The Continuing Acts of Jesus by the Spirit through the Apostles

Luke introduces his remarks by reference to "the first account I composed". In that account now known as the gospel of Luke, he recorded "all that Jesus began to do and teach." By implication then, "Acts" is an account of what Jesus continued "to do and teach" after his ascension. We would therefore, expect that "Acts" be full of occurrences of miracles of action and teaching (in the form of words rather than thoughts) caused by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, as we examine the book in detail we find that all occurrences of the Holy Spirit are of a miraculous character.

Luke, in the first few verses, introduces the fact that the Apostles were instructed "not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for what the Father had promised" (v. 4). They received this promise of the Father only ten days after the ascension of the glorified₁ Christ. As Peter pointed out at that time, the pouring out was a partial fulfillment of that which had been prophesied by Joel (2:28-32). This reference by Peter clearly indicated the wide spread distribution of the Spirit. It was to be on "all flesh" without discrimination as to age, race, sex or position₂. In clear unmistakable terms he told the gathered multitude that what they could "see" and "hear" (i.e. the tongues of fire and the gift of tongues) was (a) the outpouring promised in Joel, and (b) the Father’s promise of the Holy Spirit. It is important to note that there is no place in Peter’s inspired exposition of Joel or his explanation of the Father’s promise to Jesus for the gift of the Holy Spirit constituting, or even including, what some call the spiritual graces of righteousness, peace or joy. Rather, his exposition and the rest of Luke’s record of the "Acts" demonstrates that the Lord worked "to do and to teach" by three modes:

1. by miraculous Spirit gifts₃.
2. through visitations of Angels₄.
3. by providential guidance without visible intervention₅.

A. The miraculous spirit gifts

Even some of the passages which appear on the surface to teach a mystical indwelling causing peace and joy, are seen to teach otherwise when carefully examined.

For example:
      "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5) had the temporary Spirit gift of faith ( 1 Cor. 12:9). Similarly, a man: "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" (Acts 6:3) possessed the temporary intermittent gift of the word of wisdom (1 Cor. 12:8)₆.

The miraculous was involved even in such passages as Acts 9:31:
      "The ecclesias . . . walking in the comfort of the Holy Spirit".

The word for "comfort" is translated "exhortation" (Acts 13:15), and Luke was saying that the brethren were "walking . . . in the exhortation supplied by the Holy Spirit" through those who had the gift of exhortation (1 Cor. 14:3). The "guidance" provided to Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:2) and to Paul and Silas (Acts 16:6-7) was not intuitive but came through the gift of prophecy₇.

The table below is a rough quantitative tabulation of some types of miracles in Acts.

THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT AS PROMISED IN JOEL	Textural references in Acts fulfilling these specific promises.
"Prophecy" in the sense of forthtelling or speaking Words of God, rather than solely foretelling (2:22; 3:12; 4:8,31; 9:31; 10:19,31; 11:12,21,27,28; 13:2,16; 15:13,28,31,32; 16:6,7; 17:2; 18:5; 20:2,18; 21:4,11)	24
"Visions" (7:55; 9:3,10,12,27; 10:3,11,17,30; 11:5,13; 16:9; 18:9; 22:6,17; 23:11)	16
"Wonders and signs" (2:2,3,4,43; 3:7; 4:14,31,33; 5:5,10,12,15-16; 6:8; 7:56; 8:6,13; 9:18,34,40; 10:44;13:11; 15:12; 16:26; 19:6,11; 20:12; 28:5,8)	28
THE WORK OF THE PARAKLETE AS PROMISED IN JOHN
"Witness", prophetically and personally (4:33; 5:29,32; 6:10; 8:5,6,12,25,35; 13:52; 15:8; 22:1)	11
"Convicting" -- of sin (2:37; 4:4; 5:3,9; 7:51-54; 8:20; 10:6; 13:10,40; 16:29; 17:30; 18:6; 19:18; 24:25; 28:25-27	15
-- of righteousness (2:37; 3:15; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30,34; 17:31)	7
-- of judgement (as listed below)	9
Defence before civil and ecclesiastical courts (4:6; 5:27; 6:12; 16:36; 18:14; 22:1; 23:1; 23:34; 26:1)	9

'There are, of course, many other instances of the Holy Spirit at work in Acts. The present writers claim, however, that every instance of the "Holy Spirit" in "Acts" is of a miraculous character₈’

B. Angels in "Acts"

This is another way that the "Spirit" operated as recorded in "Acts".

