For Further Reading: Hodge

See faith, truth, propositional theology

If there is a difference between fidelity and in­tegrity, it would be the accent of outwardness over against the accent of inwardness. Integrity is faithfulness within and to oneself. It is loyalty to one's own convictions, standards, and commit­ments. Fidelity is faithfulness to persons and causes. "It is required in stewards," writes Paul, "that a man be found faithful" (1 Cor. 4:2). There is in fidelity a stubborn adhesiveness, an endur­ing dependability, which makes it one of the most precious of virtues.

See integrity

For Further Reading: Vine, ED, 2:71 ff.

Luke 13 tells the parable of the barren fig tree. This is usually interpreted as a warning to Israel. This view seems the more likely since the chapter closes with Jesus' lament over Jerusalem. The parable also applies to a fruitless life.

The cursing of the fig tree in Matthew 21 and Mark 11 has also been interpreted as an indict­ment of Israel. Since the miracle was apparently not done publicly, this seems doubtful. Jesus' on­ly explanation of the event was to teach a lesson in faith.

The parable of the budding fig tree in the Ol­ivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and parallel pas­sages) makes a comparison between signs of approaching spring and signs of the coming of Christ. Some have thought the fig tree symbol­izes the restoration of Israel, but Jesus' com­parison is with "these things," which refers to certain events named in the preceding verses, and makes no mention of Israel.

See sign, parables, faith.

For Further Reading: BBC, 6:536; Whedon, Commen­tary on the New Testament, 1:250, 2:135.

There are numerous examples of people being filled with the Spirit (used in place of "Ghost" in article). John the Baptist was filled from birth (Luke 1:15). We are informed that Elisabeth and Zacharias, John's parents, were filled with the Holy Spirit (vv. 41, 67). We note that Bezaleel, much earlier, was filled with the Spirit of God (Exod. 31:3; 35:31).

There are many references to people being filled with the Spirit in the Acts. These refer to the disciples (2:4), to Peter (4:8), to those en­gaged in prayer (v. 31), to Paul (9:17; 13:9), and to the disciples (v. 52).

There are also a number of other similar ex­pressions used in connection with the Holy Spirit. A much-discussed one is "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5; 11:16). The converts at Samaria "received the Holy Spirit" (8:17). At'the house of Cornelius we note that "the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word . . . [and that they had] received the Holy Spirit" (10:44-47). We read that at Ephesus "the Holy Spirit came on them" (19:6, emphases added).

The above expressions call for explanation. The terms "baptized [and] filled with the Spirit" may refer to the same event and have the same meaning. In Acts 1:5 and 2:4 this is the case. However, these two terms do not always have the same meaning. We read about fullnesses of the Holy Spirit prior to the Day of Pentecost, but these might not have been baptisms with the Holy Spirit as such, for He was not yet "given" (John 7:37-39).

Following the Holy Spirit's descent on the Day of Pentecost, there seem to have been subse­

See HOLY SPIRIT, BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION.

For Further Reading: Steele, A Defense of Christian
Perfection, 108-11; Rose, WTJ (1974), 5-14; Mattke, WTf
(1970), 22-32; GMS, 494-97. O. D. lovell

FINAL PERSEVERANCE. See perseverance

FIRE. See emblems of the holy spirit.

FIRST WORK OF GRACE. This is a term used only by those Christians who believe in a special sec­ond work of grace. This particularly includes the Wesleyan-holiness groups, who teach that entire sanctification is a second definite work of grace received sometime subsequent to the first work of grace. It also includes the Pentecostal groups, who believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received subsequent to conversion—and who say that at that time the believer speaks in tongues. The Roman Catholics teach something very much like a second work of grace in their sacrament of Confirmation—in which a baptized believer "receives the Holy Spirit." They there­fore imply a first work of grace received when one is baptized either as an infant or as a be­liever.

But the phrase "first work of grace" is most naturally used by the Wesleyan-holiness groups. To them it is another name for conversion. This first work consists of several experiences which happen at the same time, but that have about them a logical sequence.

1. 
   First is justification. This is the action of God, as a judge, in absolving the repentant sin­ner from the guilt that has accrued to him, for his acts of sin (Rom. 5:1).
   
2. 
   The second concomitant of the first work of grace is regeneration. This is the inward change from being spiritually dead to being made spiri­tually alive. It is also called the new birth, or be­ing born again (John 3:5-8).
   
3. 
   Something else which occurs at the time of the first work of grace is initial sanctification — although not everyone would distinguish this from regeneration. This is a cleansing from the inclination to acts of sin which has built up in us due to our sin acts. If there was not a cleansing from this propensity, from a depravity which we acquire due to our sin acts, we would not be able to live out the justified life once we are forgiven; we would likely go right back to the sins we had been committing. Scriptural support for this as­pect of the first work of grace is in Paul's mention of the washing, or the cleansing, that accom­panies our regeneration (1 Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5; and Eph. 5:25-27 in a version other than the Kjv).
   

1. 
   Reconciliation also occurs at the time of this first work of grace. Once we are forgiven and re­generated, we are reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18). That the holy God becomes reconciled to us at this time is implied when the NT states that Christ's death propitiated, assuaged, or softened God's holy wrath (e.g., Rom. 3:23-26).
   
