Well, good evening, everyone. It's good to have you all. We're here for the Dr. Robbie Dean Bible Conference. We were just talking. And we think this is about the 32nd one. We've had it for about 32 years. I was 12, I think, when we started. And Robbie was 30. But it's good to have him back. He's one of my, I want to say my oldest friend, but he's not old. He's one of my longest friends. Is that, that's a better? For a long, long time. And so, you know, it's great to have friends that are around for a long time. And you have the same things in common and basis of your friendship. And so we are very fortunate to have him. He will be here tonight, tomorrow night, Friday night. Friday night, we will have a little reception for Robbie and Pam. And we'll also take an offering Friday night. But in the meantime, there's an offering plate in the back. And if you'd like to leave, for lack of a better term, a love offering for Rob. We are a very, we're a very cheap church, and we love to have Robbie come, and we are so gracious, we let him pay his own way. And so those funds go to help pay for his airfare and so forth, a little honorarium. So I hope that you will give, and we'll take care of Robbie. Let's get started with a word of prayer, making sure that each one of us is filled with spirit, and you're ready to study the word because the Holy Spirit is our teacher, and we need to be walking in the spirit in order to be taught. Let's pray. Father, you are so good and gracious to us. We thank you for our Savior, Jesus Christ, and that through him we have everlasting life. I thank you for Robbie who takes the time out and comes and shares with us your word for three nights. We appreciate him. I pray that the Holy Spirit would teach us and lighten our minds to the wonderful things, the wonderful truths that you have in your word this evening. These things I pray in Christ's name, amen. Here's my friend, Dr. Robbie Deen. Well, I always enjoy being here and seeing all of you and seeing other long time friends. And so that is a great, great pleasure. And it was Great to fly out here today. I always enjoy coming out here. And in Houston, it's so humid. And even when it's in the 60s and 70s and humid, you know, I get out to walk a lot. And when I get out to walk, and it's humid and muggy, my walking speed picks up by almost a minute and a half per mile when I come here. So there's less air on top of me also, so I'm a little bit lighter, so I can move faster. But it's always, I always enjoy coming out here and getting out and seeing a lot of things around Tucson. Tonight and tomorrow night and Friday night, we're gonna get into something that's a little bit different and a little bit new, not radically new. It's not like I'm going to come along and say, well, Jesus didn't really come out of the grave on the third day, it was the second day. nothing like that, or somebody may say, well, he didn't rise from the dead, he just sort of, in everybody's minds, that's the liberal view, that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual and not physical. Now, we're gonna try to clarify a little bit of some terminology to understand what Paul is saying when he talks about what our mindset should be when we are growing spiritually, how we should think about our circumstances and who we are, and especially in relation to our identity as being in Christ and members of God's family. And that one of the terms that is distinctive to Paul, and he only uses these terms about three or four different passages, is the term the old man and the new man. And he uses it in the middle of three of the most significant passages on the spiritual life. He does it in Romans 6. He does it again in Ephesians 4. And he does it again in Colossians 3. And those are three central passages for understanding the things of the spiritual life. And there's been a lot, been confusion over these things. A lot of people don't realize how much confusion, but when I go back and I look at what people have taught in the past on some of these things, you realize how there's been an increasing clarification and focus on a lot of different terms and things that we have taken for granted. And just think about your own life. And as you started studying the Bible when you were maybe in your teens or 20s and 30s, and how well you understood certain concepts in the scripture, and then maybe after 10 or 15 years of listening to some good Bible teaching and reading your Bible, you understood it differently, not different of a different kind, but it had greater clarification and greater precision in your mind. And then maybe 10 or 15 years later, the same thing again, that you're not having any breakthroughs that happens to us in any field of knowledge, any field of study, the more familiar we get with things, the more we take things on and we may hear some different teachers say things a little bit different from somebody else, causes us to think and go back and look at Scripture. And I think God designed Scripture that way. He didn't give us a book on systematic theology. We would read that book on systematic theology, put it back on the shelf and forget about it. But he gave us the Bible where he's revealed himself through historical narrative in the Old Testament, through the poetry of wisdom literature, and also a lot of the prophets. You read Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the minor prophets. They're filled with poetry. And the way you interpret poetry is a little bit different from the way you would interpret, let's say, a legal contract for a real estate purchase or something like that. You're still following the same principles of the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation, but language is used differently in different kinds of literature. And so we come to understand those things over time. And so I've held slightly different views here or there. I was surprised how close I was. I went back and looked at what I taught on Romans 6 about 12 or 14 years ago. And I was surprised that it was as close to what I'm saying now, but it wasn't quite the same. Okay, so, but it was pretty close. So just that progression. I teach history of doctrine for Chafer Seminary along with church history. And we used a phrase in the history of doctrine called the development of doctrine. And it's not that doctrine develops or new things are there. It is that over time, the more you study and think through in specific areas, especially standing on the shoulders of 10, 15, 20 generations of good scholars, then you're clarifying, you're getting a greater focus, you're understanding it in a much fuller sense than you do when you're younger. And so as the church has grown through the church age, we have come to greater precision on these things. So I thought that since I've covered this at home and some of you may have listened to me teach this in the current Ephesian series, I'm addressing this from a slightly different perspective. orientation. I'm not starting in Ephesians 4, I'm actually starting in Ephesians 6, 1 through 8. Because one of the things that is connected to this new man, old man terminology is the baptism by the Holy Spirit. And so we have to come to a greater understanding of that. And so your grammatical understanding That is how well you understand grammar in terms of nouns and verbs and prepositions and adverbs and adjectives and all of those wonderful things you forgot after the 9th or 10th grade are going to be very important tonight. So we're going to be gentle. as we go through this to show that we have often misinterpreted, misunderstood what is going on even in our understanding of the baptism by the Holy Spirit. And so we're gonna work our way through that. So that's where we're starting, and that's our title slide, so I'm just going to, I advance it myself with this, right? Well, that didn't work. Oh, the down arrow. I tried two other ones. So we're just gonna start off with, we'll go through, see, I can't get mine to, oh, I know what I'm doing wrong. I'll change it and I'll do it this way. There, that'll be better. No, it won't. I'm gonna do it this way. Okay. So, we're going to come here and just look at Romans 6, and the first 4, 6, 8 verses, and