Spirit Baptism in Acts, part 2
The
Spirit’s being poured out or shed
forth (Acts 2:17, 18, 33), employing the
Greek verb ekkeo (e˙kce÷w), is employed
in Acts 2 in connection with Spirit baptism.[i] This one-time event[ii]
where the Father, at the Son’s request, poured out the Holy Ghost in accordance
with the prediction of Joel 2:28-32, is employed in Luke-Acts only for the
unrepeatable event of Pentecost.
This is consistent with the facts that the Hebrew verb shafach (Kpv), employed in Joel 2 and discussed above, “does
not mean a gradual pouring as required, but rather a sudden, massive spillage,”
the LXX employs ekkeo to render shafach in the three passages where the latter verb is
connected with the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29; Zechariah 12:10;
Ezekiel 39:29), and the Greek verb is not employed in the Greek Old Testament
in connection with Spirit outpouring in any other passage. No other text in Luke-Acts connects the
work of the Spirit with ekkeo,[iii]
although the closely related but distinct verb ekkunno (e˙kcu/nnw)[iv]
is employed in Acts 10:45 for the closely related but distinct miraculous work
of the Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10.
When “the Holy Ghost . . .[was] shed forth” or poured out, visible
miracles, “which ye now see and hear,” were connected with the event (Acts 2:33). Thus, the outpouring of the Spirit was
for those already converted and already church members, it took place once for
the entire church age in Acts chapter two, and it was accompanied with signs
and wonders. For the Spirit to be
outpoured again, He would have to leave the earth, which He will not do for the
entire dispensation of grace.
However, after He is removed at the Rapture, He will be outpoured again
on Israel in the Tribulation in the ultimate fulfillment of Joel chapter two.
Spirit’s being poured out or shed
forth (Acts 2:17, 18, 33), employing the
Greek verb ekkeo (e˙kce÷w), is employed
in Acts 2 in connection with Spirit baptism.[i] This one-time event[ii]
where the Father, at the Son’s request, poured out the Holy Ghost in accordance
with the prediction of Joel 2:28-32, is employed in Luke-Acts only for the
unrepeatable event of Pentecost.
This is consistent with the facts that the Hebrew verb shafach (Kpv), employed in Joel 2 and discussed above, “does
not mean a gradual pouring as required, but rather a sudden, massive spillage,”
the LXX employs ekkeo to render shafach in the three passages where the latter verb is
connected with the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29; Zechariah 12:10;
Ezekiel 39:29), and the Greek verb is not employed in the Greek Old Testament
in connection with Spirit outpouring in any other passage. No other text in Luke-Acts connects the
work of the Spirit with ekkeo,[iii]
although the closely related but distinct verb ekkunno (e˙kcu/nnw)[iv]
is employed in Acts 10:45 for the closely related but distinct miraculous work
of the Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10.
When “the Holy Ghost . . .[was] shed forth” or poured out, visible
miracles, “which ye now see and hear,” were connected with the event (Acts 2:33). Thus, the outpouring of the Spirit was
for those already converted and already church members, it took place once for
the entire church age in Acts chapter two, and it was accompanied with signs
and wonders. For the Spirit to be
outpoured again, He would have to leave the earth, which He will not do for the
entire dispensation of grace.
However, after He is removed at the Rapture, He will be outpoured again
on Israel in the Tribulation in the ultimate fulfillment of Joel chapter two.
In
contrast to the once-for-all outpouring of the Spirit on the church for the
entirety of the dispensation of grace in Acts 2, when the Spirit’s validation
of Samaritans[v] and Gentiles
as fit members of the NT church in Acts 8 and 10 is in view, the Spirit is said
to fall upon (e˙pipi÷ptw) them after their
conversion (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15).
Christ baptized the church with the Spirit directly and immediately in
Acts 2, and the benefits of this one-time event were transmitted mediately
through the apostles to Samaritans and Gentiles in Acts 8, 10, and 19,
explaining the connection of the miraculous fruits of Spirit baptism in
connection with the laying on of apostolic hands. The uniqueness of Acts 2, as the actual and unrepeatable act
of Spirit baptism, is supported by the appearances of tongues of fire on each
member of the pre-Pentecost church (2:2-3), a miracle not repeated in the
coming of the Spirit on the groups in Acts 8, 10, and 19. The Spirit fell upon the Samaritans
subsequent to both faith and baptism in Acts 8, and the use of a pluperfect
periphrastic construction for Spirit’s falling upon men in 8:16 suggests that
the falling took place at one point in time, with abiding results;[vi] furthermore, no text in Acts or
elsewhere in the New Testament portrays the Spirit as repeatedly falling upon
anyone.[vii] One would have expected the Spirit to
fall upon the Gentiles in Acts 10 after their faith and baptism as well, but
Peter and his Jewish brethren would never have accepted the immersion of
Gentiles had the Spirit not come on them first; as it was, they “were astonished” that the Spirit had fallen
upon the Gentiles (10:45), but recognized the fact as proof that God wanted
them added to the church by immersion, which they consequently performed
(10:47-48), although even in this situation the addition of uncircumcised
Gentiles to the church was an occasion of trouble which Peter needed to explain
and defend (11:3ff.). In both Acts
8 and 10, the Spirit fell upon the Samaritans and Gentiles subsequent to the
point of their faith in Christ, with an emphasis upon them as a corporate body,
rather than as individuals, just as in Acts 2 and 19 the coming of the Spirit
took place after saving faith.[viii] Since Peter states, “the Holy Ghost
fell on them [Gentiles, Acts 10], as on us [Jews, Acts 2] at the beginning”
(Acts 11:15), the book of Acts indicates that it is appropriate to view the
pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the church in Acts 2 as another instance of
the Spirit falling upon a body of people.
