------------------------------
Holy Spirit Baptism
Where does the baptism of the Holy Spirit fit into this discussion? Today’s alleged practitioners typically associate the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a generic reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, it might surprise the reader to find that the Bible alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense. Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.
The very first allusion to Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament is John’s statement: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me...will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11, emp. added). From this statement alone, one might be tempted to assume that Christians in general would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But this assumption would be a premature conclusion. John was not addressing a Christian audience. He was speaking to Jews. Nothing in the context allows the interpreter to distinguish John’s intended recipients of the promise of Holy Spirit baptism—whether all humans, all Jews, all Christians, or merely some of those in one or more of these categories. (Every word John the Baptist spoke was to Jews. Almost all that Jesus spoke [the Samaritan woman at the well is one notable exception] was to Jews. If this is the author's criteria, very little of what Jesus said applies to us as well, and we can safely ignore it, apparently.)
Likewise, the exact recipients of the baptism of fire (i.e., hell) (Hell? We don't think so. Acts 2:3 is certainly not hell. Neither are 1 Cor. 3:13-14, 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Thes. 5:19, Heb. 1:7, 1 Pet. 1:7, or Rev. 3:18. Fire can mean judgment, punishment, and/or hell, but it also can mean purity, zeal, or passion.
The author presents himself as a biblical scholar, but he seems peculiarly reluctant to actually quote the entire verse at this juncture. Here is the full quote:
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."Do you notice something here? The author stopped his quote, leaving off "and with fire." Why would that be? "And." Because, it seems, those three words are inconvenient. John the Baptist doesn't say, "some will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and others will receive a baptism of fire." No, he uses the word "and." Which means both things. Not one or the other.)
are not specified. However, as is often the case in the Bible, the specific recipients of this promise are clarified in later passages. (The author never deals again with the fire issue.)
Just before His ascension, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In John chapters 14-16, Jesus made several specific promises to the apostles concerning the coming of the Spirit—the “Comforter” or “Helper” (parakletos)—upon them, to empower them to do the peculiar work of an apostle (i.e., to recall the words Jesus had spoken to them, to speak and write by inspiration, and to launch the Christian religion). (By artificially restricting the applicability of this passage to the apostles only, the author rips it from its context, negates some of the most precious promises in Scripture, and essentially renders irrelevant large portions of Scripture for no other purpose than to bolster his false doctrine. He seems to prefer Christians live a powerless life, relying only on study and preachers explaining things for their spiritual discipline. He can point to no Scripture to back up his claims.)
If these verses apply to all Christians, then all Christians ought to have been personally guided “into all the truth” (John 16:13), and thus would have absolutely no need of written Scripture (John 14:26 (Here's the Scripture in question: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." The author parrots a too common misrepresentation of this Scripture, that it means only the apostles would be guided into "all truth." We thoroughly refute that idea here.
Notice also that this verse has nothing at all to do with Scripture. Indeed, to conflate the issue of the Holy Spirit's guidance as contrary to or separate from Scripture is a violation of sound hermeneutics.)
However, in context, these verses clearly refer to the apostolic office. (Here's a little cessationist presumption going on. Without explaining it, the author asserts that only the apostles received "all truth." But if the apostles had all truth and have only the Bible, we can apparently dismiss the thousands of Sunday sermons that occur each week. We don't have to listen to Christian correction. We are in need of none of the trappings of church and its instruction. There is no need for any of this, for the apostles received all truth and wrote it down for all of us to see.
However, any honest reading of the passage in question will quickly yield the realization that this is part of a much longer discourse, starting at 14:1 through the end of chapter 17, and clearly is addressed to every believer. Let's look at some excerpts to see if it was intended only for the apostles.
Further, Paul as an apostle possessed "all truth," and that revelatory truth was what he wrote down in the form of epistles. Yet for some reason, despite him possessing "all truth," he talked over and over about how we are to desire the gifts, especially prophecy! Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he simply tell them more of the "truth," rather than command them to seek prophecy themselves?
And finally, it simply isn't true that only the apostles had "all truth."
Notice very carefully that on this occasion Jesus made an explicit reference to the very statement that John had uttered previously in Matthew 3: “for John indeed baptized with water; but ye [apostles—DM] shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, emp. added). Jesus specifically and explicitly identified the Holy Spirit baptism that He would administer (in keeping with John’s prediction) would take place within a few days, and would be confined to the apostles. (Where did He say that it would confined to the apostles? John the Baptist was speaking publicly. Everyone within earshot heard this promise. Does anyone think that they would hear this and say to themselves, "Well, that was only for those 12 guys."
But wait. Were there any apostles at that point? No! John said this in Mt. 3:11. But Jesus didn't choose his first disciple until Mt. 4:18! How could this promise be for 12 men, and only those men, who weren't even apostles yet?
And how would they know that it was only for them, and why wouldn't they tell us somewhere that this was the case? And what about the perhaps hundreds of other Jews who heard this? How would they know it wasn't for them and they could safely ignore it?
By way of comparison, did the apostles really go "to all nations?” No, they didn't. That is the job of the Church. If the select audience present at the time He spoke is the relevant factor, then Mt. 28:18-20 must tell us a similar tale regarding the scope of the Great Commission:
All one need do is turn the page to see the promise of Holy Spirit baptism achieve dramatic and climactic fulfillment in Acts 2 when the Spirit was poured out only upon the apostles. The antecedent of “they” in Acts 2:4 is “the apostles” in Acts 1:26. The apostles were the ones who spoke in tongues and taught the people. They were the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the following contextual indicators: (1) “are not all these that speak Galileans?” (2:7); (2) “Peter, standing up with the eleven” (2:14); (3) “they...said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles” (2:37); (4) Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 and applied it to that occasion as proof that the apostles were not intoxicated; and (5) the text even states explicitly that the signs and wonders were “done through the apostles” (2:43). This pattern continues in the book of Acts: “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (5:12); “the Lord, who bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (14:3); “what signs and wonders God had wrought…through them” (15:12). (Again the author is reluctant to quote the entirety of the passage, instead preferring to mislead us with snippets. Ac. 2:1-4:
However, in context, these verses clearly refer to the apostolic office. (Here's a little cessationist presumption going on. Without explaining it, the author asserts that only the apostles received "all truth." But if the apostles had all truth and have only the Bible, we can apparently dismiss the thousands of Sunday sermons that occur each week. We don't have to listen to Christian correction. We are in need of none of the trappings of church and its instruction. There is no need for any of this, for the apostles received all truth and wrote it down for all of us to see.