not even all of them. I'm not really going to do an exposition of this passage, but I just want us to understand what is going on here. Romans 6 through 8 is Paul's section in Romans where he deals with the spiritual life. In Romans 1 and 2, he is showing that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That's his conclusion. And then when you get into Romans 3 through 5, the focus is on how then does a spiritually dead person, one who is unrighteous, become righteous? How are they declared righteous? And so 3 through 5 talks about justification by faith and then that relationship to reconciliation in Romans 5. So that deals with the doctrines related to salvation. When you get to Romans 6, 1, the shift is from getting saved, becoming born again, becoming a new creature in Christ, to how do we live after we're saved? And so we ask these rhetorical questions. There are four questions here. And he says, what shall we say then? In other words, after having gone through his chapters on justification that Christ has paid the penalty for sin, well, if the penalty for sin is paid for, well, whoopee, let's just have a great time and sin all we want to because the penalty's been paid for. So that's what he's getting at in verse 1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? No, absolutely not. That's the force of his phrase that he uses in the Greek. Absolutely not. How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? That question is the focal point for understanding chapter six, is that because when we trust Christ as Savior, at that instant, we have died to sin. What does that mean? And so he says, we have died to sin. That's our legal position. That's our new identity. We are dead to sin. How should we continue sinning? We shouldn't. Things have changed. And his starting point has to do with understanding the baptism by the Holy Spirit. And he says, Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? So you should know that. He's taught them that before. And he says, therefore, in other words, this is a conclusion, we were buried with him through baptism into death. Now, of course, a lot of people will think, well, this is water baptism. No, it's not water baptism, because there are different baptisms in the scripture. We'll look at that in just a minute. And this is the baptism by the Holy Spirit. We can tell that because of the context. And we have to understand what baptism actually means. So baptism has a literal meaning in that the literal meaning of the word baptism is to plunge or dip or immerse something into something else, but it has a symbolic significance and it means that something is identified with a new state. Okay, so that in the classic world, in the Roman army, the recruits, after they finished basic training, the hoplites, would take their spears or their swords and they would dip them into a bucket of pig's blood. So they're identifying their weapon with death. And so they are now ready to go and fight and shed blood. So that's its figurative or symbolic significance. So identification is one way that we could paraphrase the verse to get a greater sense for it. Do you not know that as many of us as were identified into Christ, were baptized or were identified with His death. So I would paraphrase it, many of us were baptized or identified with Christ Jesus, were identified with His death. Therefore we were buried with Him through identification with death. That just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Now there Paul brings in one of his favorite metaphors for describing the Christian life. It's the Christian walk. Walking is a step-by-step procedure whereby we make progress through things. And so walking is a picture of our life. How do we live? How do we walk? So he's making an argument here that because at salvation we are identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, The proper conclusion from that is that because that has happened, that's a reality, even though we didn't feel it, there was no experience, nobody spoke in tongues. It's a legal fact that we learn after we study scripture. And the consequence is that because of that, we should walk in newness of life. There's a life quality change. So we go to the, let me switch slides here, go to the next slide. That's the key verse, Romans 6.3. So let's look at baptism. The definition of baptism The Greek word baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse. The reason we have an English word baptism is because in the history of Christianity, in the second century, they started a practice of not immersing for various reasons. Some of it had to do with being in the desert. and not around water sources. It had just different things. And then eventually, after Christianity was legalized under Constantine around 315 A.D., then you had this unity of church and state. So all Christians are members of the state. You're a citizen. How do you enter the church? Through baptism. How do you become a citizen of the state? Through baptism. And so every infant was baptized, so it had a political aspect as well as a spiritual aspect. years down the road and people say, no, no, no, no, no, you don't get baptized as an infant, you're supposed to get baptized after you have trusted in Christ as Savior. They would say, traitor, you're negating citizenship. Because they have merged the politics, the church, and the state. So when they were translating into English, to avoid all of this controversy, they took the courageous route of just transliterating it into English and avoiding a translation, and kicked the ball down the street, as we say today. As an action, it signifies the identification of someone with an action, identifies somebody with a person, an object, or a new status in life. So the denotation or literal meaning is immersion, but the connotation is identification. So we see this in a somewhat familiar chart. We have our eternal realities and our temporal realities. And on the left side, we have a white circle on a dark background. And the reason I did that is because at the instant of salvation, we are baptized by the Holy Spirit and our position is in Christ and we are in the light. That is our identification. But Paul says in Ephesians 5 that you are light, but walk in the light. I mean, that's your position, that's your identity, so live like it. So this is what happens with the baptism by the Holy Spirit, is we are placed in Christ. On the other side, with temporal realities, we are filled by the Holy Spirit, and we can We're walking in the light, but when we sin, we're outside and we're walking in darkness, and then we have to confess sin to get back in, what we say, back in fellowship, which is not the best way to use the term. We don't understand what fellowship is. The Christian lingo of being in fellowship makes it sound like it's a state. That's not the Greek concept of koinonia. The Greek concept of koinonia is that two people are in partnership in pursuing a common objective. Okay, so what happens in the Christian life is two people who are in partnership are God and the believer, and it's God the Holy Spirit who is working in us to produce Christ-like character. And when we are walking by the Spirit, we're walking together in that partnership towards that goal of developing Christ-like character and spiritual maturity. But when we sin, we are turning around and walking in the other direction, and the lights are turned off. So it's not that the Holy Spirit doesn't have anything to do with us. Now His role is to get us to wake up confess sin, identify the sin, and turn around and walk in the light. So that's basically something everybody's familiar with. So this is the idea. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is that which identifies us with Christ in our new identity, our new legal position before God. There are three ritual baptisms. And they are the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, the baptism of John the Baptist, which was for repentance for the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the church age. The gospel of the kingdom was the message of John the Baptist, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. And then Jesus taught the same message, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. And he sent out his disciples only to the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the same message, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. That is connected to John's baptism. It was a sign of someone who had determined they wanted to accept the Messiah as king. They wanted to accept this kingdom that was being offered. The baptism of Jesus had nothing to do with that. It was the inauguration of Jesus in his ministry. And then the baptism of believers at the time after they have trusted in Christ as Savior. These are all wet. baptism, wet ritual baptisms. And then there are five real baptisms. And there's the baptism of Noah in 1 Peter 3, 20 and 21. Those that were identified with Noah were in the ark. They were dry. The people who got wet died. Then there's the baptism of Moses. Moses and the Israelites who identified with Moses went through the Red Sea on dry land, came out the other side dry. The Egyptians that followed them were not identifying with Moses' message and they got wet and they drowned. So these are dry baptisms. The baptism of fire is judgment that will be fulfilled when the Lord returns at the second coming. And there's the baptism of the cross. Christ identifies with our sins. There's no water involved there. And the fifth is the baptism by means of the Holy Spirit, which is the passage we're talking about tonight. So these are all real baptisms. They are all dry. There's no water involved. They all signify identification with different things. So the fourth thing, by way of review, is that the context further defines the baptism of Romans 6.3 as being united with the likeness of his death. So there's this identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. So in verse five we read, for if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, that's how Paul is describing this identification with Christ's death. Because we know this, Now, it's translated as a participle, just knowing this, but it's a causal participle because we know this. You've been taught this. What is it that we know that should be impacting how we think? He says that our old man was crucified with him. for the purpose that the body of sin, the sin nature, might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. And there are many people, in fact, I may be wrong on this, but I think even the old Scofield Bible notes, identified the old man as the sin nature. But that doesn't make sense in the context. If you read it that way, because we know this, that our sin nature was crucified with Him for the purpose that the body of sin, the sin nature, might be done away with. It's redundant. It doesn't make sense. It's not talking about that. We all have a sin nature. all through our spiritual life after we're saved. This passage is simply teaching that it no longer is the dominant tyrant that it was before. Before we were saved, nobody had any choice but to live on the basis of their sin nature. Nobody. They did good things, but remember, the good things came out of the sin nature. The sin nature produces all kinds of morality, but it doesn't produce spiritual life. The Pharisees were very moral, but they were spiritually dead. All they can do is produce morality. You have to be born again. You have to have that new nature before you can not sin. Verse seven says, for he who has died, that is separation from the tyranny of the sin nature, has been freed from sin, because we've been identified with Christ in our death, burial, and resurrection. Freed from sin doesn't mean we don't have a sin nature anymore. It means that the sin nature is no longer the dominant single option that we had before we were saved. Now we get into Colossians 3.9. And Colossians 3, 9, Paul says, do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with his deeds. It's a past tense verb. It's something that has already happened. It's not something that is in process of happening. It's not something that needs to happen in the future. He is saying you have already done this. You have put off the old man with his deeds. If the old man is the sin nature, Then why am I still sinning if I put the old man off? So old man is not the sin nature. And he goes on to say, and you have, still a past tense verb, already put on the new man who is being renewed, present tense shifting from past tense, you've already put on the new man who is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of him who created him. Where, there is neither great, where, that word where refers back to what? it refers back to the new man, having put on the new man where there is neither Greek nor Jew. Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. If the new man is individual, then what does this mean that I'm now in the new man? And there's no Greek nor Jew circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all in all. The reason I'm bringing that out, and this is what we're going to develop, is this is not an individual concept. It has to be a corporate concept that when we as believers put on the new man, in the new man there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all in all. In other words, it's our new position in Christ and it's where there's no distinction between Gentile and Jew, no distinction between circumcised or uncircumcised, etc. So that's the thrust of this. Now we're going to get into more of the details here, but what you see here is that the old man that is put off and the new man that is put on is directly connected to this concept of being somewhere where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, sithian, enslaved or free, but Christ is all in all. Now, where else do we find that language? Well, we find it in places like Galatians 3, 27 and 28. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. See, there's that put on language again. We've put on the new man in other passages. We've put on Christ in this passage. Now, if we go back to the illustration, when we're baptized into Christ, we're in this new position in Christ. That's what this is getting to. And in that new position, when we put on Christ, then those who have put on Christ, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male or female, are not issues related to their new position in Christ, like it was under the law. If you were under the Mosaic law, if you were a Gentile, you could only go so far into the temple. There was actually a low wall and a warning that if you were a Gentile and you went beyond this point, you were going to die. It was punishable by death. So there were distinctions. If you were a slave, you could only go so far as well. You did not have the same access into the temple that a free Jewish male had. So if you were a woman, you could not go beyond the court of the women. If you are a Jewish male, that is free, you can go all the way into the temple to worship God. So these designations were not designations that are related to patriarchy or being a slave owner or any of these ideas. It's related to the fact that under the Old Testament dispensation, under the Mosaic law, There were restrictions in terms of public worship. And that access to God and those restrictions are no longer at play in the body of Christ. So we have to look at what is going on here. So we see this terminology, Galatians 3.27, we have already put on Christ. When we were baptized into Christ, that's got to be the baptism by the Spirit, not water baptism. At that instant, we put on Christ. And Ephesians 4.24 says, you have already put on the new man. Now, in most English translations, as we're going to see tomorrow night, that is translated as if it's a command to do it now, as if it's a present tense command, put on the Lord Jesus Christ. This is something that we need to do. But it's actually an aorist or past tense in the Greek. So, we have already done this. When did that happen? Well, according to Galatians 3.27 it happened when we were baptized by the Holy Spirit. And Colossians 3.10 says the same thing that Ephesians 4.24 says when it's correctly translated that we have already put on the new man. So, moving back to our passage in Let me go to, that's the slide that I'm getting