It is likely that the falling upon
terminology emphasizes the coming of the Spirit from heaven upon a particular
group of believers, and is thus appropriately employed for any of the
miraculous bestowals of the Spirit recorded in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19. However, this terminology is never
employed for the receipt of the Spirit by individuals at the moment of
conversion, nor is it ever found apart from the miraculous bestowal of the gift
of tongues, nor is it ever connected with any kind of PCP blessing on those
already Spirit-indwelt.
contrast to the once-for-all outpouring of the Spirit on the church for the
entirety of the dispensation of grace in Acts 2, when the Spirit’s validation
of Samaritans[v] and Gentiles
as fit members of the NT church in Acts 8 and 10 is in view, the Spirit is said
to fall upon (e˙pipi÷ptw) them after their
conversion (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15).
Christ baptized the church with the Spirit directly and immediately in
Acts 2, and the benefits of this one-time event were transmitted mediately
through the apostles to Samaritans and Gentiles in Acts 8, 10, and 19,
explaining the connection of the miraculous fruits of Spirit baptism in
connection with the laying on of apostolic hands. The uniqueness of Acts 2, as the actual and unrepeatable act
of Spirit baptism, is supported by the appearances of tongues of fire on each
member of the pre-Pentecost church (2:2-3), a miracle not repeated in the
coming of the Spirit on the groups in Acts 8, 10, and 19. The Spirit fell upon the Samaritans
subsequent to both faith and baptism in Acts 8, and the use of a pluperfect
periphrastic construction for Spirit’s falling upon men in 8:16 suggests that
the falling took place at one point in time, with abiding results;[vi] furthermore, no text in Acts or
elsewhere in the New Testament portrays the Spirit as repeatedly falling upon
anyone.[vii] One would have expected the Spirit to
fall upon the Gentiles in Acts 10 after their faith and baptism as well, but
Peter and his Jewish brethren would never have accepted the immersion of
Gentiles had the Spirit not come on them first; as it was, they “were astonished” that the Spirit had fallen
upon the Gentiles (10:45), but recognized the fact as proof that God wanted
them added to the church by immersion, which they consequently performed
(10:47-48), although even in this situation the addition of uncircumcised
Gentiles to the church was an occasion of trouble which Peter needed to explain
and defend (11:3ff.). In both Acts
8 and 10, the Spirit fell upon the Samaritans and Gentiles subsequent to the
point of their faith in Christ, with an emphasis upon them as a corporate body,
rather than as individuals, just as in Acts 2 and 19 the coming of the Spirit
took place after saving faith.[viii] Since Peter states, “the Holy Ghost
fell on them [Gentiles, Acts 10], as on us [Jews, Acts 2] at the beginning”
(Acts 11:15), the book of Acts indicates that it is appropriate to view the
pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the church in Acts 2 as another instance of
the Spirit falling upon a body of people.
It is likely that the falling upon
terminology emphasizes the coming of the Spirit from heaven upon a particular
group of believers, and is thus appropriately employed for any of the
miraculous bestowals of the Spirit recorded in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19. However, this terminology is never
employed for the receipt of the Spirit by individuals at the moment of
conversion, nor is it ever found apart from the miraculous bestowal of the gift
of tongues, nor is it ever connected with any kind of PCP blessing on those
already Spirit-indwelt.
In
Acts two, the Spirit was poured out on
the 120 pre-Pentecost church members, but Acts 2:38 promised those who “repent
. . . [that they] shall receive [lamba¿nw] the gift of the Holy
Ghost.”[ix] Receive terminology is employed both for the indwelling of the Spirit
experienced by all believers after the transitional period connected with the
baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts, which was not connected with signs and
wonders (cf. Romans 8:9), and for the commencement of His indwelling in those
who experienced Spirit baptism and its concomitant speaking in tongues. Thus, the Spirit was received by the 3000 men converted on Pentecost, but He was poured
out also (and in this manner likewise received) by
the 120 members of the pre-Pentecost church. There is no evidence that the 3000 spoke in tongues or
manifested any miraculous gifts when they repented, or at any subsequent point
whatever, other than the certain manifestation of the miraculously bestowed new
nature bestowed on all saints in regeneration (2:41-47; 2 Corinthians
5:17). Christ received from the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost (2:33), and the Son gives the Spirit to
all who find salvation (2:38-39), but the “promise” (2:39) of the possession of
the Holy Ghost is of Him as a Person, not of some particular manner of His
coming, such as Spirit baptism with its accompanying signs and wonders. Receipt of the Spirit is thus specified as a gift for
believers throughout the dispensation of grace, received at the point of
conversion or regeneration (John 3:5), in Luke-Acts (Acts 2:38) and elsewhere
in Scripture (John 7:39; Galatians 3:14), but receive language is also used for the action of the Spirit
in falling upon men in the dispensationally transitional events accompanied
with miraculous phenomena in Acts 2, 8, and 10 (Acts 8:15-19; 10:47; cf. Acts
19:2, 6; John 20:22).