However, any honest reading of the passage in question will quickly yield the realization that this is part of a much longer discourse, starting at 14:1 through the end of chapter 17, and clearly is addressed to every believer. Let's look at some excerpts to see if it was intended only for the apostles.
Jn. 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Jn. 14:12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
Jn. 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.
Jn. 14:23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."
Jn. 15:6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
Jn. 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
Jn. 17:20-21 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."No one." "Anyone." "Whoever." "all of them." These are global terms. These verses demonstrate that Jesus was not only speaking to the apostles. But even more, some of the greatest and most precious promises of Scripture are interspersed throughout this passage. Unless the author is attempting to assert that large portions of the N.T. no longer apply. If that is true, we might wonder why they were included at all...
Further, Paul as an apostle possessed "all truth," and that revelatory truth was what he wrote down in the form of epistles. Yet for some reason, despite him possessing "all truth," he talked over and over about how we are to desire the gifts, especially prophecy! Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he simply tell them more of the "truth," rather than command them to seek prophecy themselves?
And finally, it simply isn't true that only the apostles had "all truth."
1Jn. 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all.)Jesus further clarified the application of Holy Spirit baptism when He told the apostles that the earlier statement made in Luke 24:49 applied to them, and would come to pass “not many days hence” (Acts 1:4-5). Jesus also stated that the “power” that they would receive would be from the Holy Spirit, which would enable them to witness to the world what they had experienced by being with Jesus (Acts 1:8).
Notice very carefully that on this occasion Jesus made an explicit reference to the very statement that John had uttered previously in Matthew 3: “for John indeed baptized with water; but ye [apostles—DM] shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, emp. added). Jesus specifically and explicitly identified the Holy Spirit baptism that He would administer (in keeping with John’s prediction) would take place within a few days, and would be confined to the apostles. (Where did He say that it would confined to the apostles? John the Baptist was speaking publicly. Everyone within earshot heard this promise. Does anyone think that they would hear this and say to themselves, "Well, that was only for those 12 guys."
But wait. Were there any apostles at that point? No! John said this in Mt. 3:11. But Jesus didn't choose his first disciple until Mt. 4:18! How could this promise be for 12 men, and only those men, who weren't even apostles yet?
And how would they know that it was only for them, and why wouldn't they tell us somewhere that this was the case? And what about the perhaps hundreds of other Jews who heard this? How would they know it wasn't for them and they could safely ignore it?
By way of comparison, did the apostles really go "to all nations?” No, they didn't. That is the job of the Church. If the select audience present at the time He spoke is the relevant factor, then Mt. 28:18-20 must tell us a similar tale regarding the scope of the Great Commission:
"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”Only the eleven were present. So unless this passage is applicable only to the apostles, unless only the apostles can make disciples, unless only the apostles could teach us to obey everything, then we must conclude that the author's assertions about the supposed restricted applicability regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit are without merit.)
All one need do is turn the page to see the promise of Holy Spirit baptism achieve dramatic and climactic fulfillment in Acts 2 when the Spirit was poured out only upon the apostles. The antecedent of “they” in Acts 2:4 is “the apostles” in Acts 1:26. The apostles were the ones who spoke in tongues and taught the people. They were the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the following contextual indicators: (1) “are not all these that speak Galileans?” (2:7); (2) “Peter, standing up with the eleven” (2:14); (3) “they...said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles” (2:37); (4) Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 and applied it to that occasion as proof that the apostles were not intoxicated; and (5) the text even states explicitly that the signs and wonders were “done through the apostles” (2:43). This pattern continues in the book of Acts: “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (5:12); “the Lord, who bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (14:3); “what signs and wonders God had wrought…through them” (15:12). (Again the author is reluctant to quote the entirety of the passage, instead preferring to mislead us with snippets. Ac. 2:1-4:
"When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.Does this passage say who "they" are? Nope. Contrary to the author's false narrative, we can read for ourselves:
Ac. 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)
Many gathered for prayer constantly, awaiting the promise of Jesus:
Ac. 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you...
And this is exactly what happened. Ac. 2:5-11:
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”Apparently these men and women weren't hiding in a closed off room somewhere, because people could hear and see something and started asking questions about what they had witnessed. And they were from "every nations under heaven." There could have been dozens of people speaking in tongues.
Peter stood to explain what was happening. Ac. 2:12-21:
And can we ask a question? Why does the author find it necessary to restrict tongues to 12 men when the Corinthian church in particular was filled with people speaking in tongues ? And Paul said, "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." 1Co. 14:26 "MUST BE DONE." There is no purpose whatsoever to insist only the Twelve spoke in tongues at Pentecost.)
The next direct reference to Holy Spirit baptism consisted of Peter describing the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10. Referring to their empowerment to speak in tongues, Peter explicitly identified it as being comparable to the experience of the apostles in Acts 2. Note his explanation: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us[apostles—DM] at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us [apostles—DM]…” (The account in Acts 10 identifies only Peter as accompanying Cornelius' men [Acts 10:21-23]. There is no mention of others except for those who were gathered at Cornelius' house [Acts 10:24]. There is nothing in the narrative that would indicate any other apostle was present. We can surmise that Peter brought some people along with him to Cornelius' house, but we don't know who they might be.
Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.” Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"Peter address the crowd, which was at least 3,000 [Acts 2:41]. And he quotes Joel, saying that what Joel said was what had just happened. God poured out his Spirit on ALL PEOPLE, and the result was supernatural manifestations! How anyone could assert that only 12 men received this is beyond us.
And can we ask a question? Why does the author find it necessary to restrict tongues to 12 men when the Corinthian church in particular was filled with people speaking in tongues ? And Paul said, "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." 1Co. 14:26 "MUST BE DONE." There is no purpose whatsoever to insist only the Twelve spoke in tongues at Pentecost.)