confused between the two slides. So this is the slide that I was just talking about. See, Galatians 3.27, when you were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ. Ephesians 4.24, we've already put on the new man. Colossians 3.10, we've already put on the new man. Those passages are all consistent when properly interpreted. So we come to Ephesians, or Romans rather, Romans 6, 13. The concluding command in this section, Paul says, is do not present your members, that is your body, your life, as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." That summarizes it. We're not gonna get into all the details of that section, but we have to understand the role of this old man, and it's connected to the baptism by the Holy Spirit. So what is the baptism by the Holy Spirit? So we look at this passage in 1 Corinthians 12, 13. This is usually the primary proof text that you will hear somebody teaching that as believers in Christ, we have all been entered into the body of Christ. We have all been baptized by the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that is, this is the proof text. That's why I'm starting here. We have to understand it, but we have to understand the grammar and the verbiage that is used in in this verse, because what I'm going to tell you, what I'm going to show you is that this is a formula. Every passage uses the same prepositions in the same way. And it's a static formula in all six passages that refer to the baptism by the Holy Spirit, but they're not translated the same. So it leads to, has led people to think that there are two different baptisms by the Spirit. But in the original Greek, they're all written the same way, okay? So let's look at this. You have this phrase, by one spirit. That is the preposition in English, by, B-Y. Now, If I, prepositions are funny things because they have a wide range of meaning and in some cases they can be, they can be synonymous and other places they're very different. For example, you take the preposition, this Greek preposition in, it can be translated as with, it can be translated as by, it can be translated as in something. So if I were to say, so and so was, walking down the street with their head in the clouds. How would you understand the preposition in? You would understand it as their head is, it's metaphorical, but it's in some other place. He's not really living in the present, he's distracted, he's thinking about something else, his head's somewhere else, it's in the clouds. And so that has a location idea. But the preposition in can also have the idea of by. Now, I can sit up here and I can say, well, Judy's sitting by John. What does that mean? She's sitting next to him. But if you say, well, he went from Tucson to Phoenix by car. Buy means something completely different in that sentence. It indicates the instrument or the means that was used to go from one location to another location. You can say, well, he went to the store with his friends. And that means that somebody is going someplace accompanying other people. And you can also say that you fill up my glass with coffee. And that's indicating the content, something completely different. Or you can just say, well, I like what's in that bottle over there. Fill that up with what's in the bottle, with that bottle. So you're using it as a means that that's the instrument that should be used is this bottle and not the other bottle. The same thing gets real confusing when you're talking, going from one language to another because the prepositions are fluid and fluid over time. Within 200 years of the Greek New Testament, the preposition in dropped out, or probably 300 years, preposition in dropped out of Greek because it got to the point where its meaning was so broad it didn't mean anything anymore. It was used to, it was the catch-all preposition for everything. When I talk to my friends, My Ukrainian friends, I noticed over the years when I would say, OK, I'm going to call you at 4 o'clock. He said, OK, I'll be ready after 4 o'clock. Now, if we use the preposition after, we mean I'll call you after 6. It could be anywhere from 6 until midnight. But when they hear that, they hear it as at 6. And I've had the same kind of reaction when I'm talking to some Israeli friends. And I noticed that we'll say certain things in English with certain prepositions, but when they use English, they'll use different prepositions. So prepositions are kind of funky little things. So we have to understand what is the sense of by one spirit, for by one spirit we were all baptized into one body. Now what I want you to pay attention to here is that in this passage, you have this phrase by one spirit, and it is the Greek preposition in plus the dative of numity, dative of numa for spirit. That's the phrase, that's the identical phrase. It doesn't have an article insert or anything else. It's that identical phrase that is in every single one of these baptism passages that I'm talking about. But what I want you to notice is they're not translated the same way in English. So English translators, one translator will use with in one verse. And you'll use in in another verse. And that looks to an English reader like there's two different things going on. And that gets confusing if you don't know anything about Greek. So we have this. showing up in other passages. Just to show you some other translations. So if you have it like we have it in the New King James, the RSV translates it the same way as for by one spirit we were all baptized into one body. In Darby's translation, John Nelson Darby was the first to systematize dispensationalism in the 1830s. And he was a brilliant Greek scholar, and he went to Trinity College in Dublin, and he took first prize in Greek. That was no little accomplishment back then. That meant that you were absolutely brilliant off the charts to take a first in Greek. And he translated this also in the power of one's spirit. Notice he used the English preposition in. And 1 Corinthians 12.13 in the American Standard Version, the English Revised Version, the NIV margin, it also says, in one spirit were we all baptized into one body. But guess what? Every one of these is showing the same Greek preposition. It's just translated by different translators with a different word in the English. Well, now we have to go to where do we find this source? When is the baptism by the Spirit first mentioned? And that takes us back to the Gospel of Matthew. And the speaker is John the Baptist. And John the Baptist tells his audience, he says, I indeed baptize you, and it's translated with water. But guess what the preposition is? It's the preposition in. I baptize you with water unto repentance, but he who is coming after me, who is that? That's Jesus. He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Now is that with and accompaniment with? Is that, should it be translated in, like he had his head in the clouds, like it's in a location, in the spirit, and we're somewhere up in some, or is it by the spirit? But see, they're all translated with this phrase with, and they're parallel phrases. There's a comparison between John uses water, Jesus is gonna use the Holy Spirit. And so it means the same thing, John does it with water, and we understand that in the instrumental sense, he uses water. But with can mean other things. So we get confused. So then we go to, The other gospel passages. Mark 1.8, John the Baptist is speaking. I indeed baptize you with water. And it's that same preposition. Notice in all of these passages in the New King James, the with preposition in English translates to the in preposition in Greek. indeed baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Spirit." And so that has an in also I just need to add that to that with. Luke 3.16, John answers saying to all, I indeed baptize you with water, but one mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strapped I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Spirit and fire. John 133, I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, upon whom you see the spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. So in every one of these passages, we see in plus the spirit or either water is always translating the same Greek preposition. We see it also in another baptism passage in 1 Corinthians 10.1. 