1. ASCENSION OF CHRIST. "Two men stood by them in white apparel" (1:10). The disciples had not yet received the promise of the Lord.

2. RELEASE OF APOSTLES FROM PRISON. "the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors" (5:19).
   The Holy Spirit was not for the personal use of those who possessed it. That is why an Angel released them.

3. DIRECTION OF PHILIP TO MAN OF ETHIOPIA. "the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip" (8:26).
   "Angelic intervention was used when there was no one available immediately and/or when the more evidently authoritative and powerful presence of an angel was essential to the particular circumstances₉"

4. VISION TO CORNELIUS. "An angel of God coming in to him". (10:3)
   Cornelius did not have the Spirit so an angel was used to reveal God s message.

5. VISION TO PETER "I have sent them" (10:20, cf. v. 3). reason (3).

6. RELEASE OF PETER FROM PRISON (12:7) same reason as (2).

7. SMITING OF HEROD FOR ACCEPTING GLORY DUE TO GOD.
   "Immediately the angel of the Lord smote him" (12:23) same reason as (3).

8. COMFORT TO PAUL. "There stood by me this night the angel of God" (27:23 cf. 3:11) (reason 3).

C. Providence in "Acts"

God also controlled the lives of the Apostles by unseen angelic control by what we term "The Ways of Providence". This guidance did not come directly to the mind but indirectly in a way that the person did not realize. The persecution which arose over the death of Stephen must surely be seen as a means God used to get the apostles out of Jerusalem. (8:1).

Acts 2:4

"And they ..."

It is uncertain to some whether "they" (v. 1) means the 12 Apostles or the 120 (1:15) disciples as there are arguments in favor of both. Arguments in favor of the 12 are as follows:

1. What Jesus had promised in John 14:16 was limited to the Apostles (at least initially).
2. The gathering which was instructed by Jesus not to leave Jerusalem but which was to wait until the Holy Spirit was given consisted of the 11 (1:2, 4, 8; cf. Luke 24:49).
3. If we disregard the chapter division, we see that it is the 11 plus Matthias (v.26.) that is the subject.
4. v. 7 indicates that the speakers in tongues were all Galileans. It is doubtful that the 120 were all Galileans.
5. v. 14 records that Peter stood up among the eleven.

Arguments in favour of 120 are:

1. The record begins, "And when they were all with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). This phrasing looks back to the earlier incident where the 120 in the Upper Room "all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer." (1:14-15 RV).
2. Before the Lord’s ascension he said to "the eleven" . . and those that were with them . . . tarry ye in the city until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luke 24:33, 49).
3. As the Apostles were the prominent ones and Peter the spokesman it is reasonable to expect that they would do the speaking.
4. The Pentecost of the Gentiles records that it "fell upon all those who were listening to the message" "which have received the Holy Spirit just as we did" (Acts 10:45, 47 NASB). So again not just the leaders, but all.

Conclusion:

In view of the evidence for the 120 above, there can be no doubt that the Spirit descended on the entire assembly of 120, but we see later the Apostles had special powers as a result.

"... were all filled ..."

The word pleroo (filled) replaces the word "baptism" of Spirit from here on.

"... with the Holy Spirit ..."

The Spirit gift of tongues. If, however, the Apostles did not receive the other gifts on this occasion, it is difficult indeed to explain:

1. why they didn’t. The promise of Joel demands it and so does John 14-16.
2. when they did.
3. the fact that Peter’s defence was the gift of prophecy as he quoted from the Psalms infallibly.

   It seems better to see tongues here as only a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The other gifts must have been distributed on this occasion also.

"... and began to speak with other tongues"₁ (cf. Mark 16:17)

Tongue speaking in the first century ecclesia can be identified with foreign languages.