Acts two, the Spirit was poured out on
the 120 pre-Pentecost church members, but Acts 2:38 promised those who “repent
. . . [that they] shall receive [lamba¿nw] the gift of the Holy
Ghost.”[ix] Receive terminology is employed both for the indwelling of the Spirit
experienced by all believers after the transitional period connected with the
baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts, which was not connected with signs and
wonders (cf. Romans 8:9), and for the commencement of His indwelling in those
who experienced Spirit baptism and its concomitant speaking in tongues. Thus, the Spirit was received by the 3000 men converted on Pentecost, but He was poured
out also (and in this manner likewise received) by
the 120 members of the pre-Pentecost church. There is no evidence that the 3000 spoke in tongues or
manifested any miraculous gifts when they repented, or at any subsequent point
whatever, other than the certain manifestation of the miraculously bestowed new
nature bestowed on all saints in regeneration (2:41-47; 2 Corinthians
5:17). Christ received from the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost (2:33), and the Son gives the Spirit to
all who find salvation (2:38-39), but the “promise” (2:39) of the possession of
the Holy Ghost is of Him as a Person, not of some particular manner of His
coming, such as Spirit baptism with its accompanying signs and wonders. Receipt of the Spirit is thus specified as a gift for
believers throughout the dispensation of grace, received at the point of
conversion or regeneration (John 3:5), in Luke-Acts (Acts 2:38) and elsewhere
in Scripture (John 7:39; Galatians 3:14), but receive language is also used for the action of the Spirit
in falling upon men in the dispensationally transitional events accompanied
with miraculous phenomena in Acts 2, 8, and 10 (Acts 8:15-19; 10:47; cf. Acts
19:2, 6; John 20:22).
The baptism of the Holy Ghost, accompanied with
tongues speaking,[x] is also
associated with the Spirit “coming upon” (e˙pe÷rcomai . . . e˙pi÷) the church in Acts
1:8. This language is thus
employed in the beginning of Acts for the miraculous coming of the Spirit, and
is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in the beginning of Luke’s gospel
for the miraculous work of the Spirit within Mary associated with the coming of
the Son into the world (Luke 1:35).[xi] The miraculous coming of the Spirit,
associated with tongues speaking, found in Acts 19:6, employs similar, but not
identical, “coming upon” language (e¶rcomai
. . . e˙pi÷), which is
found elsewhere in the NT (yet cf. Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24, 37:9; Wisdom 7:7; LXX) only
in the record of Christ’s baptism with its associated visibly miraculous
manifestation of the Spirit (Matthew 3:16). The pneumatological coming upon language of Acts is thus appropriately considered as
necessarily accompanied with signs and wonders.
tongues speaking,[x] is also
associated with the Spirit “coming upon” (e˙pe÷rcomai . . . e˙pi÷) the church in Acts
1:8. This language is thus
employed in the beginning of Acts for the miraculous coming of the Spirit, and
is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in the beginning of Luke’s gospel
for the miraculous work of the Spirit within Mary associated with the coming of
the Son into the world (Luke 1:35).[xi] The miraculous coming of the Spirit,
associated with tongues speaking, found in Acts 19:6, employs similar, but not
identical, “coming upon” language (e¶rcomai
. . . e˙pi÷), which is
found elsewhere in the NT (yet cf. Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24, 37:9; Wisdom 7:7; LXX) only
in the record of Christ’s baptism with its associated visibly miraculous
manifestation of the Spirit (Matthew 3:16). The pneumatological coming upon language of Acts is thus appropriately considered as
necessarily accompanied with signs and wonders.
The historic Baptist view of Spirit baptism
fits the evidence found in the book of Acts. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was the validation of the
church as God’s new institution for worship, comparable to the coming of the shekinah into the tabernacle and temple in the Old
Testament. Accompanied by
miraculous signs and wonders, Christ baptized the church as as a one-time event
in Acts two on the day of Pentecost.
As the Jewish church of Pentecost spread to the Samaritans (Acts 8),
Gentiles connected with Judaism and in the Promised Land (Acts 10), and
Gentiles without any previous Jewish connection (Acts 19), the Spirit came,
mediately through the apostles as representatives and leaders of the church,
upon these new groups with similar signs and wonders, fulfilling the outline of
the book of Acts in 1:8. With the
immediate baptism of the church by Christ in Acts 2, and the coming of the
Spirit as mediated by the apostles on the groups in Acts 8, 10, and 19, Spirit
baptism was complete, never to be repeated in the church age. The evidence of the book of Acts
contradicts the universal church dispensational (UCD) view because Spirit
baptism was corporate, not individual, a post-conversion event, not one
synonymous with conversion, one always associated with miraculous signs and
wonders including tongues, while tongues and other miraculous gifts have now
ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8),[xii]
one that took place after the moment of faith and, with one exception, after
baptism as well, not one that took place at the moment of saving faith, and one
associated with the historically completed sending of the Comforter, not one
without visible miraculous phenomena that continues until the Rapture whenever
a sinner is regenerated. The
evidence of the book of Acts also contradicts the PCP (post-conversion power) view,
because PCPs interpret Spirit baptism as an individual, not corporate event,
most PCPs do not claim that they receive the same ability to do miracles,
signs, and wonders as were found in Acts, while the evidence belies the claims
of those that do so claim,[xiii]
and the Comforter has already come to indwell the church and so Spirit baptism
simply does not happen today. Only
the historic Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism fits the evidence of the book
of Acts.