1 Corinthians 10.1 is talking about the baptism into Moses. And so we read there, all were baptized into Moses, and that's a different preposition. It's the preposition eis, E-I-S. And then it says, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud. Wait a minute, all those other places translated in following baptism with with, now they're translating it with the English preposition in. Why didn't they translate it with the cloud and with the sea? Which is what they should have done. So there's three important observations you need to make here. The first is that the verb in all of these passages is the same verb. It's always baptizo, to baptize. I am baptizing. That's what baptizo means. In the active voice, The grammatical subject performs the action of the verb. Y'all remember that from like 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 9th grade, passive verbs, active voice verbs. In the active voice, the grammatical subject performs, I'm gonna give you illustrations of this in a minute, so don't fade out on me here. The grammatical subject performs the action of the verb. The three passive voice constructions will be examined later, because most of these are passive voice constructions. Thus, in the Gospels, Christ performs the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That's very important. Christ is going to, John says, I baptize you with water, but he who comes after me will baptize you by means of the Spirit and by means of fire. Who does that baptism work? It is Jesus Christ who does that baptism work. That's very important. How many times have you thought, have you been taught, well, when in a baptism of the Spirit, we're baptized by the Spirit into Jesus. Well, if you think that, then you've got two different baptisms. And you're a closet charismatic. Not necessarily, you just aren't precise enough. So the third is that the action is then further developed by two prepositional phrases that define the action. The first uses the preposition in and the second uses the preposition ace. So what we have here is the verb baptizo, then you have an in phrase and an ace phrase in every one of these passages. That's why I say it's a formula. It always has to be understood the same. The problem, just so you know, I'm not making this up, is stated very clearly by Wayne Grudem, who's the president of Phoenix Seminary just north of here. I don't agree with him in other areas a lot. But in this area and in a couple of others, he's very clear. And that's why I use this is because I think he states it well. And that shows that I'm not just making this up. It's not something that Robbie Dean came up with on his own. So he says the problem here is, now the question is whether 1 Corinthians 12.13 refers to the same activity as these other six verses. In many English translations it appears to be different. For many translations are similar to the RSV which says, for by one spirit we were all baptized into one body. Those who support the Pentecostal view of baptism in the Holy Spirit after conversion are quite eager. See, they have two different baptisms. One when you're saved, that's 1 Corinthians 12, 13, that's by one spirit. And then later, when you've had your second work of grace, you're baptized with the Holy Spirit. They base that on the way the two different prepositions are used in English, but as I pointed out, it's in the Greek, they're all the same. The translators just chose to translate them differently to give me something to talk about tonight. So, Grinham goes on to say, in all the other six verses, Jesus is the one who baptizes people and the Holy Spirit is the element parallel to water in physical baptism. in which or with which Jesus baptizes people. But here in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, so the Pentecostal explanation goes, we have something quite different. Here the person doing the baptizing is not Jesus, but the Holy Spirit. See, when you hear the phrase, we were baptized by the Spirit, in English, if you have a passive verb, English uses by the spirit to indicate the agent, the one who performs the action of the verb, but not always. Okay, but it's confusing. So this is what Grudem is pointing out. So therefore he says they, that is Pentecostals, say 1 Corinthians 12, 13 should not be taken into account when we ask what the New Testament means by baptism by the Spirit, baptism in the Spirit. He goes on to say the point is, this point is very important to the Pentecostal position because if we admit that 1 Corinthians 12, 13 refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit, then it is very hard to maintain that it is an experience that comes after conversion. If you translate the exact same way it's translated in the Gospels, then you can't have two different events. That's what he's saying. That's a problem for the charismatics. In this verse, Paul says that this baptism in, with, or by the Holy Spirit made us members of the body of Christ. We were all baptized into one spirit, in one spirit, into one body. So he says, apart from one small difference, He refers to one spirit rather than the Holy Spirit. All the other elements are the same. There's the verb baptizo, and the prepositional phrase contains the words in, with pneuma, pneumati, And if we translate this same Greek expression, baptized in the Holy Spirit, or baptized with the Holy Spirit, in the other six New Testament occurrences, which, where we find it, then it seems only proper that we translate it the same way in this seventh occurrence. Doesn't that make sense? If you have six other passages, all talking, using the same language, the same verb, the same two prepositional phrases, in and ace, Shouldn't we translate it the same way here? He says, and no matter how we translate, it seems hard to deny that the original readers would have seen this phrase as referring to the exact same thing as the other six verses, because for them the words were the same, something that occurs after conversion, not at the same time. See, he gets, he goes, he's vineyard. So he gets wonky on his view of the Holy Spirit. But he points out the grammatical problem here very well. So he points out that flaw. So, but let's go to one of our guys. They're not that clear either. This is Dr. Charles Ryrie. He was the head of the Systematic Theology Department at Dallas Seminary for many, many years. Bob Thieme used to tell funny stories about Dr. Ryrie when they were students, so they went way back to the late 40s. But Ryrie was, and this is not what Ryrie's talked about in his book on the Holy Spirit that he wrote back in the 60s. This isn't the position. This is the position that he has in his, and it wasn't even this way in his first edition. Why? Because there were some of us working on what I'm teaching you that made him and Dr. Walvord, some others aware of this issue. And so the things they wrote in the 90s, took into account some of the things we were saying, but they were still wobbly, because this is a dirty little secret. Very few people who majored in systematic theology do a good job in exegeting the Greek and the Hebrew as well. because they're doing theology. They're looking at the results of exegesis and comparing things together. And I find these guys, first time I read Grudem's systematic theology, I found, I just got fed up after 30 minutes. I checked three or four things that he said were dead wrong because he didn't look at the Greek or the Hebrew. That's so common with theologians. They're dealing with theological conclusions from the text, but they don't take enough time to really look at the grammar and the syntax of the original languages. So that's very important. So Ryrie has an excellent analysis on page 420 in Basic Theology, where he discusses this problem of two baptisms of Pentecostalism. He says, for unity in the body for all believers. This is why we have 1 Corinthians 12, 13. One basic verse is that of 1 Corinthians 12, 13, which all believers experience and which is accomplished by the Spirit and places people in the body of Christ. The second is for power. This is the Pentecostal view. One is for unity, one