"Glossa" and "Dialektos" are used interchangeably by Luke. Stress is often placed on the Greek word glossa as if to imply that the word in the New Testament means ecstatic utterances. But a comparison of the two Greek words shows them to be used interchangeably in Acts 2. The miracle of this chapter rested on the fact that Galileans, who may never have studied foreign languages (Acts 4:13) were able to fluently speak these languages. Consider the following parallels in Acts 2.

1. "And they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues (glossa)". v.4.

2. "Every man heard them speak in his own language (dialektos)".v. 6.

3. "And how hear we every man in his own tongue₂ (dialektos) wherein we were born?" v. 8.

4. "We do hear them speak in our tongues (glossa) the wonderful works of God". v. 11.

Those who claim the "gift" today nearly always display it in a wild, emotional state. With eyes dilated and glassy and with a stiff wooden countenance they jerk up and down, uttering incoherent cries. On the day of Pentecost, however, the people heard the Apostles

When one possessed the gift of tongues, it did not mean that he would be able to speak it at all times. It did not make him a linguist. The gift was intermittent as the NASB rendering suggests. Paul did not understand the "speech of Lycaonia" for example (Acts 14:11). Those gifted with the interpretation of tongues could understand, however. Note that Holy Spirit and Spirit are used interchangeably in this verse.

Acts 2:8

"And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?"

In v. 9-11 we have 15 actual languages spoken by the Apostles under the power of the Holy Spirit. Those knowing each language could understand clearly what was said (cf. v. 6). For example, the Elamites would hear a Galilean fisherman giving a talk in Elamite, even though he had never learned the language. It is significant that among the peoples mentioned by Luke, are some whose languages show only dialect differences, suggesting that the gift of tongues enabled the possessor to reproduce these dialect faithfully to the amazement of the hearers.

Acts 2:17, 18

"It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon . . . your sons . . . and on my servants."

PROBLEM:

This is a key Pentecostal verse, used to demonstrate present possession of the Spirit.

SOLUTION:

1. If the context of the quotation is checked, it will be seen that it is beyond dispute that the primary fulfillment refers to a time still future when Christ is back on earth.
2. .
   1. It is after the destruction of the Russian₁ hordes:
      "I will remove far off from you the northern army . . . and his stink shall come up." (Joel 2:20).
   2. It is after Israel turns to the Lord:
      "Ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel. . ."
      "and my people shall never be ashamed." (Joel 2:27).
   3. After this "I will pour out my spirit". (Joel 2:28) (i.e. on mortal Judah).
   4. "In Jerusalem shall be deliverance." v. 32.

3. What happened at Pentecost was a token fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. When the purpose of that token fulfillment was complete (the complete word of God) then the Spirit gifts ceased as Paul said they would. (1 Cor. 13:10).

4. It is therefore foolish to use this verse to demonstrate present possession of the Holy Spirit in any form.

Acts 2:18

"Even upon my bondslaves, both men and women"

This prophecy of Joel’s applied to male and female, young and old (cf. 1:14). There seems to be a conflict here with Paul’s teaching that women were not permitted to speak in the ecclesia. (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11,12). Paul’s teaching however, has reference to teaching or speaking in ecclesias but does not apply to prophesying outside such gatherings. Paul accepted the hospitality of Philip and his four prophetess daughters.

"I will in those days pour forth My Spirit ..."

A partial fulfillment, which resulted in the gifts being demonstrated.

"... and they shall prophesy ..."(cf. v. 11)

Tongues was prophecy in a foreign language whereas prophecy was forthtelling the gospel in a native language. This ability would last until the end of the Apostolic age.

Acts 2:33

". . . having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit".

Christ had promised the Parakletos in John 16:7; the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:4, 8. Jesus was the agent in whose name the Spirit gifts were sent, but he was never its original source. This manifestation could not be explained except on the basis of an exalted Saviour of whom the prophets had testified to his coming, his teaching, his death, his resurrection and now his exaltation.

"He has poured forth this which you both see and hear"

Both the peoples’ eyes and ears could testify to the manifestation of the Spirit gift power. It was not inner and subjective.

Acts 2:39

"Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit₁. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

PROBLEM:

This verse is used in several ways which are incorrect.

1. It is argued that the present day "Christian" is the one "afar off" and therefore this verse is justification to their claim to be able to work miracles such as the gift of healing and the gift of tongues.

