is defined for us in scripture in several places – 1st Corinthians 13, Ephesians 5, etc.

A final point to cover on how the Holy Spirit speaks today is to ask:

Are personal revelations only for the individual and are there any (that an individual receives) for the world to hear and know and follow?

In other words, are there people or persons who still receive inspired revelations for the world?

One of the reasons that God, in the past, spoke to us through Prophets, is because individuals did not have the ability to house the Holy Spirit.

The writer of Hebrews tells us that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin so up until Christ animal sacrifice only worked temporarily to cover sin therefore nobody was clean enough where the Holy Spirit could abide IN them – only on them, as was the case with the Prophets of Old.

However, through Christ and since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit now dwells in individuals. As a result, the Body is lead from within, not from without.

I would therefore suggest that the only people who would need the direction of a living prophet would be a people who were like the COI – people who did NOT have the Holy Spirit abiding and guiding them internally because they have not yet been covered by the blood of Christ.

But for those who are lead of the Spirit from the mind and heart, God is able to communicate all revelations to them, wherever they are, by the same spirit, and therefore there is no need for ink and paper revelations to masses – the Revelation of Faith and love abides and reigns.

In other words, I would suggest that the inspiration to let love guide is perhaps the most ubiquitous general revelation all believers possess and in lieu of specific detailed revelations the auspices of agape love guide us more than any other directive on earth.

Okay, back to Acts 13. So the Holy Spirit said to someone (or someone’s):

“Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.”

One more point – I can’t leave this passage alone. This passage is one that Creedal Trinitarians use to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. Why? Let’s read it again:

“As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said (so the Holy Spirit has a voice and an ability to give directives equal to the Father and the Son), Separate for me (again, me is an individual) Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I (and yet again another reference to himself, His person, as I) whereunto I have called them.”

The teaching is that there is a Father, there is a Son and there is a Holy Spirit who are all separate and distinct individuals – with their own personalities, their own minds, their own individual eternal self-existences that make-up (or are) the one true God.

Again, referencing the Holy Spirit, this is one of a couple of single passages that Creedal Trinitarians use to support their view and admittedly from the King James they seem to be correct.

I am NOT going to preach against the Trinity – it is supported by some scriptures and there are people who read them in this way – people who are brothers and sisters – and you may be one of them.

But I must teach how I understand the scripture relative to the Holy Spirit and it is up to you to decide if these teachings are inspired or not.
The doctrine of the Trinity depends upon the reality of a “third person” called “the Holy Spirit.”
Without such a separate person who is “co-eternal” and “co-equal” with the Father and the Son, the “Triune” God of Creedal Trinitarianism disintegrates.
I don’t want to split hairs and get tedious here but what are the consequences of accepting or rejecting Creedal Trinitarianism RELATIVE to the person of the Holy Spirit?
First, there can be confusion between the “Giver of the Gift” (God) and the gift itself (the Spirit to those who have received Christ by faith). This confusion can lead to misinterpretation of passages which can lead to muddling up the clear passages of there being One God and One Lord.