fits the evidence found in the book of Acts. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was the validation of the
church as God’s new institution for worship, comparable to the coming of the shekinah into the tabernacle and temple in the Old
Testament. Accompanied by
miraculous signs and wonders, Christ baptized the church as as a one-time event
in Acts two on the day of Pentecost.
As the Jewish church of Pentecost spread to the Samaritans (Acts 8),
Gentiles connected with Judaism and in the Promised Land (Acts 10), and
Gentiles without any previous Jewish connection (Acts 19), the Spirit came,
mediately through the apostles as representatives and leaders of the church,
upon these new groups with similar signs and wonders, fulfilling the outline of
the book of Acts in 1:8. With the
immediate baptism of the church by Christ in Acts 2, and the coming of the
Spirit as mediated by the apostles on the groups in Acts 8, 10, and 19, Spirit
baptism was complete, never to be repeated in the church age. The evidence of the book of Acts
contradicts the universal church dispensational (UCD) view because Spirit
baptism was corporate, not individual, a post-conversion event, not one
synonymous with conversion, one always associated with miraculous signs and
wonders including tongues, while tongues and other miraculous gifts have now
ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8),[xii]
one that took place after the moment of faith and, with one exception, after
baptism as well, not one that took place at the moment of saving faith, and one
associated with the historically completed sending of the Comforter, not one
without visible miraculous phenomena that continues until the Rapture whenever
a sinner is regenerated. The
evidence of the book of Acts also contradicts the PCP (post-conversion power) view,
because PCPs interpret Spirit baptism as an individual, not corporate event,
most PCPs do not claim that they receive the same ability to do miracles,
signs, and wonders as were found in Acts, while the evidence belies the claims
of those that do so claim,[xiii]
and the Comforter has already come to indwell the church and so Spirit baptism
simply does not happen today. Only
the historic Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism fits the evidence of the book
of Acts.
-TDR
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[i]
It is the
opinion of this writer that there are indeed distinctions in the different
terms employed for the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, as explicated
in the following paragraphs. Some
distinctions are more evident (as that receive refers to simply the coming of the Spirit for the
purpose of indwelling, whether through Spirit baptism of one already converted
before Pentecost or at the moment of regeneration after the post-Pentecost
transition, in contrast to words, such as pour out, specifically used for the coming of the Spirit
associated with miraculous phenomena) than others. However, even if one wished to maintain that the various
terms analyzed below are essentially synonymous, it would not alter the
fundamental nature of Spirit baptism as a historical event accompanied with
signs and wonders that was completed in the first century and was synonymous
with Christ’s sending of the Comforter.
It is the
opinion of this writer that there are indeed distinctions in the different
terms employed for the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, as explicated
in the following paragraphs. Some
distinctions are more evident (as that receive refers to simply the coming of the Spirit for the
purpose of indwelling, whether through Spirit baptism of one already converted
before Pentecost or at the moment of regeneration after the post-Pentecost
transition, in contrast to words, such as pour out, specifically used for the coming of the Spirit
associated with miraculous phenomena) than others. However, even if one wished to maintain that the various
terms analyzed below are essentially synonymous, it would not alter the
fundamental nature of Spirit baptism as a historical event accompanied with
signs and wonders that was completed in the first century and was synonymous
with Christ’s sending of the Comforter.
Note the following endnotes for the technical
distinction between the Spirit’s being poured out and Spirit baptism, and the comments on some of the other terms
discussed in the following paragraphs.
distinction between the Spirit’s being poured out and Spirit baptism, and the comments on some of the other terms
discussed in the following paragraphs.
[ii]
There is
no exegetical basis in the New Testament for praying for the Spirit to be
repeatedly poured out in the church age to send revival or for any other
reason. No durative, progressive
verb tense is employed with the verb e˙kce÷w
in the New Testament for the Spirit being poured out; the future tense, which is aspectually like the aorist, is
employed for the prediction of the pouring out which took place once for all at
Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18; Joel 3:1-2, LXX), and the aorist is employed for the
actual pouring out that took place on that day (Acts 2:33). The indwelling and renewing of the
Spirit that takes place at regeneration is possibly also connected with e˙kce÷w in the aorist (Titus 3:5-6). The “pour out” language is not employed
in the New Testament for a work from the Spirit of deepening the saint’s
spiritual life, reviving a congregation, or anything of the sort. Although God may mercifully do great
things for misguided saints of His, praying for the Spirit to be poured out
again in the church age and similar instances of errant Pneumatology do not
contribute to genuine revival.