is for power. Okay, for the sake of time I'm going to move on a little faster. So Ryrie then goes on to say, that the New Testament uses the phrase to baptize with, in, or by the Spirit only seven times. Actually, these seven occurrences can be placed in three categories. The predictions in the Gospels looking ahead and pointing back to the day of Pentecost and two references in Acts. and then the doctrinal explanation of its significance in 1 Corinthians 12, 13. In the Gospels, it appears more natural to understand Christ as the baptizer and the Spirit as the sphere. Now, I would disagree with that. It's not sphere, it's instrument. But he sees that this, and Christ is the one who's the baptizer. In Acts and Corinthians, it seems more natural to understand the Spirit as the agent of baptism. I think he's wrong there. Grammatically, it's instrument, it's not agent. Okay, agent's another concept, but I'm not gonna get into the weeds on that. He says, however, those distinctions are not hard and fast. Both Christ and the Spirit are agents. He just muddies it up. That's my point with the Ryrie quote. The Spirit's activity that joins the believer to the body of Christ at the time of salvation, that's how he summarizes it. And then he has this very helpful chart here in his book, we'll just skip past that. Chafer, Chafer wasn't much clearer. He says, those scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is related to baptism are to be classified in two divisions. In the one group, Christ is the baptizing agent, See, they use this word agent in a fluid and non-technical way. I'll give you a technical use. The baptizing agent, yet the Holy Spirit is the blessed influence. See, they're struggling with how are we using, what words are we gonna use to describe these two different activities? He says in the other group of passages, the Holy Spirit is the baptizing agent and Christ is the head of his mystical body, is the receiving element. That's clear as mud. Now, Chafer had two great students. One was John Walvoord and the other one was Bob Thame. Now, Chafer is a little fuzzy on this. We saw that Walvoord got got fuzzy also, but he changed a lot from what he said originally. And then Chafer says, it may be said in concluding this portion of the chapter that to be placed in Christ by the baptizing agency of the Holy Spirit results in a new reality of relationship in which the one thus blessed comes under the power and headship of Christ. So he gets to the right result, but he uses that freight agency, and we'll talk about that in a minute. Bob Thieme says, in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the problem is the Greek never uses a genitive in describing any of this. And baptism of is translating it as if it's a genitive. And we're not dealing with genitives. We're dealing with a dative. But he says it's the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit enters the believer into union with Christ, making the church-age believer a part of the royal family of God. He totally ignores the role of Christ. And Christ is the one doing it in six of the seven passages. Walvard the Holy Spirit has been recognized as the agent of baptism by most students of the doctrine objection is found sometime however to this thought a study of the various passages speaking of baptism by the spirit reveals that the customary Greek preposition used is in in all the passages From this it has been induced that we are baptized not by the Spirit, but in the Spirit. Again, it's a wrong use of an English preposition. Christ is regarded as the actor, yes, inasmuch as he is said to be the one baptizing, and the Holy Spirit is merely the sphere. See, that's the idea of in something, like somebody walking down the street with their head in the clouds, okay? But they're struggling. See, a lot of people don't understand. These guys are trying to work this out and figure out the language. When I first went over to teach in Magyarlov in Belarus and then in Ukraine, you realize English is the most theologically specific language in history because we've been working with it to try to properly, precisely translate the Greek. for a sense of Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s. And so we've refined it down. But you get over into countries like Russia or just about anywhere else in the world where they don't have this tradition, and you read the translations. And because I will frequently ask my translator over there, I'll say, well, would you back translate that, read the verse in Russian and then translate it back to me into English so I know what the Russian actually says. And then you find out that what the Russian actually says is so far from what the Greek says or what the English says that you've got to spend an hour just re-correcting everything. For example, in the Russian Bible, it translated righteousness with the word pravda for truth. You can just go off into all kinds of weird directions then. Okay, so this is what's happening here. I'm not knocking any of these men. I'm showing that Chafer and his students are all struggling with what's the correct language to express this. They get to the right result, in a broad sense, but when we get it right, it helps. In the work of Baptism by the Spirit, Walvord says, the preposition is probably used in a similar instrumental sense. See, this is a change. Instrumental is an agent. Earlier he was using the term agent. Now he's using the term instrumental. Instrumental is when I say I went by car to Phoenix or I went by airplane to Phoenix. It's the instrument or the means by which something is accomplished. He says, while the American Standard Version uses in the Spirit for both Acts 1-5 and 1 Corinthians 12-13, the Revised Standard uses with and by, respectively, considering both instances instrumental. Let me see, I've lost… I'm all the way down here. Sorry, I get kind of ahead because I've got to do both of these. Okay, let's skip ahead. Where am I here? There was Colonel's comment, Walvoord's comment. Here's where we just were. A strict interpretation would lead to this locative idea, but the same preposition is used in an instrumental. So, in the spirit is locative. Locative is from the word location, the location like in the clouds, in the spirit. To me, that just sounds mystical. But then, in the next slide, Walvoord really confuses the issue here. He says, it can be said, therefore, that we are baptized by Christ in the sense that Christ sent the Spirit. Accordingly, references to baptism of the Spirit as performed by Christ can be interpreted in this light. As the act of the sword in the hands of a disciple, Luke 22, 49, is at once the act of the sword and the act of the disciples, so the work of baptism, while accomplished by the Holy Spirit, is also a work of Christ. I think he muddies the water, but he's getting there. So here's what we have in a chart. We have, people talk about the baptism of the spirit, but of is how you translate a genitive. There's no genitive construction in the Greek, so that's not legitimate at all. What we have, whether it's baptism with the spirit, baptism in the spirit, or baptism by the spirit, in the Greek, it's all the same. It's all enumity. And yet, by translating it with three or four different prepositions, it leaves the English reader confused and thinking that there's more than one. So let's look at a passage. Matthew 311. John says, I indeed baptize you with water. unto repentance. But he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." All those phrases with water, with the Holy Spirit, with fire, all are enumity. Now, Moving to the next slide, in Matthew 3.11, the subject of the active voice verb baptize is I. John the Baptist says, I baptize you with water. Who's doing the action? John. What's the action? Baptize. Then he says, he who comes after me will baptize you by means of the Holy Spirit in fire. Who's doing the action? It's Jesus. It's not the Holy Spirit. He's using the Holy Spirit as the instrument, not the agent. Agent, we'll see that word in a minute. Jesus performs the action. He's the subject of the verb. He performs the action of the active voice verb and the action is by means or the instrument of the Holy Spirit and fire So that would translate Matthew 3 11 is I John on the one hand is baptize you by means of water unto repentance. But on the other hand, he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you by means of the Spirit and with fire." So we have these other verses. Matthew 3.13 says, then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. and John tried to prevent him saying, I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me? Now, see, this is really interesting. Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized by him. Who's performing the action of baptism? John. Is to be baptized an active voice, verb, or passive? It's passive. See how in English we designate the one who performs the action in a passive verb with the preposition by, okay? Now we're getting closer to why there's so much confusion. Same thing happens in Matthew 3.14. John tried to prevent him saying, I need to be baptized by you. I need you to be the one performing the action of baptism. It's the English word by. So, next slide. I need to be baptized by you as passive voice. In this sentence, as we just said, who performs the baptism? Now, yeah, Jesus does. I need to be baptized by you. In these two sentences, who performs the baptism? It's indicated in the Greek with the preposition hupa, not in. So if you have a passive verb and you want to indicate who's doing the action, you use a specific preposition, hupa. See, in English we can use a couple of different prepositions, but in Greek it's very precise, and it ain't in. But how is it translated in 1 Corinthians 12, 13? for by the Holy Spirit we were all baptized." So everybody thinks that's the subject of the verb. The one who is the agent performing the action. Holy Spirit isn't said to be, if the Greek wanted to say that it would use hoopa rather than in. But in English using by indicates, it can indicate agent who performs the action or any number of other things. That's why it gets confusing. So Jesus says, In these two sentences, who performs the action? We've already covered that. Him is John the Baptist who performs the baptizing. And you, Jesus, is the one performing the baptizing. And in both of these verses, the by is translating the Greek word hupa. So grammatically, the one who performs the action of the passive or active voice verb is the agent. That's why that people say, oh, well, Jesus is the agent and Holy Spirit's the agent. Well, now you're acting like agent's not a technical term. What's happened is agents become the technical term for describing the one who performs the action. So if you have a statement, Jesus walked by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is the subject, grammatical subject, but he's also the agent performing the action. But in a passive voice construction, you would indicate the agent with the preposition hoopa. but it wouldn't be the subject of the passive verb. I'll give you an example of that in a minute. So in English we use the preposition by with a passive verb to indicate the one who performs the action, that is the agent. Jesus came to be baptized by him. So John the Baptist would be the agent performing the action of baptism, but Jesus is the grammatical subject. So here we have a simple English illustration. Let me get past this. I'm skipping by this too fast. Okay. John hit the ball with the bat. Astros just won the World Series. Yay! Go Astros! Okay. John hit the ball. When we say John hit the ball with the bat, what we're using with to communicate is that he's using the bat to hit the ball. It's the instrument that he uses, or the means. So in the next slide, we designate the verb as a active voice verb. And the subject is color-coded now. And John is the subject and the agent. who is performing the action of an active voice verb. John hits the ball. The ball receives the action. That's the direct object. And then the indirect object is indicated with the prepositional phrase, and it indicates the instrument that's used with the bat. So, when you render it with a passive verb, the ball was hit with the bat. Or you could say the ball was hit by the bat. But the bat's not the one that's doing the hitting. The player's the one who's doing the hitting. The player's just not mentioned. So in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, which says, for by one spirit we were baptized into one body, the one who's doing the baptizing isn't mentioned. You just have the agent, I mean, excuse me, you just have the instrument, the Holy Spirit mentioned. So in this illustration, I say the ball was hit with or by the bat. In this sentence, who performed the action of hitting? The bat or an unknown someone? It's an unknown someone. In the sentence, the ball was hit with or by the bat, was hit is passive voice. The grammatical subject, the ball, receives the action of the verb. The grammatical subject here, the ball, is no longer the performer of the action. So when you have the ball is the grammatical subject, was hit is the passive verb, by John indicates the performer or the agent who hit the ball, and then with the bat indicates the means. So if you took by John out, the ball was hit with the bat, it still makes perfect sense. Now we get down to trying to apply this to Greek. When it's rendered with a passive verb, the Greek preposition hoopa, not in, indicates the performer or the agent of the action. The ball was hit by John. The ball is the subject. The verb is a passive verb, was hit. John is the performer of the agent. That would be indicated by hupa, in the next line down, hupa or dia, but not in. And in would be used to indicate the means or the instrument with or by the bat. So in Matthew 3.11, As for me, John the Baptist said, I baptize. I is the grammatical subject. It's John the Baptist. He performs the action of baptizing. He baptizes you. He's talking to Jesus with water. That's the instrument that he uses. For repentance. So this is when he's really talking to the whole crowd. I baptize with you with water for repentance. Ace indicates the goal. But he who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove his sandals." He will baptize you, future active voice. He is Christ. He's the one who performs the action, not the spirit. He uses the spirit as the instrument and the fire as the instrument. But there's no mention of an ace clause. So you have an ace clause in Matthew 3, 11, A at the top, where it says, as for me, I baptize you with water for repentance. That phraseology is not in the second part. So this is formula. You have to decide is the verb active or passive. If it's active, then the grammatical subject performs the action. If it's passive, then the grammatical, then the performer of the action is going to be indicated by a HOOPA clause. We don't have that in 1 Corinthians 12, 13. at all. So there's only one baptism. And in all seven passages, the instrument is indicated by the same phrase, enumity, by the Spirit. And the one who performs the action in six of the seven is Jesus Christ. And in the seventh one, 1 Corinthians 12, 13, it's not relevant to the context to mention the one who is performing the action. But it's all the same baptism. John the Baptist prophesies it in the gospels, it happens in Acts, and then its doctrinal significance is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12, 13. You see the same thing that happens in the structure of 1 Corinthians 10.2. All were baptized, passive tense, there's no mention of the agent, the one who performs the action. Into Moses, that's the ultimate state indicated by the Greek preposition ace. And then in the cloud and in the sea is really by means of the cloud and by means of the sea, the cloud is the pillar of cloud and the sea is the Red Sea. And that's parallel to Matthew 3.11. So this is just another chart going over it again and again and again. In each passage, the means is indicated by N. And identification in the ultimate state is indicated in three of the passages, but it's not stated in the second half of Matthew 3.11. But isn't that interesting? It's formulaic, but people miss this. Good Greek scholars, good theologians have missed this. And it's only been in the last, I would say in the last 30 to 40 years that some