Baptisms in Acts

Introduction

As an elder of Grace Community Church (GCC) I hear many questions about why we believe in believer baptism and not infant baptism. GCC is a non-denominational church. Our congregation is mix of people with different denominational backgrounds: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostal and others. They all have different beliefs and experiences with baptism. Over the years, the elders' response to these questions is to encourage the questioner to search the scriptures themselves. Very often we do not hear back from the congregant. However, since I am encouraging believers to search the scriptures themselves, I decided to a study on baptism and to see how it is used in the New Testament.

A full blown study should trace baptism through the Old Testament, the intertestamental period, the Gospels, the Epistles, and church history. However, my purpose is not to write a doctrinal statement for our church, but rather to gather evidence to present to a believer about why GCC believes what it believes. This blog focuses on Acts, First Peter, Colossians, and a little church history. This approach seems justified by the story in Acts 19:1-7 where believers, who were already baptized into John's baptism, were baptized into Jesus. There is a qualitative difference between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John. How Jesus and the Apostles defined baptism is unique. Furthermore, I hope by focusing on the scriptures of which most believers are familiar that my arguments would be more accessible and convincing to them.

Research

The following table contains all the passages in Acts that reference baptism. In my conversations with believers who believe in infant baptism and from my reading of theologians who support paedobaptism, the Acts passages are the most widely used passages to defend the practice of infant baptism.

Verses in Acts on Baptism

Verse	Action 1	Action 2	Action 3	Audience
Acts 2:41	Received word	Baptized	n/a	Everyone who heard
Acts 8:12	Believed Philip as he preached	Baptized	n/a	both men and women
Acts 8:14-17	The apostolic team identified believers who were only baptized in the name of Lord Jesus	Prayed that they may receive the Holy Spirit	Received Holy Spirit	Samaritans
Acts 8:34-40	Philip told the eunch about the good news about Jesus	Eunuch requested to be baptized	baptized	eunuch
Acts 9:18	Jesus called Paul	Paul went obediently to Ananias	Scales fell from his eyes and he was baptized	Paul
Acts 10:44–48	Peter preached	Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word	Baptized	Gentiles
Acts 16:14–15	The Lord opened Lydia's heart to Paul's teaching	Baptized	n/a	Lydia and her household
Acts 16: 30–34	Asked what must I do to be saved?	Spoke the word of the Lord to him and his household.	Baptized	Jailer and his household
Acts 18:8	Crispus believed in the Lord, together with his entire household	Corinthians hearing Paul and believed	Baptized	Crispus, household, and some Corinthians
Acts 19:1-7	Heard correct teaching about John's baptism.	Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus	Paul laid hands on the and the Spirit came upon them.	About 12 disciples of John.

Observations

In each conversion story there are different elements. However, the pattern is the same: belief is first and then a baptism is performed. One interesting case is Acts 8:14-17, which is the story about the Samaritans. This is a special case and there is obviously something different on how the Holy Spirit brought in the Samaritans into the church. However, even in this atypical passage, they believed first and then were baptized.

Lydia's Household

The only possible exception is Lydia's household in chapter 16. It is different from the other passages in Acts because God opened her heart and then Lydia and her household were baptized. No mention is made of whether her entire household believed or not. However, to argue for paedobaptism from this one case seems problematic for several reasons.

First, one would have to argue that she had children too young to believe and that they were baptized. If you look at the word, "household" (Greek, "οἶκος"), it literally means dwelling, but it extends to the people who live there. There is no warrant to assume Lydia had infants in her household. On my block in my neighborhood, there are no infants. We have empty-nesters, families with teenagers, couples who do not intend to start a family or young couples who have not started families. To assert that Lydia's household had infants seems to be a big assumption. We need more evidence.

Second, Luke may have intended to include only the believers in the term "household." For example. at a University of Iowa football game, news announcers always note that all the spectators and players in the stadium turn and wave at the Children's Hospital after the 2nd quarter. Did the announcers mean all the spectators and players in the stadium? People bring their very young children to the games. Did the announcers intend to convey that even infants or the sleeping toddlers turned and waved at the hospital? The announcers meant everyone who understood and was able to wave, waved.

Here is a more similar example. Think about an activity such as a family walk after Thanksgiving. The next day we may report to a neighbor, "Yep, dinner was great and the whole family took a walk in the neighborhood in the afternoon." However, if a particularly nosey neighbor replied, "Everybody? What about baby Julie? She can't walk yet." We would reply with the baby Julie was in a stroller, of course. If the neighbor was even more obnoxious and pointed out that grandma Edna is confined to a wheelchair, we would replied with something like, "Uncle Henry pushed her" or "She stayed home of course". The phrase, "the whole family" meant everybody who could walk went on a walk. Likewise in Acts, the adjective "entire household" may not mean absolutely every single person, but just the people who believed, albeit the vast majority, were baptized.