Believers should not grieve the Holy Ghost and disregard or deny the
sufficiency of the glorious work God has already done in pouring out the Spirit
by asking for Him to be again outpoured.
There is
no exegetical basis in the New Testament for praying for the Spirit to be
repeatedly poured out in the church age to send revival or for any other
reason. No durative, progressive
verb tense is employed with the verb e˙kce÷w
in the New Testament for the Spirit being poured out; the future tense, which is aspectually like the aorist, is
employed for the prediction of the pouring out which took place once for all at
Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18; Joel 3:1-2, LXX), and the aorist is employed for the
actual pouring out that took place on that day (Acts 2:33). The indwelling and renewing of the
Spirit that takes place at regeneration is possibly also connected with e˙kce÷w in the aorist (Titus 3:5-6). The “pour out” language is not employed
in the New Testament for a work from the Spirit of deepening the saint’s
spiritual life, reviving a congregation, or anything of the sort. Although God may mercifully do great
things for misguided saints of His, praying for the Spirit to be poured out
again in the church age and similar instances of errant Pneumatology do not
contribute to genuine revival.
Believers should not grieve the Holy Ghost and disregard or deny the
sufficiency of the glorious work God has already done in pouring out the Spirit
by asking for Him to be again outpoured.
[iii]
Titus
3:5-6 speaks of “the Holy Ghost; which [the Father] shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Pneu/matoß ÔAgi÷ou, ou∞ e˙xe÷ceen e˙f∆ hJma◊ß plousi÷wß,
dia» ∆Ihsouv Cristouv touv swthvroß hJmw◊n). Here an allusion back to Pentecost is
likely, since the historia salutis
is in view in the sentence (3:4).
Consider, in light of the significance of Kpv as a
massive outpouring and the NT rendering of the verb with e˙kce÷w, that Titus 3:6 specifies that the Holy Ghost was
“shed on us abundantly” (e˙xe÷ceen e˙f∆ hJma◊ß plousi÷wß). The text contains a “clear allusion to
the tradition of Pentecost (e˙kce÷w is used with
the Spirit in the NT only here and in Acts 2:17, 18, 33) . . . [to] the Pentecostal
outpouring of the Spirit” (pg. 166, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, James Dunn).
Titus
3:5-6 speaks of “the Holy Ghost; which [the Father] shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Pneu/matoß ÔAgi÷ou, ou∞ e˙xe÷ceen e˙f∆ hJma◊ß plousi÷wß,
dia» ∆Ihsouv Cristouv touv swthvroß hJmw◊n). Here an allusion back to Pentecost is
likely, since the historia salutis
is in view in the sentence (3:4).
Consider, in light of the significance of Kpv as a
massive outpouring and the NT rendering of the verb with e˙kce÷w, that Titus 3:6 specifies that the Holy Ghost was
“shed on us abundantly” (e˙xe÷ceen e˙f∆ hJma◊ß plousi÷wß). The text contains a “clear allusion to
the tradition of Pentecost (e˙kce÷w is used with
the Spirit in the NT only here and in Acts 2:17, 18, 33) . . . [to] the Pentecostal
outpouring of the Spirit” (pg. 166, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, James Dunn).
Even if one affirms that there is no Pentecostal
allusion in Titus 3:5-6, and Paul connects the moment of personal regeneration
with the verb e˙kce÷w in the text, it would
not necessarily require that there is not a distinction made in Luke-Acts. Rather, the employment of e˙kce÷w for both the historical, completed event of the
sending of the Comforter, that is, Spirit baptism (Acts 2:17-18, 33), and for
the indwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:9) associated with regeneration (Titus
3:5-6) would manifest that the Spirit baptism event constituted the transition
from the Old Testament “with you” to the church age “in you” ministry of the
Holy Spirit (John 14:17). After
the already saved and baptized church members in Acts 2 received Spirit
baptism, they were henceforward permanently indwelt by the Spirit, and this
ministry of permanent indwelling is the inheritance of all believers after the
conclusion of the dispensational transition associated with Spirit
baptism. While Spirit baptism
marked the point of dispensational transition to the permanent indwelling
ministry of the Holy Ghost in the first century, the use of e˙kce÷w in both Acts and Titus (where an allusion back to the
events of Pentecost is most likely, in which case nowhere does the New
Testament connect e˙kce÷w and anything that
continues throughout the dispensation of grace) certainly cannot be
legitimately be used to affirm that Spirit baptism is a synonym throughout the
church age for the commencement of indwelling connected with regeneration.
allusion in Titus 3:5-6, and Paul connects the moment of personal regeneration
with the verb e˙kce÷w in the text, it would
not necessarily require that there is not a distinction made in Luke-Acts. Rather, the employment of e˙kce÷w for both the historical, completed event of the
sending of the Comforter, that is, Spirit baptism (Acts 2:17-18, 33), and for
the indwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:9) associated with regeneration (Titus
3:5-6) would manifest that the Spirit baptism event constituted the transition
from the Old Testament “with you” to the church age “in you” ministry of the
Holy Spirit (John 14:17). After
the already saved and baptized church members in Acts 2 received Spirit
baptism, they were henceforward permanently indwelt by the Spirit, and this
ministry of permanent indwelling is the inheritance of all believers after the
conclusion of the dispensational transition associated with Spirit
baptism. While Spirit baptism
marked the point of dispensational transition to the permanent indwelling
ministry of the Holy Ghost in the first century, the use of e˙kce÷w in both Acts and Titus (where an allusion back to the
events of Pentecost is most likely, in which case nowhere does the New
Testament connect e˙kce÷w and anything that
continues throughout the dispensation of grace) certainly cannot be
legitimately be used to affirm that Spirit baptism is a synonym throughout the
church age for the commencement of indwelling connected with regeneration.