Often, and unfortunately, making the Spirit “a person” with his own autonomous personality, can also lead to the idea of His “coming and going” in our lives (due to being grieved over our sin) rather than God giving us His Spirit as a gift because we have received His Son.
This view (of course) places for some their salvation and His grace in constant jeopardy as they think of the Holy Spirit as a person they can insult.
This tends to remove the peace that comes with the Spirit unconditionally remaining with us due to faith on God’s Son.
Also, due to “a third person” mentality, some believers are prone to then try – out of fairness and equanimity – to include “him” into their praise, prayer, song and worship – something no apostle ever does.
Instead, honor and praise are always given to BOTH the only true and living God AND Jesus Christ whom He has sent – and no other.
We might also wonder if, because of this idea that the Holy Spirit is a person, if believers are often left waiting on the Person to direct and move them to action all the while FORGETTING that God has given them a GIFT which means they are to move and use it rather than the other way around!
You get what I’m trying to say? When people see the Holy Spirit as a personal self-existent person or being they are often led to believe that they need to wait for the Holy Spirit MAN to move or lead them.
But if we see the Holy Spirit as God’s spirit gifted to us once and for all, living in us once and for all, and there to be used, we are more inclined to take action and move and live KNOWING that the Spirit will guide – after all, it’s a gift God has given us!
So let me suggest some biblical reasons why the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit and is a gift He gives to those who have faith in and receive His Son by faith.
All of these points are taken from the minds and ruminations of James H. Broughton and Peter J. Southgate (The Trinity: True or False? 1995), Anthony Buzzard (The Doctrine of the Trinity; Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, 1994), Charles Morgridge (The True Believer’s Defence, 1837), Fredric A. Farley (The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, 1873) and finally The Racovian Catechism published in 1609.
God is said to have a throne (1 Kings 22:19; Dan. 7:9), to inhabit heaven as His dwelling place (1 Kings 8:30,39,43 and 49), and yet “heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain” Him. (1 Kings 8:27).
How can He be said to have a throne and a dwelling place and yet be uncontainable?
Psalms 139:7 explains this by indicating that God’s spirit and His presence can be equivalent terms. God is therefore omnipresent by His “spirit,” which is not a separate “person.” This presence can also be extended by His personal ministers and agents, whether Christ, angels, or believers. None of these is a separate person who is also “God” in some multi-personal Godhead, but rather empowered agents who are equipped to do the will of God thereby representing Him.
As with the Hebrew word, ruach, and the Greek word for spirit (pneuma) have many different meanings, the correct one only being determinable from the context of each occurrence used.
Therefore, no accurate distinction can be made in the original manuscripts of the Bible between upper case “Holy Spirit,” (a proper noun referring to God), and the lower case “holy spirit,” (referring to an impersonal force.)
Compounding the problem is the fact that the article “the” was often added by translators, leading us the reader to think that “the Holy Spirit” is referring to a separate person, a third person of “the Holy Trinity” as taught by traditional Christian orthodoxy.
Scholars admit that the concept of the Trinity cannot be substantiated in the Old Testament. Listen – at all. In particular, “the Holy Spirit” (as any kind of independent or distinct entity) has no place in Old Testament revelation.
Therefore, they say, the concept must be derived from the New Testament. With the exception of a few comparatively difficult verses in the Gospel of John (which I will return to in a minute and which are often greatly misunderstood), the New Testament also gives no certain and incontrovertible indication of a “Holy Spirit” as a personal being co-equal with the Father and the Son.
This is a rather glaring omission if the Triune God is supposed to provide the foundation of Christian orthodoxy, yet the “tri-unity” of God cannot be clearly established even with New Testament revelation.
It makes sense to understand “holy spirit” in the New Testament just as it was understood in the Old Testament, either God Himself or His presence and power.
The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, is neuter, as are all pronouns referring to the spirit, making them necessarily impersonal. New Testament translators knew this grammatically, but groundlessly translated references to the coming “spirit of truth” as “He” instead of “it” because of their Trinitarian prejudice.
If they had consistently translated the neuter pronouns of John chapters 14 through 16 as “it,” “its,” “itself” and “which” instead of “he,” “his,” “him,” “who,” and “whom,” the case for the “personality of the Holy Spirit” would largely disappear from Christian belief all together.