Third, in Acts 18:8, Luke wrote, "believed in the Lord, together with his entire household." Again, Luke used the phrase "entire household". Did Luke intend the audience to believe that the infants believed too? We just do not know who was in the household. Luke assumed that his audience would understand that infants did not believe at that time. Again, Luke intended the reader to use common sense in reading the the passage just like in Lydia's story.

Fourth, even if Lydia did have her household baptized including infants, Luke does not provide any insight or comments on the baptisms. Would this one instance of infant baptism make infant baptism normative? The question is not whether there were infants baptized, but rather if the whole household including infants were baptized does this single instance indicate a normative pattern of infant baptism? In all the other baptism cases in Acts, those who were baptized believed before baptism. Luke could have assumed that this was a one-off case. Acts is a factual narrative. Luke was reporting how God was working through the Church and he was not strictly concerned with correct doctrinal practice. He was reporting on what happened and he was not stipulating orthopraxy. For insights on the correct practice of baptism, we must turn to the Epistles.

Fifth, there are passages about conversions (Acts 3:6-10, 6:7, 13:48) that do not reference baptism. Luke assumes the reader understood that the converts were baptized at some point. The elements of the conversion story: preaching and hearing the word, Holy Spirit coming upon them, believing in the Word, confession, and baptism are not included in every story. Luke for stylistic reasons or for his own reasons does not spell out all the elements of the conversion in every story. Likewise, for the story of Lydia's conversion, Luke may have skipped the step where he specified the members believed, because he assumed their belief and expected his readers to fill in the gaps.

In summary, the story of Lydia and her household does not endorse or condemn infant baptism. To argue that infant baptism should be a normative practice for the Church from this one passage seems to be an overreach at the very least. Another point, if the household was baptized and not every one believed, does that mean some people were forced to be baptized? Would we practiced that today? If a father heard the gospel and believed in today's culture, would we go back to his wife and teenaged children and make them get baptized?

Other Passages

Let us press on to other passages. Luke does not say they all believed in Acts 16:30-34; however, when Paul spoke to the entire household and after baptism, the whole household rejoiced. "They all rejoiced." This indicates that the entire household believed Paul's message before they were baptized.

One final observation is to highlight in Acts 19:1-7, believers were baptized twice. Once with John's baptism and after Paul laid hands on them, "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus". Double baptism is not a problem.

Historical Views

Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Reformers argued for paedobaptism. Both branches of the "Church" tied baptism to the washing away of Original Sin. Both the Catholic church and the Reformers persecuted the Anabaptists whose main doctrinal distinction was believer baptism. The following is a list of the various positions throughout history.

Thomas Aquinas
Practically speaking, then, in the case of infants, "baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction of fuller conversion. secondly, because of the danger of death, for not other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of baptism." Thus, Aquinas supported the continuation of infant baptism by appeal to original sin. (Allison, p. 623)

Martin Luther
Ultimately, Luther grounded his position on Scripture. For him the Bible does not explicitly command infant baptism. There would not be an adequate bilbical basis for start the practice were infant baptism not practiced already. But Scripture had enough to say about infant baptism that the church could not discontinue it. In particular, Luther appealed to Christ's command to let the children come to him. To deny baptism to children would be disobedience to this order. Also, Christ commands the church to baptize "all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), and this all encompassing group obviously includes infants. ... . Thus, Luther expressed hope: "We bring the child to be baptized with conviction and the hope that he will believe, and we pray that God will give him faith. But we do not baptize on the strength of this belief, but only on the fact that God has commanded it. And so Luther continued the traditional practice of infant baptism. (Allison, p. 625)

Calvin
Like Zwingli, Calvin justified infant baptism on the analogy between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the covenant sign of baptism. (Allison, p. 829)

"Infants are baptized into future repentance and faith." (Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.20, LCC, 2:1343)

Baptists
The London Confession of Faith
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or who are made disciples. ... . Being a sign, it must answer the things signified; which is, that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And, as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be realised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ. (as quoted by Allison, pp. 630-631)

Puritans
Hermeneutically; those theologians who argued for paedobaptism placed a great deal of weight on the covenant made with Abraham and its continued significance for the new covenant era. Accordingly, Flavel, whose polemics with antipaedobaptists such as Philip Cary (d. 1710) are well known, argues that the two Testamens should cast light upon one another. Specifically, Christians should not 'undervalue or reject an Old Testament text, as on way useful to clear and establish a New Testament point of faith or duty. In other words understanding the whole law (i.e., the Bible) helps one to know the sense of particular laws. (e.g., paedobaptism).
(Beeke and Jones, p. 36)

Karl Barth
Thus, for Barth, the proofs for infant baptism were a late addition to the doctrine, and thus foreign to any proper doctrine of baptism. The historical reality of infant baptism, and the Reformers' wholehearted acceptance of the practice, compelled them to justify it without ever questioning its legitimacy in the first place. Barth found the Reformers woefully lacking in the attempts to formulate such a bona fide doctrine. (Allison, p. 833)

What does baptism mean?