[iv]
BDAG, defining
e˙kce÷w, indicates that “beside it [is] the
Hellenistic Greek form e˙kcu/n(n)w.” Luke was perfectly able to use exactly
the same forms he did in Acts 2 to express the idea of pour out, but he chose not to do so. While in Acts 10:45 e˙kcu/nnw is in the perfect tense (as it is,
interestingly, in Romans 5:5), and e˙kce÷w is not found in the NT in the perfect, e˙kcu/nnw is employed by Luke in the tenses employed
for e˙kce÷w in Acts 2, so the possibility that in
Luke’s vocabulary some tenses simply employed the one verb form or the other is
unlikely, and a deliberate choice remains the preferred explanation.
BDAG, defining
e˙kce÷w, indicates that “beside it [is] the
Hellenistic Greek form e˙kcu/n(n)w.” Luke was perfectly able to use exactly
the same forms he did in Acts 2 to express the idea of pour out, but he chose not to do so. While in Acts 10:45 e˙kcu/nnw is in the perfect tense (as it is,
interestingly, in Romans 5:5), and e˙kce÷w is not found in the NT in the perfect, e˙kcu/nnw is employed by Luke in the tenses employed
for e˙kce÷w in Acts 2, so the possibility that in
Luke’s vocabulary some tenses simply employed the one verb form or the other is
unlikely, and a deliberate choice remains the preferred explanation.
[v]
Charles
Ryrie comments, “The best explanation of this delay [of the coming of the
Spirit as recorded in Acts 8 until the imposition of hands by Peter and John]
seems to lie in the schismatic nature of the Samaritan religion. Because the Samaritans had their own
worship, which was a rival to the Jewish worship in Jerusalem, it was necessary
to prove to [the Jews] that [the Samaritans’] new faith was not to be set up as
a rival to the new faith that had taken root in Jerusalem. And the best way for God to show the
Samaritan believers that they belonged to the same faith and group as Jerusalem
believers (and contrariwise, the best way to show the Jerusalem leaders that
the Samaritans were genuinely saved) was to delay giving of the Spirit until
Peter and John came from Jerusalem to Samaria. There could be no doubt then that this was one and the same
faith and that they all belonged together in the Body of Christ. This delay in the giving of the Spirit
saved the early church from having two mother churches—one in Jerusalem and one
in Samaria—early in her history.
It preserved the unity of the church[es] in this early stage” (pg. 71, The
Holy Spirit).
Charles
Ryrie comments, “The best explanation of this delay [of the coming of the
Spirit as recorded in Acts 8 until the imposition of hands by Peter and John]
seems to lie in the schismatic nature of the Samaritan religion. Because the Samaritans had their own
worship, which was a rival to the Jewish worship in Jerusalem, it was necessary
to prove to [the Jews] that [the Samaritans’] new faith was not to be set up as
a rival to the new faith that had taken root in Jerusalem. And the best way for God to show the
Samaritan believers that they belonged to the same faith and group as Jerusalem
believers (and contrariwise, the best way to show the Jerusalem leaders that
the Samaritans were genuinely saved) was to delay giving of the Spirit until
Peter and John came from Jerusalem to Samaria. There could be no doubt then that this was one and the same
faith and that they all belonged together in the Body of Christ. This delay in the giving of the Spirit
saved the early church from having two mother churches—one in Jerusalem and one
in Samaria—early in her history.
It preserved the unity of the church[es] in this early stage” (pg. 71, The
Holy Spirit).
[vi]
h™n [e˙p∆ . . . aujtw◊n] . . .
e˙pipeptwko/ß. “It is easy to see how in the present, and especially in the
future, periphrastic forms were felt to be needed to emphasize durative action.
But that was the real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this
stressing of the durative idea by h™n and the present
participle was certainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in
the N. T. that this idiom is most frequent” (pgs. 887-888, A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934).
h™n [e˙p∆ . . . aujtw◊n] . . .
e˙pipeptwko/ß. “It is easy to see how in the present, and especially in the
future, periphrastic forms were felt to be needed to emphasize durative action.
But that was the real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this
stressing of the durative idea by h™n and the present
participle was certainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in
the N. T. that this idiom is most frequent” (pgs. 887-888, A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934).
[vii]
The
perfect tense of e˙kcu/nnw in Acts 10:45 likewise suggests a one-time coming of
the Spirit with continuing results.
The
perfect tense of e˙kcu/nnw in Acts 10:45 likewise suggests a one-time coming of
the Spirit with continuing results.