2. 
   The last concomitant of the first work of grace is adoption. Logically (but not chronologi­cally) following our forgiveness, regeneration, initial sanctification, and reconciliation, God adopts us into His family as His children (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1; Rom. 8:15-16).
   

For Further Reading: Grider, Entire Sanctification;

As a consequence of the Exodus, both human and animal firstborn were sanctified to the Lord (Num. 8:17, et al.). While the firstborn of animals were sacrificed, the firstborn of the Hebrews were replaced by the Levites (3:40-41; 8:14-19), who were sanctified to God as ministers to the priests instead of the firstborn. This may explain the puzzling use of "firstborn" in Heb. 12:23. Just as the Levites became the sanctified ministers of the Aaronic priest in place of the firstborn, so Christians now become sanctified (10:10) ser­vants of Jesus, the Great High Priest (4:14, et al.) who has replaced the Aaronic priesthood (7:11).

The OT firstborn had special rights of inher­itance (Deut. 21:15-17), blessing (Gen. 27:19-35), privilege (43:33), succession (2 Chron. 21:3), and line of family descent through them (many OT references). "Firstborn" came to represent an ob­ject of special favor, attention, and love (Zech. 12:10), and thus a term for God's special rela­tionship with Israel (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9) and the Davidic king (Ps. 89:27).

Rabbinic exegesis of that verse equated "first­born" with the Messiah and may provide the context for NT application of the term to Jesus.

While the unique use of "firstborn" as a title of Jesus in Heb. 1:6 may derive from Jewish Messi­anic expectations, it must be seen in conjunction with verses 2-3 which set forth the deeper con­notations of Jesus as firstborn found in the other NT passages.

Jesus is firstborn as the Image of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), to which God purposed human­ity to be conformed (Rom. 8:29). As the Image of God (the very essence of God's being) Jesus is firstborn of all creation in that the whole created order has its origin and existence in Him (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2-3). But Jesus is also firstborn of the New Creation in that He is firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5; [Rom. 8:29?]), the Source for the restoration of the image of God in fallen humanity (Rom. 8:29), through His aton­ing death (Col. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 1:5) and re­generating resurrection. Thus Jesus as "firstborn" is the Origin (Col. 1:18) of the New Creation, the Head of the Church (ibid.), the Firstborn of many children (Rom. 8:29), and the Victor over the powers of the fallen order (Rev. 1:5; Heb. 1:3).

See CHRIST, ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN.

M. Robert Mulholland, Jr.

Even Paul uses the term with considerable flexibility, as two examples are sufficient to illus­trate: After testifying to being "crucified with Christ," he explains, "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. 2:20). Here the term would almost be equivalent to soma, "body," but with special em­phasis on his present life on earth. Clearly the "crucified life" can be lived while yet in the flesh; and equally clearly, the selfish ego which is cruci­fied is not to be confused with the earthly hu-manness of our nature.

A second example of Paul's usage is 2 Cor. 10:2-4. He rejects the insinuation of some in the Corinthian church that he walks "according to the flesh." Then he adds: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh." He lives among them as a man, with all of a man's weak­nesses and earthly limitations. It is not a sin so to live, nor is living "in the flesh" (in this sense) liv­ing in sin. Yet sin would soon enter if he at­tempted to fight a spiritual warfare with merely human or fleshly resources. Paul admits there­fore to living (walking) "in" the flesh, but denies walking "according to the flesh." This is what people do who rely on "the arm of flesh" rather than on God, and who operate within a wordly-minded, humanistic frame.

Theological problems arise when Paul uses sarx to designate not just human nature in its earthiness but in its sinfulness—as man without grace. This is the usage in Romans 7—8 and Galatians 5. Whereas he pleased God even though "in the flesh" in Gal. 2:20 and 2 Cor. 10:2-4, now in Rom. 8:8 he says, "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Obvi­ously the term now means something different from what it meant in the other passages. It stands for the natural man in control—for self-centeredness and for sensual propensities. This "flesh" is antithetical to the "mind" in Rom. 7:25 and contrary to the Spirit (or "spirit") in Galatians 5. It is human nature under the dominion of the inherited sin principle.

Where it can be certain that Paul is thus using sarx, the translation "sinful nature" in NIV may be appropriate. But following this translation slavishly can lead to absurd results, as when NIV translates 1 Cor. 5:5, "Hand this man over to Sa­tan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." If by



220

FLOOD, THE—FOOL, FOOLISHNESS, FOLLY


"sinful nature" is meant original sin or the carnal mind, then we are astounded at the prospect of Satan doing what some say the grace of God cannot do—destroy it. But if, as is Paul's obvious intention, the flesh to be destroyed is the bodily life, then to call this "sinful nature" is to betray an inexcusable theological bias, viz., that the body is sinful, and hence the only deliverance from sin is in death.

If we preserve biblical distinctions, we will say that flesh in one sense will characterize us until death, but that flesh in another sense may be crucified now—put to death. The first sense is that of our natural life on earth, both bodily and mental, with all the weaknesses and propensities incident to this contextual situation. The second sense is that of a psychic entity which is "enmity against God" (Rom. 8:7), and which tends to the "works of the flesh," but which "they that are Christ's have crucified" (Gal. 5:17-24).

See carnal mind, carnal christians, car­nality and humanity, sin, original sin.

For Further Reading: GMS, 257, 287-89; WMNT,