I admit my conversations with current believers and my reading of past theologians is very limited, but I have not seen the use of any exegesis of the passages in 1st Peter and Colossians, which are the clearest teachings by the apostles on the practice and theology of baptism, to defend the practice. Here are some notes on the key passages.

Colossians 2:11–12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (ESV)

F.F. Bruce
No longer is there any place for a circumcision performed by hands (which, being restricted to males, was in any case inappropriate for the new order in Christ); the death of Christ has effected the inward cleansing which the prophets associated with the new covenant, and of this Christian baptism is the visible sign.
(The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, pp. 103-104)

...

If, on the other hand, the "circumcision of Christ" is the circumcision which he effects, the inward cleansing brought about by his death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in those who are united to by faith, then the "stripping of the body of flesh" refers to the believer's baptismal experience (described in Rom. 6:6 as the crucifixion of "our old self" and the destruction of "the sinful body"). It involves the reckoning of one's former self with its desires and propensities to be dead, as a necessary prelude to putting on the new nature--putting on Christ himself in his resurrection life. What the believer puts off is "the whole personality organized for, and geared into rebellion against God." (ibid, p. 104)

...

For baptism not only proclaims that the old order is past and done with, it proclaims that a new order has been inaugurated. The convert did not remain in the baptismal water; he emerged from it to "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Baptism, therefore implies a sharing in Christ's resurrection as well as in this death and burial. (ibid, p. 105)

1 Peter 3:18–22
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (ESV)

Edmund Clowney
It is significant that Peter goes on to speak of the pledge made in baptism, the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The word for pledge implies an undertaking made in response to formal questions. Peter underscores the solemnity of the commitment made by these new Christians. They pledge the life of a good conscience. (Or, they make pledge sincerely, out of a good conscience.) In that pledge Christians agree with God's judgment on sin, and turn on their own sinful past (4:3). They acknowledge that to turn from their commitment would be to bring upon themselves God's just judgment. Yet Peter's words stress the wonder of the sacrament even more than its solemnity. As Noah was delivered by the grace of God, although only in symbol, so have they been delivered in fact. Christ has saved them, for he died for their sins and gave them life through his resurrection (3:18, 21). ("The Bible Speaks Today", The Message of 1 Peter, p. 167)

Conclusions

The purpose of baptism as specified in the Epistles is the strongest argument against paedobaptism. Both Peter and Paul stressed that baptism is an outward sign of a inward change effected through the Holy Spirit. Christians through their union with Christ died to sin and were raised to a new life. The dunking of a person in water by itself does nothing. Baptism is a one-time ordinance that believers can use to testify how Christ entered their lives and brought them into the Kingdom of God. Peter describes it as "an appeal to a God for a good conscience". Peter is stating that believers getting baptized before others is an appeal or pledge that their repentance is real and they want to live a new life before God through faith. The physical act itself does nothing: the removal of dirt does nothing toward salvation.

The household passages in Acts do nothing to argue for or against infant baptism. Luke is not specifying the order of salvation in his conversion reports. He is just highlighting how the Holy Spirit changed lives through the spread of the Gospel. Infant baptism, if you take away the idea of the washing away of Original Sin, becomes simply a pledge of guardians to raise their children in the Church. This is a good practice, but it is not what baptism is about. There are better ways for a family to do this other than using an ordinance that Christ specified for believers.

Please consider this blog as a beginning point for your own study of the scriptures on this issue. Be noble-minded like a Berean (Acts 17:11). Search the scriptures for yourself!

Appendixes

Bibliography

Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, 2011

Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, Reformation Heritage Books, 2012

F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon and to the Ephesians, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984

Edmund Clowney, The Bible Speaks Today, The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, Series Editors: J. A. Motyer and John R. W. Stott, Intervarsity Press, 1989

Verses

Acts 2:41
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:14–17
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Acts 8:34–40
And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea. (ESV)

Acts 9:18
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;

Acts 10:44–48
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (ESV)

Acts 16:14–15
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (ESV)

Acts 16:30–34
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (ESV)

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 19:1–7
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all. (ESV)

Acts 22:12–16
“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ (ESV)

Dichotomy versus Trichotomy

Introduction

The ACBC (Association of Certified Biblical Counselors) has in its certification process two exams: a theological-oriented exam and a practical counseling-oriented exam. The theological exam has a question about how man is constituted. Does the Bible see man as a trichotomy (triplex): a body, a soul, and a spirit or does it see it as a dichotomy (duplex): immaterial (soul/spirit) and body. The difference may seem trivial to some, but there are practical implications. The most simple difference is in counseling. Some religious counselors suggest that if a human can be separated into 3 parts, then we help people using those divisions. For example, medical doctors should treat the body, psychiatrists/secular psychologists should treat the soul (the unredeemed part of the human being), and the religious counselor should treat the spirit (the redeemed part of the human being).