The next direct reference to Holy Spirit baptism consisted of Peter describing the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10. Referring to their empowerment to speak in tongues, Peter explicitly identified it as being comparable to the experience of the apostles in Acts 2. Note his explanation: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us[apostles—DM] at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us [apostles—DM]…” (The account in Acts 10 identifies only Peter as accompanying Cornelius' men [Acts 10:21-23]. There is no mention of others except for those who were gathered at Cornelius' house [Acts 10:24]. There is nothing in the narrative that would indicate any other apostle was present. We can surmise that Peter brought some people along with him to Cornelius' house, but we don't know who they might be.
So who are the "we?" [They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.] It might be the unnamed people who accompanied Peter, but more likely Peter is referring to the dozens of people in the upper room who experienced Pentecostal tongues of fire, for the rest of those gathered were there to hear Peter for the first time.
Lastly, we note Luke continues the narrative in Acts 11:
Ac. 11:1 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
So the apostles weren't there. News of what happened to these gentiles reached them later. So the author's contention that "we" means apostles is false.)
(Acts 11:15-17, emp. added). Peter unmistakably linked the baptism of the Holy Spirit predicted by John in Matthew 3:11, and applied by Jesus to the apostles in Acts 1:5, with the unique and exclusive bestowal of the same on the first Gentile candidates of salvation. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit had occurred between Acts 2 and Acts 10, why did Peter compare the Gentiles’ experience with the experience of the apostles—rather than comparing it with many other Christians who allegedly would have received it during the intervening years? The answer lies in the fact that the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur during the intervening years. Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a unique and infrequent occurrence that came directly from deity. (What does the author do with passages like Ac. 19:1-6?
Lest you think that being baptized into the name of Jesus is in contradistinction to being baptized in the Holy Spirit, we find this in Ac. 8:15-17:
This understanding harmonizes with additional facts. The great prophecy of the Old Testament, which made special reference to the coming New Testament era as the dispensation of the Spirit, incorporated a most noteworthy expression. God declared, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). Peter repeated it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17). What did God mean by the expression “all flesh”? Members of the charismatic community insist that “all flesh” means “all Christians.” They maintain that every Christian can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They claim that to narrow the application of the promise of Holy Spirit baptism to a select group of individuals would deprive all other Christians of the opportunity to receive miraculous power. However, upon what biblical basis may such a claim be made? (How about the actual testimony of Scripture? Doesn't "all" mean "all?")
Those who claim the presence of miraculous gifts are guilty of the very thing they condemn—narrowing the expression “all flesh.” Surely no one would take the position that it means all animal flesh—since animals are not the recipients of God’s spiritual provisions. Nor would anyone contend that it means all human flesh—since all wicked, disobedient, unbelieving people would hardly expect, let alone desire, to receive God’s Spirit. (The author dances. "Poured out" doesn't mean "received." God indeed poured out His Spirit on all flesh, just like Scripture says. And the Holy Spirit is available to all who would receive Him via the Cross.)
"Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?' 'John’s baptism,' they replied.
Paul said, 'John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."Here some non-apostles were queried about the baptism they received. Paul wanted them to have the correct baptism, and the Holy Spirit came upon them. The baptism of the Holy Spirit!
Lest you think that being baptized into the name of Jesus is in contradistinction to being baptized in the Holy Spirit, we find this in Ac. 8:15-17:
When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.We can receive more of the Holy Spirit if we ask: Lk. 11:13
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!Indeed, being filled with the Holy Spirit is a command: Ep. 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.The gift of the Holy Spirit is this baptism, which every believer receives when he is saved, for there cannot be salvation without regeneration. Peter included this in his famous first sermon: Ac. 2:38:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.The author attempts to isolate the various references to the Holy Spirit in a way which conforms to his doctrine. In actual fact, his doctrine ought to be conformed to the Scriptures.)
This understanding harmonizes with additional facts. The great prophecy of the Old Testament, which made special reference to the coming New Testament era as the dispensation of the Spirit, incorporated a most noteworthy expression. God declared, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). Peter repeated it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17). What did God mean by the expression “all flesh”? Members of the charismatic community insist that “all flesh” means “all Christians.” They maintain that every Christian can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They claim that to narrow the application of the promise of Holy Spirit baptism to a select group of individuals would deprive all other Christians of the opportunity to receive miraculous power. However, upon what biblical basis may such a claim be made? (How about the actual testimony of Scripture? Doesn't "all" mean "all?")
Those who claim the presence of miraculous gifts are guilty of the very thing they condemn—narrowing the expression “all flesh.” Surely no one would take the position that it means all animal flesh—since animals are not the recipients of God’s spiritual provisions. Nor would anyone contend that it means all human flesh—since all wicked, disobedient, unbelieving people would hardly expect, let alone desire, to receive God’s Spirit. (The author dances. "Poured out" doesn't mean "received." God indeed poured out His Spirit on all flesh, just like Scripture says. And the Holy Spirit is available to all who would receive Him via the Cross.)
Those who agree that the expression “all flesh” must undoubtedly be qualified to exclude the animals and the unbelieving will nonetheless insist that narrowing the meaning to less than “all Christians” is unjustifiable.
To understand the proper meaning and application of the expression “all flesh,” one must examine the biblical use of the expression. “All flesh” often is used in the Bible to refer to the bulk of humanity (e.g., Genesis 6:12-13). It also can include all animal flesh (e.g., Genesis 6:17,19). However, with God’s special utilization of the descendants of Abraham in His scheme of redemption, “all flesh” often has the more technical meaning of “all nationalities.” The primary reason for this specialized use of the expression was due to the fact that most of the Old Testament was written against the backdrop of the presence of the nation of Israel. God is certainly “no respecter of persons” (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17; Acts 10:34-35). He does not favor one ethnic group over another. However, since His redemptive intention included bringing Jesus into the world for the benefit of all, someone had to be selected through whom Jesus’ arrival might be achieved. That man was Abraham (Galatians 3:8,16) and, consequently, his descendents. (sic)
As a result of this circumstance, the Jewish writers of the Bible frequently divided humanity into only two racial groupings, i.e., Jew and non-Jew (Gentile). For example, in what is obviously a strongly Messianic passage, Isaiah (the “Messianic prophet”) predicted the coming of John the baptizer who would prepare the way for Jesus. He exclaimed: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (40:5). The reference to “all flesh” was an unmistakable reference to the availability of salvation to both Jew and Gentile in the Christian era, as evinced by Luke’s quotation of the passage (Luke 3:6). The same is true in another prophecy that Isaiah uttered pertaining to the coming Christian era: “All flesh shall come to worship before Me” (Isaiah 66:23). The Jews of Isaiah’s day would not have been very pleased with Isaiah’s declarations, since they most certainly would have understood him to be predicting the incorporation of Gentiles into God’s favor—which the Jews felt they alone enjoyed.