I do not think that such a major theological doctrine (with such important implications for foundational Christian theology) can depend on a few pronouns, but rather should be founded upon the weight of the biblical evidence considered as a whole, apart from tradition and prejudice.
Now, because we are in Utah and many of us come from Mormonism, these issues I am presenting give ZERO justification for creating another faith movement based on myth and fabrication. Such difficulties have always been present and the fact that they exist does not suggest that there was a need for a restoration of the truth.
The truth is there – and for almost two millennia seekers of the truth have found it.
Okay . . .
Number 5. Any translation from one language to another must recognize the relative unimportance of gender. For the most part, languages that assign a gender to nouns do so in a rather arbitrary manner.
For instance, the Spanish word for car is masculine, el carro, while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta. Yet no one would translate into English “the car, he…” or “the bicycle, she…”
Either word would require the neuter “it” to reflect the impersonal nature of the object.
A writer or a poet might employ such a figurative expression in the use of pronouns, but any reader acquainted with the objects referred to would recognize the figure of speech employed.
It is this type of poetic personification that is employed in reference to “the Comforter,” in John chapters 14-16.
The figure of speech Personification is common in Scripture, and is defined as attributing personal qualities, feelings, actions, etc., to things that have no real personality or personal consciousness.
Wisdom is personified as such in Proverbs 8 and 9 and called a she, yet no sensible person would seriously consider that a literal person named “Wisdom” helped God create the world, as Proverbs 8:30 says.
The spirit of God is personified as “the Comforter” in John 14:16 and 26, 15:26, 16:7. Therefore, personal pronouns are appropriate to agree with the personal nature of the figurative title.
It is clear from John 16:13 that this Comforter is “sent,” “does not speak of himself” and is instructed (“whatever he hears he speaks”).
The “Comforter,” more properly translated as “Counselor,” is said by Jesus to fill the void created by his going to the Father (John 14:12). However, by this spirit Jesus said that He would still be present:
“I will come to you” (14:18); “I am in you” (14:20); and “I will show myself” (14:21). By this spirit his work with them would continue as He said:
“It will teach you”(14:26); “It will remind you of everything I have said” (14:26); “It will testify about me” (15:26); “It will convict the world of guilt” (in preparation for his judgment—16:8); “It will guide you into all truth” (16:13); “It will bring glory to me by taking what is mine and making it known to you” (16:14).
All of these statements point to the role of the gift of holy spirit in continuing the work that Jesus started, and even empowering his followers for greater works.
Scripturally speaking this spirit is not independent and self-existent or individuated through personal existence, but is “the mind of Christ” within the believer, influencing, guiding, teaching, reminding and pointing the believer to follow his Lord and Savior.
This spirit is certainly not “co-equal” when by its very design it serves the risen Lord and Christ. Yet because it carries the personal presence of Christ into the life of every believer, the use of Personification is highly appropriate in the description of it.
Practically speaking, the holy spirit in us will not lead us anywhere that the Lord himself would not lead us if he were personally present. We can study Christ’s life and his priorities in the written Word to verify whether the “spirit” leading us in is fact the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ or whether it is “another spirit.”
The spirit of man bears the same relation to man as the spirit of God bears to God. Paul says in
1st Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
As the spirit of man is obviously not another person distinct from himself, but his human consciousness or mind by which he is able to be self-aware and contemplate things peculiar to himself, so the spirit of God is not another person distinct from God. It is that consciousness and intelligence that is essential and peculiar to Him whereby He manifests and reveals Himself to man.
8. The “breath” of God and the “spirit” of God are synonymous terms (Job 4:9; Ps. 33:6; Ps. 104:29 and 30; John 3:8; Job 27:3).
It is as inconceivable that the breath of God could be a person distinct from God as that the breath of a human could be a person distinct from a human. It is especially absurd to speak of one self-existent and eternal person as “the breath” of another such person.
11. If the spirit is a sentient (able to sense, be self-aware), separate and distinct being with personality, then Jesus either did not know this or was very inconsistent in giving “Him” proper due.
For instance, in Matthew 11:27, Jesus asserts that “no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son…” If “the Holy Spirit” is a person distinct from the Father, and is also omniscient and almighty “God,” then would He not also have to know the Father and the Son?