The ACBC strongly recommends the dichotomy view since it treats the counselee as more of a integrated whole. They reject the philosophical basis of the secular psychiatrists and psychologists. ACBC asserts the Bible is sufficient to disciple the whole person. They encourage the biblical counselor to treat the whole person and actively seek to work with medical doctors in treating the whole person.

My experience has been that theologians, especially reformed theologians, argue that the dichotomy is the most biblically supported view and that trichotomy is supported by church members. This page is a summary of my notes on the subject.

Definitions

Dichotomy

Dichotomy according to Merriam Webster means "a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities." In the context of theology, dichotomy means that a human being is made up of two parts: the immaterial (spirit/soul) and the physical (body). It is the predominant position of Reformed theology and most serious Evangelical theologians for hundreds of years; however, there are notable exceptions like A. W. Pink. The following quotes defines "dichotomy rather well.

Charles Ryrie
Man is made up of two substances, material and immaterial. Each consists of a variety within. The many facets of the material and the many facets of the immaterial join together to make up the whole of each person. Man is rich diversity in unity.
(Basic Theology, p 225)

Trichotomy

Trichotomy according to Merriam Webster is "division into three parts, elements, or classes". In theology in reference to humans it means that a human being can be divided into three substances: body, soul, and spirit (mind). There are numerous theories how the different divisions interact and exist together. Here are two quotes from two very popular systematic theologies that define the doctrine.

Charles Hodge
The doctrine [trichotomy] has been held in different forms. The simplest, the most intelligible, and the one most commonly adopted is, that the body is the material part of our constitution; the soul, or ψυχή, is the principle of animal life; and the mind, or πνεῦμα, the principle of our rational and immortal life. When a plant dies its material organization is dissolved and the principle of vegetable life which it contained disappears. When a brute dies its body returns to dust, and the ψυχή, or principle of animal life by which it was animated, passes away. When a man dies his body returns to the earth, his ψυχή ceases to exist, his πνεῦμα alone remains until reunited with the body at the resurrection. To the πνεῦμα, which is peculiar to man, belong reason, will, and conscience. To the πνεῦμα, which is peculiar to man, belong reason, will and conscience. To the ψυχή which we have in common with the brutes, belong understanding, feeling, and sensibility, or, the power of sense-perceptions. To the σῶμα belongs what is purely material.
(Systematic Theology Volume II: Anthropology, p. 47)

Wayne Grudem
According to many trichotomists, man's soul includes his intellect, his emotions, and his will. They maintain that all people have such a soul, and that the different elements of the soul can either serve God or be yielded to sin. They argue that man's spirit is a higher faculty in man that comes alive when a person becomes a Christian (see Rom. 8:10: "If Christ in sin you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness"). The spirit of a person then would be that part of him or her that most directly worships and prays to God (see John 4:24; Phil. 3:3).
(Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, p. 472)

As I mentioned above, A. W. Pink supports trichotomy. He argues since the Godhead has three persons, then God's image of man is reproduce through man being tripartite: soul, spirit, and body. (See The Total Depravity of Man, p. 11).

The position is popular among churches but I looked at several systematic theologies and all of them argue that trichotomy cannot be defended consistently in Scripture. This is not to say the terms soul and spirit are exactly synonymous, but rather their definitions overlap. Charles C. Ryrie in his Basic Theology asserts that "soul" and "spirit" are words that represent different facets of the same thing. For example, I can refer to my wife using multiple words and phrases: my wife, mother-of-my-children, my significant other, the love of my life, etc. If I use multiple terms to introduce her to a stranger like "Here is my wife, my best friend, and the love of my life.", I am emphasizing how much she means to me.

My Research

I used the following tables to summarize my research into the issue. The first table is the list of systematic theologies that argue for dichotomy. These theologies are written by mainstream evangelical authors. They all make solid arguments for the dichotomy view of man. I lean to the reformed side of theology, but I could not find any systematic theologies that argue for trichotomy.