Paul cinched the meaning of “all flesh” in his premiere treatise on justification by faith. He drew a clear distinction between the two ethnic categories by first declaring the sins of the Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32) and then declaring the sins of the Jews (Romans 2:1-3:8). Notice carefully his concluding remarks as he brought the first section of the book to its climax: “What then? are we [the Jews—DM] better than they [the Gentiles—DM]? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin” (Romans 3:9, emp. added). He then quoted a series of Old Testament verses, which verified his emphasis upon the two (and only two) categories of human flesh, using two significant terms: “none” and “all.” “None” means neither Jew nor Gentile. “All” means both Jew and Gentile. Then he articulated his grand and climactic conclusion: “because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Romans 3:20, emp. added). “No flesh” referred to Jew and Gentile. In other words, neither Jew nor Gentile could be justified by law alone. “No flesh” and “all flesh” were technical allusions to the two categories of human flesh, i.e., Jew and non-Jew.
Observe, then, that the first recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, as we have seen, were the Jewish apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It equipped them to establish the church and to write, speak, and confirm inspired truth. The second recipients of Holy Spirit baptism were the Gentile members of the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. It convinced Jewish Christians that Gentiles were fit prospects for the reception of the Gospel, and valid candidates for entrance into the kingdom (Acts 10:34-35,45; 11:18). So Joel’s statement, that God would pour out His Spirit on “all flesh,” applied to the outpouring on Jews in Acts 2 and on Gentiles in Acts 10. The only other conceivable occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism would have been Paul, who would have received direct miraculous ability from God as well. His reception was obviously unique because (1) he was not an apostle when the Twelve received the Spirit, and (2) he was “one born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Holy Spirit baptism, then, filled two unique and exclusive purposes: (1) to prepare the apostles for their apostolic (not Christian) roles, and (2) to provide divine demonstration that Gentiles were to be allowed to become Christians.
One additional consideration deserves comment regarding Joel’s prophecy. If “all flesh” referred exclusively to the Jewish apostles and the first Gentile converts, why did Joel include “sons, daughters, old men, young men, servants, and handmaids” in the reception of God’s Spirit (Joel 2:28-29)? As was typical of Hebrew prophecy, progressive, sequential, and complete fulfillment would be forthcoming. A prophecy could possess several features that found fulfillment in a variety of circumstances. It is apparent, on the basis of the references already discussed (e.g., Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; 11:15-17), that only the first part of Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The “last days” (Acts 2:17) referred to theentire Christian dispensation from Pentecost to the Judgment. The outpouring of the Spirit, therefore, would include more than just the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was confined to the Jewish apostles on Pentecost and the Gentiles a few years later. Though the peculiar phenomenon of Holy Spirit baptism was limited to those two specific ethnic groups (i.e., the twelve apostles and the household of Cornelius), additional activity of the Spirit would include the impartation of miraculous gifts through the laying on of the apostles’ hands (discussed below). This conclusion is evident from the fact that no “daughters” or “handmaids” received Holy Spirit baptism on Pentecost. Nor is there any evidence of the occurrence of “dreams” or “visions” on Pentecost. With the Holy Spirit’s expanded presence in the instigation of Christianity in the first century came the eventual impartation of miraculous ability separate and apart from Holy Spirit baptism. The broadened fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (subsequent to Acts 2) is seen in the references to Philip’s daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9) and in the occurrence of visions (Acts 9:10; 10:3,10; 16:9). However, these miraculous manifestations, though included in Joel’s prophecy, were not instances of Holy Spirit baptism. The common link in the Holy Spirit’s outpouring on Pentecost and the manifestations of the Spirit thereafter was the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the apostles—who were the keys to the further distribution of miraculous power in the early years of Christianity. (This is truly an odd argument. The author has expended every effort to restrict the baptism of the Holy Spirit only to the apostles, then levels charges against charismatics that they are too narrow in their view of "all flesh."
And really, we don't think it's necessary to exclude the idea that "all flesh" means exactly "all flesh." There's a universality here, probably because all creation waits for the great move of the Holy Spirit: Ro. 8:19 "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed."
And we know that the Holy Spirit has come upon the ungodly (1 Sam 19:20-24), and yes, even animal flesh! (Num 22:28).
Further, almost all charismatics view the Joel prophecy as a broad promise for the great move of God in our day, as opposed to referring specifically or exclusively to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The general moves to the specific when the outpouring of the Holy Spirit also includes the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The later is a subset of the former.)