It is an abundance of items like this that tell me the Spirit is NOT a third person of the Godhead and therefore Creedal Trinitarianism has some difficulty.
We have another situation where Jesus says in Matthew 24:36 that no one (no person) knew the hour of his Second Coming except the Father. How could “the Holy Spirit” be kept in the dark about this very important prophetic event?
Are we to believe that it is possible for one member of the Godhead to keep a secret from another member while sharing the same eternal and divine “essence” of “Godself?”
If, as Jesus said, God is a Spirit, and then if the Holy Spirit is a separate spirit person, then we have two spirit persons. This ideation is polytheistic. There is only one God, of one spirit.
1 John 4:13 echoes this truth in saying, “We know that we live in Him and He in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (NIV).
Let me wrap today up with some ommissional observations.
A. The Holy Spirit is never worshiped as are the Father and the Son, neither does any verse of Scripture command such worship. This is surprising if the Holy Spirit is truly a co-equal and co-eternal member of a triune “God” worthy of worship. If “God” is worthy of worship, and “God” exists in three persons, then shouldn’t each “God” person be worthy of worship? Then why is this idea not found in the Scripture?
B. In the opening of their New Testament epistles, every one of the writers identifies himself with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but not one does so with “the Holy Spirit.” If they were ignorant of the truth of a “tri-personal” God, and this truth constitutes the foundation of the Christian faith, then their apostleship was incomplete at best, and at worst they were teaching error. Their failure to clearly teach a three person Godhead proves the assertion that the doctrine of the tri-personal God and a third person in an eternal Godhead was not believed or practiced by the Apostles. In fact, the doctrine was not codified until the fourth century in the Athanasian creed. Since it was not believed nor practiced by the apostles, and the apostles were commissioned by the Lord Jesus himself, then it is logical to assert that the doctrine was not believed nor practiced by the Lord Jesus either.
C. Lacking sufficient Scriptural justification, the orthodox view of “the Holy Spirit” was fully developed in the fourth century after Christ and the Apostles, contemporaneously with the rise of Neoplatonic philosophy, which posited an abstract God “beyond being,” in which a variety of divine persons could be “one” in “essence.”
This was basically a regurgitation of Gnostic philosophy, which had been vigorously opposed by the first century Apostles but later embraced by many of the “Church Fathers” who helped to establish “orthodoxy.”
D. In the Church Epistles, (Romans through Thessalonians), the Apostle Paul sends personal greetings from “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” If “the Holy Spirit” were an integral and personal part of a triune Godhead, then why does “He” not send “His” personal greetings as well?
The only good answer is that there is no such person, for as an inspired writer of Scripture, Paul was on intimate talking terms with God and the Lord Jesus. If there were a third person involved, wouldn’t Paul have surely known about it and included “Him” in his greetings to the churches?
When Paul does include additional persons in his greetings, salutations and adjurations, he names “the elect angels,” not “the Holy Spirit” (1 Tim. 5:21; cp. Luke 9:26 and Rev. 3:5).
E. In the NIV translation, Philippians 2:1 and 2 refers to “fellowship with the Spirit,” yet 1 John 1:3 says that our fellowship is with “the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” Why is the Holy Spirit left out?
A better translation of Philipians 2:1 is the King James Version, which renders the phrase “fellowship of the spirit,” pointing to the fellowship among believers who share a common spirit and who therefore ought to be able to get along with each other.
F. In the eternal city of Revelation 21 and 22, both God and Jesus Christ are prominently featured. Each is pictured as sitting on his throne (Rev. 22:1). If “the Holy Spirit” is a “co-eternal” member of a triune Godhead, it is strange indeed that He seems to have no seat of authority on the final throne. This is consistent with the biblical truth that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, and no such separate person known as “the Holy Spirit.
I suggest we restore the Father to His unique and singular position as God, we give Him all the worship, credit, respect, and awe He deserves as the One True God and then we restore Christ to his position as the man accredited by God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, the Last Adam, the one who could have sinned but voluntarily stayed obedient, the one who could have given up but loved us so much that he never quit, the one whom God highly exalted to be our Lord, the one to whom we give all the worship, credit, respect, and awe that he deserves, and the pre-existent one on whom we can draw great strength and determination from his example.
Okay, a little long today.

Q and A?