Systematic Theology References that Argue for Dichotomy

Title	Author	Pages	Chapter
Systematic Theology	Wayne Grudem	472 - 489	Chapter 23: The Essential Nature of Man
A Theology of Biblical Counseling	Heath Lambert	194 - 203	Chapter 7: Biblical Counseling and a Theology of Humanity
Systematic Theology: Volume II Anthropology	Charles Hodge	pp. 47 - 51	Part 2 Division 2 Topic 2. Nature of Man: Trichotomy
A Theology of Christian Counseling	Jay E. Adams	pp. 110 - 114	Chapter 8, Counseling and Human Life: More than Redemption
Basic Theology	Charles Ryrie	223 - 229	Chapter 32: The Facets of Man

The second table is a list of key verses that provide teaching on anthropology: the branch of theology that studies Mankind. The columns are key terms that these verses use to describe the internal/non-physical study of man. The verses are listed at the end of the blog.

Verses

Scripture	Description	Spirit	Soul	Mind	Heart
Genesis 2:7	Creation	N	Y	N	N
Deuteronomy 6:4	Love	N	Y	N	Y
Matthew 10:28	Judgement	N	Y	N	N
Isaiah 26:9	Desire	Y	Y	N	N
Mark 12:29–30	Love	N	Y	Y	Y
Luke 1:46–47	Praise	Y	Y	N	N
Luke 10:27	Love	N	Y	Y	Y
1 Corinthians 15:45	Glorification	Y	Y	N	N
2 Corinthians 7:1	Sanctify	Y	N	N	N
1 Thessalonians 5:23	Sanctify	Y	Y	N	N
Hebrews 4:12-13	Sanctify	Y	Y	N	Y
Revelation 6:9	in Heaven	N	Y	N	N
Revelation 20:4	In Heaven	N	Y	N	N

Observations

1. Heart is used four times with soul. Heart is used once with both soul and spirit. Is heart a separate concept from soul and spirit? Do humans have four different parts? How does the mind tie in?
2. In Matthew 10:28 Jesus is talking about Him who can destroy both the body and soul. Jesus seems to be indicating the whole being here: both material and immaterial can be destroyed by God.
3. In Luke 1:46-47, This passage is called the "Magnificat". It is where Mary, the mother of Jesus, uses the forms of Hebrew poetry, to praise God. She references "my soul" in verse 46 and "my spirit" in verse 47. The Magnificat, like all good Hebrew poetry uses parallelism: similar but not identical terms in different lines to provide artistry and clarity of expression. The trichotomy argument that the "soul" is the unsaved part of man and the spirit is the regenerated part, falls apart here. Both soul and spirit are praising God.
4. In Revelation 20:4, John sees "souls of those whom have been beheaded." Where are the spirits? If "soul" represents the whole immaterial person in passage, why not other passages?

Arguments against Trichotomy

A key to understanding how God sees man is interpreting Genesis 2:7 correctly.

Genesis 2:7
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (ESV)

Ross asserts that the word "soul" in Genesis 2:7 should be understood as referring to the whole man: both material and immaterial together.

Allen P. Ross
Finally, according to Genesis 2:7, the combining of the physical body and the divine produces the "living being." The expression is often translated "living soul." The Hebrews, however, did not think in terms of a soul apart from the body. Rather, the word (nepes, "soul," describes the the whole person--the soul in the body, or a human being with all the appetites (nepes may include the idea of "throat," in the sense of a breathing person) The expression "living being" is used for animals (e.g., 2:19), but "image" never is, nor apparently, is "breath of life." Like the animals, man is a living, breathing being; unlike the animals, however, he arrived at that state in a way that assuredly distinguishes him from the animals.
(Creation and Being, p. 123)

Man's uniqueness in creation does reflect that Man is the image-bearer of God. Man's moral character and reasoning reflects God to creation. Even dichotomy is too strong of word for explaining how God structured Man. God will resurrect the body along with the soul, this indicates that God views humans: both material and immaterial as an essential unity.

Michael Horton:
Nevertheless, Scripture does presuppose and explicitly teaches a distinction between the body and the soul--the view known as dichotomy--especially its affirmation of the soul's living presence before God at bodily death. However, it will become obvious in the account I offer below that this view in no way entails, much less requires, a radical anthropological dualism. In that light, I would prefer a term such as psychosomateic holism, since dichotomy implies that the distinction between soul and body is more basic than its unity. The important point is that human nature is not to be identified exclusively or even primarily with the soul; the "real self" is the whole self--body and soul.
(The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, p. 377)

The verse used most by people who support trichotomy is Hebrews 4:12. "Soul" and "Spirit" are mentioned specifically in the same verse indicating that they cannot represent the same object. The following quotes from commentaries indicate that the distinction is not so clear.