1 Corinthians 12:13
But what about Paul’s statement to the Corinthians? He wrote: “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body…and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Some have insisted that this verse teaches that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is imparted to all Christians. Careful analysis of the verse, however, demonstrates that Paul was not referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was received only twice in the New Testament (if you omit Paul). If the Corinthians had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, Paul likely would have worded the verse: “We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” This wording would have made it plain that their baptism was Holy Spirit baptism. However, Paul connected “baptized” with “into one body,” and placed “in one Spirit” before both “baptized” and “into one body.” Did he mean to say that their baptism entailed being indwelt with the Spirit, or having the Spirit overwhelm (i.e., immerse) them, or come upon them, i.e., that the Holy Spirit, Himself, was what the Corinthians had received or been baptized in? (Again the author parses words to support his errant thesis. We quote the entirety of the verse. 1Co. 12:13:
To understand the proper meaning and application of the expression “all flesh,” one must examine the biblical use of the expression. “All flesh” often is used in the Bible to refer to the bulk of humanity (e.g., Genesis 6:12-13). It also can include all animal flesh (e.g., Genesis 6:17,19). However, with God’s special utilization of the descendants of Abraham in His scheme of redemption, “all flesh” often has the more technical meaning of “all nationalities.” The primary reason for this specialized use of the expression was due to the fact that most of the Old Testament was written against the backdrop of the presence of the nation of Israel. God is certainly “no respecter of persons” (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17; Acts 10:34-35). He does not favor one ethnic group over another. However, since His redemptive intention included bringing Jesus into the world for the benefit of all, someone had to be selected through whom Jesus’ arrival might be achieved. That man was Abraham (Galatians 3:8,16) and, consequently, his descendents. (sic)
As a result of this circumstance, the Jewish writers of the Bible frequently divided humanity into only two racial groupings, i.e., Jew and non-Jew (Gentile). For example, in what is obviously a strongly Messianic passage, Isaiah (the “Messianic prophet”) predicted the coming of John the baptizer who would prepare the way for Jesus. He exclaimed: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (40:5). The reference to “all flesh” was an unmistakable reference to the availability of salvation to both Jew and Gentile in the Christian era, as evinced by Luke’s quotation of the passage (Luke 3:6). The same is true in another prophecy that Isaiah uttered pertaining to the coming Christian era: “All flesh shall come to worship before Me” (Isaiah 66:23). The Jews of Isaiah’s day would not have been very pleased with Isaiah’s declarations, since they most certainly would have understood him to be predicting the incorporation of Gentiles into God’s favor—which the Jews felt they alone enjoyed.
Paul cinched the meaning of “all flesh” in his premiere treatise on justification by faith. He drew a clear distinction between the two ethnic categories by first declaring the sins of the Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32) and then declaring the sins of the Jews (Romans 2:1-3:8). Notice carefully his concluding remarks as he brought the first section of the book to its climax: “What then? are we [the Jews—DM] better than they [the Gentiles—DM]? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin” (Romans 3:9, emp. added). He then quoted a series of Old Testament verses, which verified his emphasis upon the two (and only two) categories of human flesh, using two significant terms: “none” and “all.” “None” means neither Jew nor Gentile. “All” means both Jew and Gentile. Then he articulated his grand and climactic conclusion: “because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Romans 3:20, emp. added). “No flesh” referred to Jew and Gentile. In other words, neither Jew nor Gentile could be justified by law alone. “No flesh” and “all flesh” were technical allusions to the two categories of human flesh, i.e., Jew and non-Jew.
Observe, then, that the first recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, as we have seen, were the Jewish apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It equipped them to establish the church and to write, speak, and confirm inspired truth. The second recipients of Holy Spirit baptism were the Gentile members of the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. It convinced Jewish Christians that Gentiles were fit prospects for the reception of the Gospel, and valid candidates for entrance into the kingdom (Acts 10:34-35,45; 11:18). So Joel’s statement, that God would pour out His Spirit on “all flesh,” applied to the outpouring on Jews in Acts 2 and on Gentiles in Acts 10. The only other conceivable occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism would have been Paul, who would have received direct miraculous ability from God as well. His reception was obviously unique because (1) he was not an apostle when the Twelve received the Spirit, and (2) he was “one born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Holy Spirit baptism, then, filled two unique and exclusive purposes: (1) to prepare the apostles for their apostolic (not Christian) roles, and (2) to provide divine demonstration that Gentiles were to be allowed to become Christians.
One additional consideration deserves comment regarding Joel’s prophecy. If “all flesh” referred exclusively to the Jewish apostles and the first Gentile converts, why did Joel include “sons, daughters, old men, young men, servants, and handmaids” in the reception of God’s Spirit (Joel 2:28-29)? As was typical of Hebrew prophecy, progressive, sequential, and complete fulfillment would be forthcoming. A prophecy could possess several features that found fulfillment in a variety of circumstances. It is apparent, on the basis of the references already discussed (e.g., Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; 11:15-17), that only the first part of Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The “last days” (Acts 2:17) referred to theentire Christian dispensation from Pentecost to the Judgment. The outpouring of the Spirit, therefore, would include more than just the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was confined to the Jewish apostles on Pentecost and the Gentiles a few years later. Though the peculiar phenomenon of Holy Spirit baptism was limited to those two specific ethnic groups (i.e., the twelve apostles and the household of Cornelius), additional activity of the Spirit would include the impartation of miraculous gifts through the laying on of the apostles’ hands (discussed below). This conclusion is evident from the fact that no “daughters” or “handmaids” received Holy Spirit baptism on Pentecost. Nor is there any evidence of the occurrence of “dreams” or “visions” on Pentecost. With the Holy Spirit’s expanded presence in the instigation of Christianity in the first century came the eventual impartation of miraculous ability separate and apart from Holy Spirit baptism. The broadened fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (subsequent to Acts 2) is seen in the references to Philip’s daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9) and in the occurrence of visions (Acts 9:10; 10:3,10; 16:9). However, these miraculous manifestations, though included in Joel’s prophecy, were not instances of Holy Spirit baptism. The common link in the Holy Spirit’s outpouring on Pentecost and the manifestations of the Spirit thereafter was the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the apostles—who were the keys to the further distribution of miraculous power in the early years of Christianity. (This is truly an odd argument. The author has expended every effort to restrict the baptism of the Holy Spirit only to the apostles, then levels charges against charismatics that they are too narrow in their view of "all flesh."
And really, we don't think it's necessary to exclude the idea that "all flesh" means exactly "all flesh." There's a universality here, probably because all creation waits for the great move of the Holy Spirit: Ro. 8:19 "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed."
And we know that the Holy Spirit has come upon the ungodly (1 Sam 19:20-24), and yes, even animal flesh! (Num 22:28).
Further, almost all charismatics view the Joel prophecy as a broad promise for the great move of God in our day, as opposed to referring specifically or exclusively to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The general moves to the specific when the outpouring of the Holy Spirit also includes the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The later is a subset of the former.)