[viii]
While in
Acts 8 the Spirit appears to have fallen upon each individual saved and
baptized Samaritan as hands were laid on him (note the imperfect tenses in e˙peti÷qoun ta»ß
cei√raß e˙p∆ aujtou/ß, kai« e˙la¿mbanon Pneuvma ›Agion in Acts 8:17), a group idea is still present. Likewise, in Acts 10:44, the Spirit
fell upon the entire group at one particular moment, so unless the entire group
had placed their faith in the Lord Jesus at exactly the same moment, the Spirit
fell upon them not just in logical but also in temporal subsequence to their
conversion. Temporal subsequence
also fits the comparison of this event to the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts
2 made in Acts 11:15-17, for faith certainly preceded Spirit baptism in Acts
2. One notes also the aorist tense
participle pisteu/sasin
in 11:17, which would be consistent with
temporal subsequence to the verb e¶dwken,
thus demonstrating that the Gentiles believed before the gift of the Spirit was
given, although it is true enough that aorist participles when dependent upon
aorist verbs are at times temporally simultaneous.
While in
Acts 8 the Spirit appears to have fallen upon each individual saved and
baptized Samaritan as hands were laid on him (note the imperfect tenses in e˙peti÷qoun ta»ß
cei√raß e˙p∆ aujtou/ß, kai« e˙la¿mbanon Pneuvma ›Agion in Acts 8:17), a group idea is still present. Likewise, in Acts 10:44, the Spirit
fell upon the entire group at one particular moment, so unless the entire group
had placed their faith in the Lord Jesus at exactly the same moment, the Spirit
fell upon them not just in logical but also in temporal subsequence to their
conversion. Temporal subsequence
also fits the comparison of this event to the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts
2 made in Acts 11:15-17, for faith certainly preceded Spirit baptism in Acts
2. One notes also the aorist tense
participle pisteu/sasin
in 11:17, which would be consistent with
temporal subsequence to the verb e¶dwken,
thus demonstrating that the Gentiles believed before the gift of the Spirit was
given, although it is true enough that aorist participles when dependent upon
aorist verbs are at times temporally simultaneous.
The fact that the the Spirit fell upon the
groups in Acts 2, 8, and 10 and 19 subsequent to faith, and upon the groups of
Acts 2, 8, and 19 after their baptism as well (Acts 10, the only exception, is
present only because the apostles would never have baptized the Gentiles at all
without the miraculous validation), demolishes the UCD claim that “[n]ever in
Scripture is baptism by the Spirit recorded as occurring subsequent to
salvation. It is rather an
inseparable part of it, so essential that it is impossible to be saved without
it” (pg. 140, The Holy Spirit:
A Comprehensive Study,
Walvoord). Rather, the truth is
that never in Scripture is baptism by the Spirit recorded as occuring at the
same moment as saving faith, so that everyone who has been saved has been saved
without it. Spirit baptism was
promised to already immersed believers in the gospels, and the fulfillment in
Acts fit the prediction. To
support his assertion of the necessity of Spirit baptism for salvation, UCD
advocate John Wavoord even affirms that “the converts on the Day of Pentecost .
. . include[d] the apostles” (pg. 144, ibid.)!
Rather, as the Head of the church was immersed in water before the
Spirit descended upon and authenticated Him in connection with the beginning of
His ministry (Matthew 3:13-17), so the church, Christ’s body, was first
immersed in water and then baptized with the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2) to
authenticate her as God’s new institution for the age.
groups in Acts 2, 8, and 10 and 19 subsequent to faith, and upon the groups of
Acts 2, 8, and 19 after their baptism as well (Acts 10, the only exception, is
present only because the apostles would never have baptized the Gentiles at all
without the miraculous validation), demolishes the UCD claim that “[n]ever in
Scripture is baptism by the Spirit recorded as occurring subsequent to
salvation. It is rather an
inseparable part of it, so essential that it is impossible to be saved without
it” (pg. 140, The Holy Spirit:
A Comprehensive Study,
Walvoord). Rather, the truth is
that never in Scripture is baptism by the Spirit recorded as occuring at the
same moment as saving faith, so that everyone who has been saved has been saved
without it. Spirit baptism was
promised to already immersed believers in the gospels, and the fulfillment in
Acts fit the prediction. To
support his assertion of the necessity of Spirit baptism for salvation, UCD
advocate John Wavoord even affirms that “the converts on the Day of Pentecost .
. . include[d] the apostles” (pg. 144, ibid.)!
Rather, as the Head of the church was immersed in water before the
Spirit descended upon and authenticated Him in connection with the beginning of
His ministry (Matthew 3:13-17), so the church, Christ’s body, was first
immersed in water and then baptized with the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2) to
authenticate her as God’s new institution for the age.