Homer A. Kent Jr. on Hebrews 4:12
Although this verse clearly makes a distinction between soul and spirit, it hardly settles the long-debated issue of dichotomy versus trichotomy. Whether the spirit is a completely separate entity from the soul, or resides in the soul as one part of it, cannot be resolved by this verse. Joints and marrow is probably metaphorical here, illustrative of the most precise and inner most discriminating. Inasmuch as joints and marrow are not contiguous, the thought is not that of dividing joints from marrow, but of separating joints from the bones which meet at that point, and laying bare the marrow which is inside the bones.
(The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary, 89)

F. F. Bruce on Hebrews 4:12
It would indeed by precarious to draw any conclusions from these words about our author's psychology, nor is it necessary to understand them in the sense of the Pauline distinction between soul and spirit. That the word of God probes the inmost recesses of our spiritual being and brings the subconscious motives to light is what is meant: we may compare Paul's language about the coming day when the Lord "will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts." (1 Cor. 4:5).
(The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 113)

Let us look at the verse more closely.

Hebrews 4:12–13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (ESV)

Notice that soul and spirit are not the only words used in this verse to describe the immaterial part of humans: the word "heart" is used and it has "thoughts and intentions". How does the term "heart" differ from the terms, "soul" and spirit"? Second, notice that the terms "joints" and "marrow" do not describe the whole physical body. They are not even contiguous. One can divide bones from one another at the joint and one can split apart a bone to get at the marrow. Likewise, the verse is not talking about separating soul from spirit, but rather looking at the divisions of the soul and looking at the divisions of the spirit. All these terms: "spirit", "soul", "joints", and "marrow, are a metaphor of how the God's Word brings what is unseen and not understood in our lives to light.

2nd Corinthians 7:1
Another key verse that argues against the trichotomy view is 2nd Corinthians 7:1, "let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit." In another verse, 1 Peter 2:11, states that we are "to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against the soul." Using the "Trichotomy view" the spirit is what is in communication with God and is "quickened" or "awakened" when a person is converted. The trichotomy view needs to explain why Peter chose the words "body and soul" in verse 2nd Cor. 7:1 rather than body and spirit.

The Differences Between Spirit and Soul

Charles Ryrie on "Soul"
To sum up: soul can mean the whole person, alive or after death; it can designate the immaterial part of a person with its many feelings and emotions; and it is an important focus on redemption.
(Basic Theology, pp. 225-226)

Charles Ryrie on "Spirit"
As a facet for the immaterial part of man, one's spirit is the center of various traits, emotions and activities. Some of these include thinking (Isaiah 29:24), remembering (Ps. 77:6), humility (Matt. 5:3), grief (Gen. 26:35), vexation (John 13:21), jealousy (Num. 5:14), haughtiness (Prov. 1618), and contriteness (Ps. 34:18). Because it may evince undesirable emotions, the spirit needs attention in the spiritual life (Ps. 51:10; 2 Cor. 7:1).

...

To sum up: spirit does not indicate the whole person, but the immaterial part with its various functions and feelings. In Pauline thought it assumes prominence in relation to the spirtual life. (Basic Theology, p. 226)

Conclusion

The trichotomy view might be defended by explaining away the arguments for each verse listed above; however, the view that is the simplest and most clearly supported by scripture is the dichotomy view of man. The terms spirit and soul are used interchangeably and seem to largely overlap. As Ryrie asserts spirit and soul seem to be different facets of the immaterial part of man. Every time someone codifies the definitions of the terms "spirit" and "soul" to support the trichotomy view of man, one can provide verses that seem to be exceptions to the rules.

In counseling, the implications of the trichotomy view lead to confusion. The Bible is sufficient to address the whole person. Splitting a person into the different parts so they can be treated separately goes against biblical teaching. Man is a unity that needs to be treated holistically. Counseling addresses the whole man while depending on medical science to give the counselor insight. To suggest that there is a part of man, the soul, which is not being sanctified by our walking in the Holy Spirit, seems to provide excuses for people to sin. For example, counselees use phrases like, "the heart wants what it wants" to explain why a divorce is okay in their case. Sanctification involves the whole person putting to death the temptations of sin. The trichotomy view just muddies the waters of clear teaching.

Verses on Dichotomy:

Deuteronomy 6:4–5
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

Isaiah 26:9
My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 1:46–47
And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
     and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

Mark 12:29–30
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

Luke 10:27
And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (ESV)

1 Corinthians 15:45
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (ESV)

1 Peter 2:11
Beloved, I urge you has sojourners and exiles ito abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. (ESV)

Revelation 6:9
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Trichotomy

Hebrews 4:12–13
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (ESV)

1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (ESV)

1 Corinthians 15:42–49
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (ESV)

Hebrews 4:15 -- Unable to Sympathize

Hebrews 4:15–16
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (ESV)

Introduction

Have you ever thought about why the author of Hebrews indicated that temple priests were unable to sympathize with their flock? They were human. The Levitical priests sinned. They had the same weaknesses and foibles as the rest of us. Why could they not sympathize with their people? How and why did Jesus provide a better way? How did the priests' emotional state stopped them from ministering to their flock?