1 Corinthians 12:13
But what about Paul’s statement to the Corinthians? He wrote: “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body…and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Some have insisted that this verse teaches that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is imparted to all Christians. Careful analysis of the verse, however, demonstrates that Paul was not referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was received only twice in the New Testament (if you omit Paul). If the Corinthians had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, Paul likely would have worded the verse: “We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” This wording would have made it plain that their baptism was Holy Spirit baptism. However, Paul connected “baptized” with “into one body,” and placed “in one Spirit” before both “baptized” and “into one body.” Did he mean to say that their baptism entailed being indwelt with the Spirit, or having the Spirit overwhelm (i.e., immerse) them, or come upon them, i.e., that the Holy Spirit, Himself, was what the Corinthians had received or been baptized in? (Again the author parses words to support his errant thesis. We quote the entirety of the verse. 1Co. 12:13:
For we were all baptized by [Or with; or in] one Spirit into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free — and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Seems plain enough. Every believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit and have no become part of the body of Christ.
And what would the author do with other biblical statements:
Ro. 6:3-7 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Ep. 4:4-5 There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism...)
The grammar of the passage provides a decisive and definitive answer. The word “Spirit” is in the instrumental case in Greek, indicating personal agency. The personal agent in the passage who did the baptizing is the Holy Spirit. His baptizing resulted in the placement of the individuals into the one body of Christ. The verb is aorist, showing that Paul was referring to a once-for-all act in the past. Wuest explained: “It is not the baptism with the Spirit or of the Spirit, in the sense that the Holy Spirit is the element which is applied to us. It is the baptism by the Spirit. This baptism does not bring the Spirit to us in the sense that God places the Spirit upon or in us. Rather, this baptism brings the believer into vital union with Jesus Christ” (1943b, p. 86, emp. added). The Corinthians were the beneficiaries—not of the Spirit—but of the Spirit’s guidance or assistance. They were baptized by the Spirit (cf.KJV, NKJV, NASV, RSV, NIV).
Further grammatical evidence in the context supports this conclusion. Earlier in the chapter, Paul said that no person could say that Jesus is Lord “but in the Holy Spirit” (vs. 3). A person could say Jesus is Lord without being in the Spirit or having the Holy Spirit in or on him. But a person could not say Jesus is Lord if the Holy Spirit had not revealed such information about Jesus—as He did by empowering the apostles to produce written revelation. A few verses later, Paul pinpointed several gifts that were given “through the Spirit,” “according to the same Spirit,” and “in the same Spirit” (vss. 8-9, ASV). All three phrases are equivalent, and refer to the Holy Spirit’s action, not the state of being in the Holy Spirit. Paul’s summary of the section verifies that this meaning is intended: “But one and the same Spiritworks all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (vs. 11).
In view of these contextual details, one is forced to conclude that in verse 13, Paul could be referring to no other baptism than the baptism enjoined by Christ in the Great Commission, i.e., the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5, the baptism which Paul, himself, administered to the Corinthians (Acts 18:8)—water baptism. The Holy Spirit was the agent through Whom Christ enjoined water baptism by means of the preached message. When a person complies with the instruction to be baptized in water, that person is baptized into the one body of Christ. Other verses in the New Testament confirm this understanding. Jesus announced: “[U]nless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus meant what Paul meant, that when one obeys the teaching of the Spirit to be baptized in water, he is granted entrance into the kingdom. Paul reiterated this same teaching on two other occasions. To the Ephesian church, he pointed out that Jesus gave His life for the church “that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). He meant that an individual is permitted to be a part of the cleansed church of Christ when he submits to water baptism in accordance with the Holy Spirit’s inspired Word. Likewise, Paul told young Titus that Jesus “saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Again, he meant that one is saved (and hence added to the body) at the point of water immersion, in which spiritual renewal is extended by the Holy Spirit.
We are forced to conclude that 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not refer to Holy Spirit baptism (see also McGarvey, 1910, pp. 254-256, and Reese, 1976, p. 76). The two instances of Holy Spirit baptism previously discussed (i.e., in Acts 2 and 10) stand unmistakably in stark contrast with the baptism alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:13. The Corinthian baptism placed the Corinthians into the body of Christ, i.e., at their conversion. But when the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they were already saved. When the household of Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit, they were not yet saved and were inducted into the body of Christ only after Peter called for “water” (Acts 10:47-48). (We let the author make his case and did not comment until now because it is largely irrelevant. We have already seen that the artificial bifurcations of the author are unwarranted, largely because the author's template establishes his narrative. Were he to approach the Holy Spirit as an honest student, he would see that the compartmentalization of the Holy Spirit's ministry does violence to Scripture.)
Laying on of Hands
If Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the only instances of Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament, how then do we account for the fact that many others in the New Testament performed miracles or spoke in tongues? If they were not recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, how did they get the ability? The New Testament dictates only one other way to receive miraculous capability: through the laying on of the apostles’ hands. (Unfortunately for the author, this is not what Scripture says. The author uses terms like "only" to fill in the silences of Scripture. However, we have only what was reported, and not the totality of Holy Spirit ministry in the early church. So it is presumption, indeed, perilous to suggest that the "only" way something happens is what is reported, absent direct statements of Scripture that specifically communicate the concept.
But even there we have hints that the author's assertion is not true. Ananias was not an apostle, but he was the agent of healing and filling with the Holy Spirit: Ac. 9:17
Further grammatical evidence in the context supports this conclusion. Earlier in the chapter, Paul said that no person could say that Jesus is Lord “but in the Holy Spirit” (vs. 3). A person could say Jesus is Lord without being in the Spirit or having the Holy Spirit in or on him. But a person could not say Jesus is Lord if the Holy Spirit had not revealed such information about Jesus—as He did by empowering the apostles to produce written revelation. A few verses later, Paul pinpointed several gifts that were given “through the Spirit,” “according to the same Spirit,” and “in the same Spirit” (vss. 8-9, ASV). All three phrases are equivalent, and refer to the Holy Spirit’s action, not the state of being in the Holy Spirit. Paul’s summary of the section verifies that this meaning is intended: “But one and the same Spiritworks all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (vs. 11).