[ix]
The
grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 connects the receipt of the Holy Spirit (and
thus the new birth “of the Spirit,” John 3, and its associated receipt of
eternal life) with repentance, not baptism. The section of the verse in question could be diagrammed as
follows:
The
grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 connects the receipt of the Holy Spirit (and
thus the new birth “of the Spirit,” John 3, and its associated receipt of
eternal life) with repentance, not baptism. The section of the verse in question could be diagrammed as
follows:
Repent
(2nd person plural aorist imperative)
(2nd person plural aorist imperative)
be baptized (3rd person singular aorist
imperative)
imperative)
every one
(nominative singular adjective)
(nominative singular adjective)
in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ
for/on account of (cf. Matthew 3:11) (eis) the remission of sins
ye shall receive (2nd person future indicative)
. . . the Holy Ghost
. . . the Holy Ghost
Both
the command to repent and the promised receipt of the Holy Spirit are in the
second person (i.e. e, “Repent [ye]” and “ye shall receive”). The command to be baptized is third
person singular, as is the adjective “every one” (hekastos, a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which
each person was derived.). Peter
commands the whole crowd to repent, and promises those who do the gift of the
Holy Ghost. The call to baptism was only for the “every one of you” that had
already repented. The “be baptized
every one of you” section of the verse is parenthetical to the command to
repent and its associated promise of the Spirit. Parenthetical statements, including those parallel in
structure to Acts 2:38, are found throughout Scripture. Ephesians 4:26-27 is an example:
the command to repent and the promised receipt of the Holy Spirit are in the
second person (i.e. e, “Repent [ye]” and “ye shall receive”). The command to be baptized is third
person singular, as is the adjective “every one” (hekastos, a partitive genitive, indicating the group from which
each person was derived.). Peter
commands the whole crowd to repent, and promises those who do the gift of the
Holy Ghost. The call to baptism was only for the “every one of you” that had
already repented. The “be baptized
every one of you” section of the verse is parenthetical to the command to
repent and its associated promise of the Spirit. Parenthetical statements, including those parallel in
structure to Acts 2:38, are found throughout Scripture. Ephesians 4:26-27 is an example:
Be ye angry (2nd person plural imperative)
and sin not (2nd person plural imperative)
[do]
not . . . let go down (3rd person singular imperative)
not . . . let go down (3rd person singular imperative)
the
sun (nominative singular noun)
sun (nominative singular noun)
upon
your wrath
your wrath
neither give place (2nd person plural imperative)
to
the devil
the devil
The
connection in Acts 2:38 between the receipt of the Holy Spirit and repentance,
rather than baptism, overthrows attempts to find baptismal regeneration in the
verse.
connection in Acts 2:38 between the receipt of the Holy Spirit and repentance,
rather than baptism, overthrows attempts to find baptismal regeneration in the
verse.
[x]
One could
view the speaking about the wondrous works of God in sixteen different tongues
in Acts two as a reversal of the Tower of Babel.
One could
view the speaking about the wondrous works of God in sixteen different tongues
in Acts two as a reversal of the Tower of Babel.
[xi]
But cf.
also Isaiah 32:15, LXX: eºwß
a·n e˙pe÷lqhØ e˙f∆ uJma◊ß pneuvma aÓf∆ uJyhlouv kai« e¶stai e¶rhmoß oJ Cermel
kai« oJ Cermel ei˙ß drumon logisqh/setai.
But cf.
also Isaiah 32:15, LXX: eºwß
a·n e˙pe÷lqhØ e˙f∆ uJma◊ß pneuvma aÓf∆ uJyhlouv kai« e¶stai e¶rhmoß oJ Cermel
kai« oJ Cermel ei˙ß drumon logisqh/setai.
[xii]
cf. “1
Corinthians 13:8-13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” R. Bruce Compton (Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004)
97-144 for an excellent exposition of the Biblical cessation of tongues from 1
Corinthians 13. Since tongues are
universally conjoined with Spirit baptism, as evidenced in Acts, and tongues
have ceased, Spirit baptism must also have ceased. Could it be that miraculous gifts were limited to those who
either received or were alive and converted by the time of the events of Acts
2, 8, 10, and 19, and that the miraculous gifts ceased with the passing away of
that generation (cf. Hebrews 2:3-4; Mark 16:17, 20)?
cf. “1
Corinthians 13:8-13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” R. Bruce Compton (Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004)
97-144 for an excellent exposition of the Biblical cessation of tongues from 1
Corinthians 13. Since tongues are
universally conjoined with Spirit baptism, as evidenced in Acts, and tongues
have ceased, Spirit baptism must also have ceased. Could it be that miraculous gifts were limited to those who
either received or were alive and converted by the time of the events of Acts
2, 8, 10, and 19, and that the miraculous gifts ceased with the passing away of
that generation (cf. Hebrews 2:3-4; Mark 16:17, 20)?
[xiii]
No modern
PCP advocate speaks in Biblical tongues because tongues have ceased (cf. the
article referenced in the last endnote), and modern PCPs that claim the gift of
healing do not instantly heal everyone of every disease without fail (Acts
5:16), do not raise the dead (Acts 9:40; 20:9-10), nor perform other truly
apostolic signs and wonders.
No modern
PCP advocate speaks in Biblical tongues because tongues have ceased (cf. the
article referenced in the last endnote), and modern PCPs that claim the gift of
healing do not instantly heal everyone of every disease without fail (Acts
5:16), do not raise the dead (Acts 9:40; 20:9-10), nor perform other truly
apostolic signs and wonders.
Recent Comments