I have pondered these questions concerning the passage over years. This answer was provided to me by a book on the history of theology. I came across a passage discussing the historical views of God's impassabilty.

Observations

The book pointed out that we misunderstand the phrase "unable to sympathize" in the verse because it has been poorly translated from the Greek. We tend to interpret that somehow the temple priests referenced are emotionally stunted and thus, unable to sympathize with our pain and suffering. However, Bray points out the phrase means something different.

Gerald Bray
Did Jesus suffer on our behalf because of his compassion for us? Hebrews 4:15 says that "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize we our weaknesses," but this is a mistranslation. The Greek word is sympathêsai, which implies physical suffering in a way that the English word that derives from it does not. The Jewish high priest could not be "sympathetic," not because he was emotionally challenged, but because he did not suffer for the sins of the people. The modern reader is liable to think primarily in terms of an emotional bond and wonder how the high priest could have been so hard-hearted. Perhaps he was not. Given that he was sacrificing for his own sins as well as for those of the people , he may been extremely sympathetic to them in our sense of the word, but because he could not be their substitute, the writer to the Hebrews argued that he could not feel their pain. That is what Hebrews 4:15 means, not that the temple priest lacked normal human feelings.
(p. 1212, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology)

I decided to do a small word study on "sympathize". My linguistic key states that the Greek word συμπαθῆσαι that we translate as "sympathize" is not a word for an emotion, "The word is not to be understood in a psychological sense, but rather in an existential sense. The enabled one suffers together w. the weakness of the one tempted (Michel)." (p. 331, A Linguistic Key to the New Testament Volume 2, Rienecker and Rodgers)

Conclusion

The Old Testament priests may have been able to sympathize with our weaknesses in the modern sense. The English word "sympathize" means to "understand or feel sorry for". It is a word that describes an emotion, but the Greek word means much more than an emotion. It means to somehow suffer for and with someone else. Priests in the Old Testament could not suffer for their flock. The best they could do is offer animal sacrifices for our sins. Christ in his life and crucifixion suffered with us and for us. He, being the Great High Priest, is the only one who has been fully tempted without ever sinning. He alone could suffer for our sins to redeem and free us from our sins. God through Christ has entered into our world of suffering to bring us eventually out of suffering into eternal life. This is why we can draw near with confidence to the throne of grace. Jesus has already saved His elect and He is effecting our salvation within us. Therefore, we know we can find grace and mercy when we need it.

"live with your wives in an understanding way" -- 1 Peter 3:7

In popular culture I have encountered a phrase that people use to justify a divorce, "we just grew apart." The phrase usually indicates that no guilt and no responsibility should be attributed for the breakup of the marriage. The couple could not help it. It was just the natural course of life that we just "grew" or "drifted" apart.

In our men's study I am preparing to lead the group through 1st Peter 3. The apostle Peter in verse 3:7 lays the responsibility on the man for keeping the marriage together.

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)

Notice the italicized part. Men are to "understand" or "know" their wives. A man's prayer life and his relationship with God depends on how he well he knows his wife and shows honor to her in light of that knowledge. Obviously, Peter wants to stress that living with our wives in an understanding way is very important to our spiritual lives.

To set the context, let us look at the very first phrase of the verse, "likewise, husbands" or "In the same way, husbands,". The husband's way is like the wife's path. "Likewise" is also used in verse 3:1 and is directed to the wives. This "likewise" points back Peter's instruction to the slaves in chapter 2. The way of Christ for husbands is the same as the path for wives and the way of Christ for wives is the same as the path for slaves: all of them are to humbly walk out their devotion to Christ by showing respect and loving everyone in the household.

George Clowney
Husbands, in the same way… The path of Christian living is no different for the husband than for the wife. Both are called to follow Christ in humble and compassionate love, accepting rebuffs with forgiving grace (3:8-9). Since the husband’s role is different, the form of his service is different. The wife is called to be submissive to her husband; the husband is called to honour his wife. That honour includes considerate understanding. (The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, pp. 133)

The next phrase "in an understanding way" is interesting. It means a husband needs to know his wife. He must study her needs and wants. He must study in the Scriptures to see what God wants for his wife. The husband needs to figure out how to help his wife grow in the knowledge of Christ. How this principle works itself out in every marriage will be different. However, getting to know one's spouse takes time. It may mean finding activities to do with your wife that you both enjoy. Husbands will never fully know their wives or lead their wives perfectly. However, honoring this command involves a deliberate choice of resources of time and energy. A wise farmer who was an elder of my church once advised me that a porch swing could be the best marriage counselor. Just setting aside and spending time with your spouse is key.