In view of these contextual details, one is forced to conclude that in verse 13, Paul could be referring to no other baptism than the baptism enjoined by Christ in the Great Commission, i.e., the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5, the baptism which Paul, himself, administered to the Corinthians (Acts 18:8)—water baptism. The Holy Spirit was the agent through Whom Christ enjoined water baptism by means of the preached message. When a person complies with the instruction to be baptized in water, that person is baptized into the one body of Christ. Other verses in the New Testament confirm this understanding. Jesus announced: “[U]nless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus meant what Paul meant, that when one obeys the teaching of the Spirit to be baptized in water, he is granted entrance into the kingdom. Paul reiterated this same teaching on two other occasions. To the Ephesian church, he pointed out that Jesus gave His life for the church “that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). He meant that an individual is permitted to be a part of the cleansed church of Christ when he submits to water baptism in accordance with the Holy Spirit’s inspired Word. Likewise, Paul told young Titus that Jesus “saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Again, he meant that one is saved (and hence added to the body) at the point of water immersion, in which spiritual renewal is extended by the Holy Spirit.
We are forced to conclude that 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not refer to Holy Spirit baptism (see also McGarvey, 1910, pp. 254-256, and Reese, 1976, p. 76). The two instances of Holy Spirit baptism previously discussed (i.e., in Acts 2 and 10) stand unmistakably in stark contrast with the baptism alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:13. The Corinthian baptism placed the Corinthians into the body of Christ, i.e., at their conversion. But when the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they were already saved. When the household of Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit, they were not yet saved and were inducted into the body of Christ only after Peter called for “water” (Acts 10:47-48). (We let the author make his case and did not comment until now because it is largely irrelevant. We have already seen that the artificial bifurcations of the author are unwarranted, largely because the author's template establishes his narrative. Were he to approach the Holy Spirit as an honest student, he would see that the compartmentalization of the Holy Spirit's ministry does violence to Scripture.)
Laying on of Hands
If Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the only instances of Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament, how then do we account for the fact that many others in the New Testament performed miracles or spoke in tongues? If they were not recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, how did they get the ability? The New Testament dictates only one other way to receive miraculous capability: through the laying on of the apostles’ hands. (Unfortunately for the author, this is not what Scripture says. The author uses terms like "only" to fill in the silences of Scripture. However, we have only what was reported, and not the totality of Holy Spirit ministry in the early church. So it is presumption, indeed, perilous to suggest that the "only" way something happens is what is reported, absent direct statements of Scripture that specifically communicate the concept.
But even there we have hints that the author's assertion is not true. Ananias was not an apostle, but he was the agent of healing and filling with the Holy Spirit: Ac. 9:17
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord — Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here — has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”The setting apart of Barnabas and Paul by the laying on of hands was achieved non-specifically, Scripture only mentioning prophets and teachers. Interestingly, it was probably non-apostles who were laying hands on apostles (And yes, Barnabas was an apostle [Ac. 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd..."]
Ac.13:1-3:
Only the apostles possessed the ability to transfer miraculous capability to others. (this is false, as we have just seen.)
In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.Timothy, who was not an apostle, laid hands on people. Why would he do that? He can't confer apostolic anointing ala our author's criteria. But yet for some reason Timothy was instructed to lay hands. Hmm. 1 Ti. 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.Hmm. Laying on of hands is an elementary teaching. Why would the writer of Hebrews suggest that people would need to be taught to lay hands if only the apostles could do it, or if only if the apostles could transfer the gift?) He. 6:1-2
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.It really makes me wonder how someone can assert patently false things with such glibness. It's like the author has read the Bible through a prism of presuppositions, and simply ignores anything that contradicts his narrative.)
Only the apostles possessed the ability to transfer miraculous capability to others. (this is false, as we have just seen.)
This phenomenon is described succinctly by Luke:
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:17-21, emp. added).
This description establishes two important facts: (1) only the apostles had the ability to impart to others the ability to perform miracles; (It says no such thing.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:17-21, emp. added).
This description establishes two important facts: (1) only the apostles had the ability to impart to others the ability to perform miracles; (It says no such thing.)
and (2) those other than the apostles who could perform miracles received their ability indirectly through the apostles—not directly from God via Holy Spirit baptism. (It says no such thing.)
This fascinating feature of the existence of the miraculous in the first century makes it possible to understand how other individuals received their supernatural powers. For example, Philip, who was not an apostle, possessed the ability to perform miracles (Acts 8:6,13). If he was not an apostle, and he did not receive direct ability from God via baptism of the Holy Spirit, where, then, did he derive his ability? Luke informs us that Philip previously received the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 6:5-6). Likewise, the first Christians in Ephesus were enabled to speak in tongues when the apostle Paul laid his hands on them (Acts 19:6). Even Timothy received his gift from the laying on of Paul’s hands (2 Timothy 1:6). (The author keeps telling one whopper after another. He will next attempt to explain this away:
This fascinating feature of the existence of the miraculous in the first century makes it possible to understand how other individuals received their supernatural powers. For example, Philip, who was not an apostle, possessed the ability to perform miracles (Acts 8:6,13). If he was not an apostle, and he did not receive direct ability from God via baptism of the Holy Spirit, where, then, did he derive his ability? Luke informs us that Philip previously received the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 6:5-6). Likewise, the first Christians in Ephesus were enabled to speak in tongues when the apostle Paul laid his hands on them (Acts 19:6). Even Timothy received his gift from the laying on of Paul’s hands (2 Timothy 1:6). (The author keeps telling one whopper after another. He will next attempt to explain this away:
1Ti. 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.)
Meta is with, among, after... f. with the genitive of mental feelings desires and emotions, of bodily movements, and of other acts which are so to speak the attendants of what is done or occurs; so that in this way the characteristic of the action or occurrence is described — which in most cases can be expressed by a cognate adverb or participle...So the word "when [meta] is a movement of the body that accompanies characteristics of action.
Further, the Greek word dia ["through"] also appears in this text! Let's quote the verse again:
1Ti. 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through [dia] a prophetic message when [meta] the body of elders laid their hands on you.
The literal Greek rendering is, "Not be negligent of the in you gift which was given to you through prophecy with laying on the hands of the elderhood. The gift Paul is referring to was given through [by the instrumentality of] prophecy accompanied by [an attendant physical movement in conjunction with] the laying on of hands of the elders.
Clearly Paul is referring to a prophecy spoken which led to the elders laying hands on Timothy. The gift was imparted via prophecy, not the laying on of hands.