2. It is argued that the promise of the Spirit was to the believers for all time and that what Peter offered was not the various gifts of the Spirit₂ but an inner power which should work righteousness in them.
   e.g. "The manifestations (miracles) . . . were the mere advertisement for something greater and more inward, as well as vastly more important . . . God still, without the outward signs, pours out the Spirit grace richly upon those that call upon him" (TCM Vol. 96).

3. It is argued that we have no evidence that those Jews received the miraculous gifts on their baptism. (NHSB, P. 11).

4. It is argued that there is no evidence of the widespread nature of the Spirit gifts immediately following Pentecost.

5. It is argued that the power to work miracles was not what these penitent men were seeking for.
   e.g. "Peter, while having the signs… was offering something more important than the signs themselves, the work of God to bring about salvation of the individual" (TCM, Vol. 96).

6. It is argued "that, if the miraculous gifts were indeed the subject of Peter’s promise, provision would have been made for their fading out₅".
   Because he did not it is claimed that what was promised was something non-miraculous.

7. It is argued that other `passages use the word "children" tekna in a much wider sense (than the second generation) as descendants, members of a race, or members of a community ... "Those who come after you" is the most likely meaning here’₅.

SOLUTION I:

1. The present Christian is "afar off" from the gospel if he thinks this! "The phrase in the Greek does not mean succeeding generations. It does not relate to time₃."
2. As clearly indicated in Solution II point 4, the phrase refers primarily to Gentiles who knew not the truth but would know it. They did receive the gifts.
3. The gifts₄ of healings and tongues are not in evidence today because their purpose was fulfilled and they are not available today. Faith healers can only cure psychosomatic illnesses and those who claim to speak in tongues simply cannot.

SOLUTION II:

1. The context demands that the promise of the "gift of the Holy Spirit" was the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus "tarry ye . . . until ye be endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49) and that fulfillment was in the form of a God given ability to speak in "tongues". This was an outstanding miracle and the people recognized this. Peter connects this outpouring of the Holy Spirit with the "promise" in v. 33.
2. The immediate context of v. 39 cannot be separated from v. 33 which describes miracles. To do so is a wresting of scripture. The parallel between verses 31 - 33 and 38 - 39 is very evident.
   1. V. 31 describes:
      (1) the death and
      (2) the resurrection of Christ.
      V. 33 describes:
      (3) his exaltation to heaven and receipt of the Holy Spirit.
   2. Verses 38 and 39 are a parallel illustration and show how the believer could identify himself with the experience of Christ.
      Baptism is:
      (1) a symbolic death,
      (2) and resurrection of a "new man" in Christ.
      Christ would then pour "forth this which you both hear and see."
      (3) The receipt of the Holy Spirit was a mark of approval (cf. Acts 11:17) and showed that God had exalted them to "heavenly places in Christ".
   3. Acts 10:43 - 48 is an obvious parallel to Acts 2:37 - 38.

   repentance	Brethren what shall we do (37)	Cornelius, thy prayer is heard (31)
   baptism	baptized (38)	baptized (48)
   forgiveness of sins	(38)	remission of sins (43)
   receive Holy Spirit gift as sign of approval	(38)	Can any man forbid water (to) these which have received the Holy Spirit (44 - 47)

   This Holy Spirit was the ability to speak in tongues; not some mysterious nonentity.

3. A comparison of the various uses of the words "the gift of the Holy Spirit₆" in Acts shows that it always refers to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

4. The promise of the Holy Spirit was not to believers for all time but:

   (1) "to you (old men of Joel 2:28) and your children" (your sons, daughters of Joel 2:28) - the Jews gathered for Pentecost.

   (2) "to all that are afar off" (cf. "all flesh" of Joel 2:28) refers primarily to the Gentiles as an examination of Eph. 2:17 and Acts 22:21 will show.

   We do not doubt the power of inspiration to move Peter to speak things he did not understand. It is probable at this point that Peter’s vision was limited and did not extend to the question of salvation for the Gentiles (cf. ch. 10). To him then "those afar off" would probably have been thought of as those of the Dispersion. Two scriptures support this idea:

   "unto all Israel, that are near and that are far off". (Dan. 9:7).