George Clowney
The husband is to live with his wife considerately, literally ‘according to knowledge’. The expression describing their living together is not limited to sexual intimacy, but it has particular reference to it. In all their life together, and particularly in their sexual union, the husband is to relate to his wife ‘according to knowledge’. Does Peter mean knowledge of the wife, or the knowledge of God and his calling? The close connection with the description of the wife as the weaker partner favours the specific sense: the husband must dwell with wife as one who knows her needs, who recognizes the delicacy of her nature and feelings.
(The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, pp. 133-134)

The apostle Paul wrote the sacrifices husbands must make for their marriage.

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)

I would like to think most husbands would lay down lives for their wives. Men should be willing to take a bullet intended for their wives, but Paul in Ephesians 5 intended more than an one-time sacrifice. Husbands are to daily give up their time and resources to study their wives in order to show love to them. This is not easy. Some men find it easier and less stressful to work overtime or listen to the game alone in the garage or drink a beer with friends at a bar. Family life can be difficult and messy. However, the joy of loving serving Christ with one's spouse through marriage will grow and outlast all these temporal pleasures.

Nazareth and Nazarene in Matthew 2:23

Matthew 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (ESV)

I have always been curious about this verse. I can think of no prophecy in the Old Testament which calls Jesus a Nazarene. Commentators give widely different explanations as to what Matthew meant. As I look at this verse, I am reminded of C. S. Lewis's admonition of the need to understand literature in its historical context.

C. S. Lewis:
A man who read the literature of the past with no allowance at all for the fact that manners, thought, and sentiment have changed since it was written, would make the maddest work of it.
(Studies in Medieval Literature, 'DE AUDIENDIS POETS', p. 1)

A verse like Matthew 2:23 challenges our thinking about how the first century New Testaments writers did hermenuetics. One view of the verse is given by George Bray in his book on Historical Theology:

George Bray
The Nazirites were members of a stict Jewish sect, and the word has nothing to do with Nazareth. But "Nazirite" sounds like "Nazarene," and that was enough to permit this kind of word play, which was very common among the rabbis. Furthermore, there are other, more substantial similarities between the two stories. Like Manoah and his wife, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would bear a son, who would also save Israel from its enemies. Samson, the son of Manoah, was certainly not the promise Messiah, but as a judge of Israel he was a prototype of the Saviour who was to come and he is mentioned in the list of the great heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. The fact that Jesus succeeded where Samson failed was further proof that the two men were connected because the Old Testament was interpreted as a record of Israel's failure to achieve what only the Messiah could do. Christ therefore fulfilled the promise made concerning Samson just as much as he fulfilled those made to Abraham and Moses. A verse that appears to be mistaken in linking "Nazarene" to "Nazirite" turns out to have a profound theological meaning provides a good example of how the early Christians found Christ in all the Scriptures, as he taught them to do.
(God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology, pp. 46-47)

Here is the relevant passage on Samson in Judges:

Judges 13:2–5
There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (ESV)

The parallel events between Samson's story Jesus's story are remarkable. Both are destined to their role in history before they were born. Both were to be "deliverers of Israel". Both accomplished their task in their death. Samson killed the Philistine leadership by bringing down the building where he and his captors were standing. Christ conquered Satan and death through His death on the Cross. Notice that both men had their arms outstretched in death. In Bray's explanation, Matthew intended his audience to draw these parallels and gained insights into Jesus's life and death and perhaps, Matthew intended his readers to glory in how every page in the Old Testament points to Jesus. (Luke 24:27).

A different approach to interpreting Matthew 2:23 is by Bible scholar, Stanley D. Toussaint in his commentary on Matthew. His explanation is as follows:

Stanley D. Toussaint
A third view is more plausible. It looks at the Old Testament prophecies of reproach such as Psalm 22:6-9 and Isaiah 53 as being summed up in the title Nazarene. "To be called a Nazarene was to be spoken of as despicable.". Matthew is pointing to those prophecies in the Old Testament which portray the Messiah as rejected and despised and claiming their fullment in the fact that Jesus is reared at Nazareth. Israel's feeling of contempt for their King is indicated by this verse and is proven by the chapter which Matthew has just written. (Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, p. 57)

If we accept this explanation, we gain more understanding of the passage by seeing how Matthew and his audience in the first century understood the word, "Nazarene".

There are more explanations for this strange verse, but these two theories are my favorite and they are not mutually exclusive. Both views may be wrong, but the effort in considering the verse within its historical and theological context is not wasted. I consider this kind of research a form of meditation. Samson, is a type of Christ, in his way and the parallels are worth our meditation. The term "nazarene" is an insult and how Christ suffered such abuse in his life is worth remembering. Just by double-checking these explanations and cross-referencing the ideas with other passages, we are spending time meditating on the life of Christ.