The gift was teaching:
1Ti. 4:13-14 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
Let's requote the first mention where Paul laid his hands:
2Ti. 1:6-7 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.
So the gift that Paul imparted was courage, but the gift the elders imparted was teaching.)
However, on that occasion, the local eldership of the church was present and participated with Paul in the event, (There is no mention of Paul being present with the elders.)
lending their simultaneous support and accompanying commendation. After examining the grammatical data on the matter, Nicoll concluded: “[I]t was the imposition of hands by St. Paul that was the instrument used by God in the communication of the charisma to Timothy” (1900, 4:127; cf. Jamieson, et al., n.d., 2:414; Williams, 1960, p. 956). Consequently, 1 Timothy 4:14 provides no proof that miraculous capability could be received through other means in addition to apostolic imposition of hands and the two clear instances of Holy Spirit baptism.
CONCLUSION
(As we have seen, the author failed to make his case. Clearly there is more to the ministry of the Holy Spirit than the author lets on. Our theory is that the author is not comfortable with the idea of a present, powerful, intimate Being, perhaps due to experiencing some of the excesses of the charismatics. He recoils, throws out the baby with the bathwater, and retreats into the comfort of intellectual pursuits.
It is much easier to reduce God to what can be intellectually discerned. Like the Greeks who look for wisdom, the author has reduced the Christian experience down to intellectual processes, and has left no room for the power of God in this day. 1Co. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
We would do well to not rob the cross of its power.)
In light of all the biblical data set forth in this study, certain conclusions are quite evident. Since there are no apostles living today, and since Holy Spirit baptism was unique to the apostles (Acts 2) and the first Gentile converts (Acts 10), there is no Holy Spirit baptism today. Likewise, there is no miraculous healing today. There are no tongue-speakers today. The miraculous element in the Christian religion was terminated by God near the close of the first century. Once the last apostle died, the means by which miraculous capability was made available was dissolved. With the completion of God’s revelation to humanity, now available in the Bible, people living today have all that is needed to be complete and to enjoy the fullness of Christian existence (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 4:14).
The alleged miracles and tongue-speaking of today simply do not measure up to the Bible’s description of the miraculous. They are unverifiable, ambiguous, and counterfeit. Today’s “divine healing” consists of vague, unseen, non-quantifiable aches and pains like arthritis and headaches. But in the New Testament, people were raised from the dead—even days after death (e.g., John 11:17). Severed body parts were instantly restored (e.g., Luke 22:50-51). People who had been born blind had their sight restored (e.g., John 9:1). Those lamefrom birth were empowered to walk (Acts 3:2). First-century miracles were not limited only to certain ailments and psychosomatic illnesses that could be cured through natural means, or by mental adjustments on the part of the infirm. Jesus healed “all kinds of sickness andall kinds of disease” (Matthew 4:23, emp. added). No disease or sickness was exempt in the New Testament (cf. Acts 28:8-9). Where are these instances today? When has anyone restored a severed limb lost in an accident? When has a self-proclaimed “faith-healer” raised anyone from the dead? Where are the miracle workers who have healed the blind, the crippled, the paralyzed, and those whose infirmities have been documented as having been in existence for many years (John 5:3,5)? Where are the televangelists who will go to the children’s hospitals and rectify birth defects and childhood diseases? Where are those who have ingested poison or been bitten by a venomous snake and remained unharmed (Mark 16:18; Acts 28:3-5)? An honest searcher for the truth is forced to conclude that the miraculous age has passed.
But human beings always are looking for something new, something exciting, and something flashy. They grasp for the attractive and the appealing, they want the easy way out, and they want something that makes them feel religious and secure—without having to face up to personal responsibilities. Hence, there will always be those who, instead of searching the Scriptures to find out whether these things are so (Acts 17:11), will simply disengage their minds, their spiritual sense, and their ability to assess “the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25).
Genuine Christianity today consists of simply taking the written Word of God, and studying it carefully in order to learn what God expects of us: simple meditation and reflection upon the Word of God—no brass bands or circus theatrics, no flash of light, or dream, or vision, no sudden rush attributable to the Holy Spirit. The pathway to heaven consists of honest, intensive investigation of written revelation, and a life of diligent self-discipline and self-denial that strives to incorporate spiritual attributes into one’s life—attributes like patience, compassion, kindness, humility, forgiveness, honesty, integrity, peace of soul, joy, and clean, moral living. There are no short cuts to spirituality. The miraculous is no answer. Even in the first century, miracles were not designed to develop these spiritual attributes.
Certainly, God loves us and has promised to care for us (e.g., Matthew 6:33). But His workings in the Universe and in our lives are undertaken today providentially through the natural laws that He set into motion. After the first century, He has not—and will not—violate His own purposes by interfering with these laws in order to perform a miracle. In the final analysis, we are under obligation to seek His assistance by listening to the instructions found in His written Word. Only words from God, then and now, will equip us and prepare us for eternity. As Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68, emp. added). Jesus said to the Father, “Sanctify them in the truth: thyword is truth” (John 17:17, emp. added). When Satan attempted to prod Jesus into performing a miracle, Jesus said to him, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by everyword that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4, emp. added).
[NOTE: To listen to an audio sermon on this subject, click here.]
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1956 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bietenhard, Hans (1975), “Angel,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. (1997), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Conzelmann, Hans (1974), “charismata,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).
Delling, Gerhard (1972), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Grundmann, Walter (1964), “angelos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hofius, Otfried (1976), “Miracle,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Machen, J. Gresham (1923), New Testament Greek for Beginners (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Moule, C.F.D. (1959), An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1977 reprint).
Moulton, W.F., A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament(Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition.
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1982 reprint), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. (1900), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Reese, Gareth (1976), New Testament History—Acts (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Ringgren, Helmer (1997), “malak,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Thayer, J.H. (1901), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Vincent, M.R. (1890), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).
Vine, W.E. (1952), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Williams, George (1960), The Student’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), sixth edition.
Workman, Gary (1983), “That Which Is Perfect,” The Restorer, 3[9]:6-9, September.
Wuest, Kenneth S. (1943a), Treasures from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Wuest, Kenneth S. (1943b), Untranslatable Riches from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
No comments:
Post a Comment