grammarians have picked up on this. The way I first learned this, I was working on my doctorate at Dallas, and I ran into Dan Wallace, who's a brilliant grammarian. I disagree with him on some points in his grammar. Not that I'm better, but we all have a problem of reading perhaps our theological preferences into a grammatical structure when it isn't there, and he's a little more lordship. He's got some other theological proclivities that I think come through that are problematic, and if you know about it, you're just forewarned as to be forearmed. But we got, I was working on some stuff with the Vineyard Movement, and we got into a discussion on this, and he walked me through this whole thing just standing there in the aisle in the stacks of books in the library at Dallas Seminary. So that's how things come about. So in all of these, John the Baptist uses water to identify the person with repentance. Jesus uses the Holy Spirit to identify the person with his death, burial, and resurrection. That's what's happening. And there's only one baptism by the Holy Spirit. There is one baptism by means of the Holy Spirit. Christ performs the baptism. The instrument used to affect the baptism is the Spirit, and the new condition is into the body of Christ. That's our situation. So, when we come to 1 Corinthians 12, 13, for by means of one Spirit, By means of one spirit, we were all baptized into one body. That's our new state. We're all baptized, we're all identified and placed into this one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, we were all made to drink of one spirit. What does that sound like? What I went through in Galatians chapter three, and without mentioning baptism, in Colossians chapter three. that what places us in the new man in Colossians 3 is that there's no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, et cetera. It doesn't mention baptism, but that's what it's talking about. And when you look at Galatians 3, Galatians 3 is saying we have put on Christ, So putting on Christ and putting on the new man are identified as what happens when we're baptized by the Holy Spirit at the instant of salvation as you put those passages together. So if you look at Romans 3 through 6, The baptism by means of the Holy Spirit is the work of Christ, whereby at the moment of faith alone in Christ alone, Christ uses the Holy Spirit to identify the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And I would add now, and putting them into the body of Christ. So we have these, let me skip through these. Yeah, I'm skipping these, I already covered this. So the conclusion is, let me skip through these slides, we already covered those. Where am I? I'm just trying to get to the conclusion. Oh, I went back too far. The purpose for the baptism of the Holy Spirit is to break the tyranny of the sin nature by identifying us with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ so that, as Paul states, we can now walk in newness of life. So this is where we are. I want to jump through a couple more slides and wrap it all up. Colossians 3, 9 through 11. In Colossians 3, 9, he's talking about specific things we're not to do as believers, or we ought not do. Don't lie to one another, since you have what? Since you have already, past tense, you have put off the old man with his deeds. And you, the subject is understood, you have already put on the new man. The putting off of the old man, the putting on of the new man is stated as something in the past. And presently what you're doing is you're being renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created Him. Where, that is where in the new man there's no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all in all. See, the new man can't be talking about an individual. Because one of the views on the new man that I first heard in my first year of seminary was that the old man is everything we were before we were saved, and the new man is who we are afterwards. Now, that's very close to what I'm saying now, and that's what I've taught in the past. But what this is saying, but that's treating it as individually. But what this is saying is it's positional. It's being in Christ. That's the new man. We've all heard this. You go through the barrier. What is the problem? What's one of the problems we have in the barrier? We are born in Adam. In Adam all die. Our position in Adam has to be resolved at the cross. When we trust in Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we're no longer in Adam. We are in Christ. That's our new position, our new identity. That is who we are now. And we are to live like that. That is like somebody who has been raised in the gutter and has suddenly discovered that their actual birth parents are extremely wealthy aristocrats and now they are in the right family, but they have to learn what that means and to live like the aristocrat family they have come from and not like being a pauper in the gutter. And that's what we are doing. That is renewing the mind. We have to be reeducated into who we are so that we can live in light of that new position and that royalty. So what we're gonna do, I'm gonna go through this very quickly. See, these are the passages. Romans 6, 6, because we know this, our old man was crucified with him. Ephesians 4.22, that you already put off concerning your former conduct, the old man, which grows corrupt. Colossians 3.9, you have already put off the old man. And then in the right column is the new man. Ephesians 2.15 says, so as to create in himself one new man from the two. Now that's really important. That's where he defines it. having abolished in his flesh the enmity. When did Christ do that? At the cross. He abolished, the enmity is the law of commandments because in the law there was a distinction between Jew and Gentile. The law of commandments contained in ordinances, the ordinances of the law. He abolished that at the cross, the end of the law, and he created in himself, in his body, one new man. That's the key. New man is what happens at that instant. The new man is where the Jew and Gentile are joined together, making peace. In 424, he says, you have already put on the new man. That new man has to be interpreted in light of who it is in 215, which is a corporate identification in Christ. Same with Colossians 3.10. Now we're gonna start with this slide tomorrow night, okay? So that's the last slide, and that helps us to kinda see where I'm going, because we need to go back and think our way through Ephesians 2, Ephesians 3, and up to Ephesians 4, so when Paul makes these statements, and we're gonna see how badly and confusing most English translations are. but pointed out from the Greek as just, and it makes so much more sense. It's like light bulbs just exploded in my head when I started seeing this. I'm not the only one who's come up with this over the years. I was reading with Dr. Hohner, Harold Hohner, and his commentary on Ephesians gets really close, and he talks, he has in a footnote, this position that is articulated by somebody, some theologian, I can't remember now, he's either Dutch or Scandinavian. And I tried to get the book, but it's really pricey. And so I wanted to see, but there are others who I know take this view, but it just isn't the precise view that our forefathers, but it's the refinement of that. And we see this over the last hundred years, there's been this gradual, slow clarification and focus on just how these passages all fit together, what they mean in terms of the Christian life. I hope I didn't turn your brains inside out too much tonight, but we'll review some of this tomorrow so we can make sure that we understand it. It takes a little time to just kind of tweak a few things and get it in perspective. Father, thanks for this opportunity to study your word and just to be refreshed and to Think through what you have said and the provision you have made for us. And above all, this shows us how radically important our identification with Christ is and how radically important the body of Christ and the church in the church age really is. And Father, help us to understand what an elevated position we have as members of the body of Christ. And we pray this in Christ's name. Amen.