   "Mordecai . . . sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far" (Est. 9:20).

   Peter was addressing the "men of Israel" (Acts 2:22) but that does not preclude his words going farther than he understood, and including Gentiles. Scripture shows that the Gentiles did receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. and the family of Cornelius are examples.) There is nothing in this passage to indicate how long this promise would last. Other scriptures₇ however, show that these gifts would only last until the canon was completed.

5. The "gift of the Holy Spirit" was given to witness for the Lord; to convince, convert and upbuild other men and women, and not to exert a personal (mystical) influence on the mind of those who possessed it. (Nor would the crowd Peter spoke to expect such a happening!)

   The witness of those newly endowed with the Spirit and returned to their respective countries was a very effective way, arranged by the providence of God by which the truth should have an initial spreading abroad.

6. Perhaps the words of Paul give a fuller explanation to the brief words of Peter₈. By the Holy Spirit, both Jew and Gentile have access to the Father, and will become a habitation of the Father.

   "And that he might reconcile both₉ unto God in one body by the cross having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off." RV

   "in whom the whole building being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in₁₀ the Spirit." (Eph. 2:16, 21, 22. NASB).

   Perhaps Peter is also referring ahead to this time when the gift of the Holy Spirit to the believer will be a spirit nature.

7. It can be seen, therefore, that Acts 2:39 is not talking about a continuing gift of the Spirit in the hearts of the believers from Pentecost down to our time₁₁.

SOLUTION III:

1. The Problem states a partial truth. On the other hand there is no suggestion that any direct activity of the Spirit occurred.

2. When Paul went to Corinth (Acts 18), "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized" (v. 8). Although the promise was unto all that were afar off, yet there is no mention at all of the Holy Spirit coming to these believers. Yet we know that many (if not all) in the ecclesia at Corinth did possess miraculous gifts. Because there is no direct evidence to the effect in Acts 18 we cannot assume that no miracle-working gifts were sent to the Corinthians.

3. When Paul came to Ephesus (Acts 19) he found a Jew, Apollos, with some followers. Paul asked whether they had received the Holy Spirit after they had believed. We notice how that Paul expected that they would have received the Holy Spirit. What did Paul expect that they would have received? Miraculous gifts, or some Spirit activity to help in good living? Note the words:

   "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (v. 6)

   This is probably what Paul expected they would possess when he asked the question. Evidence that the spirit had been poured out on the Apostles was the fact that they spoke in tongues. There is not the slightest suggestion in Acts 2 that the initial bestowal of the gift of the Spirit had any other effect.

SOLUTION IV:

1. It is right to say that there is no evidence given in the form of examples immediately following Pentecost but it is wrong to say there is no evidence of miracles being meant₁₂ in this context. There is, of course, no reason to expect concrete evidence. The theme of Acts is the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles and little is said about the early days of the ecclesia.

2. When we come to the epistles₁₃ in which ecclesial Problems are discussed, we have abundant evidence of the widespread nature of the Spirit gifts. Hebrews 6:4-5 confirms this evidence.

3. When we place the above explanation in juxtaposition to the Problem we find a parallel and a contrast:
   • a parallel in that there is no evidence in the form of examples in the immediate context that the Spirit came in a form to help believers to be righteous.
   • a contrast in that there is no Scriptural evidence elsewhere for it being something which "helped them live acceptable lives".

4. The only reason that the statement in Problem IV has any validity is because of the word "immediately".

   We have demonstrated in the introduction that the 120 received the gift of the Spirit yet it seems that only the 12 apostles spoke in tongues and Peter alone used the gift of prophecy. This can easily be explained by the fact that the Apostles were the leaders. (Acts is largely a narrative about two Apostles Peter; ch. 1-12 and Paul; ch. 13 to end. The last 8 concern only Paul).

Shortly after Pentecost there is much evidence of miracles being performed by those who were not Apostles.

Only miraculous gifts were promised and only these were given.

SOLUTION V:

1. It is true that these believers did not seek the ability to work miracles or they would have had "neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." Conversely it is not true that they sought for something unavailable to them or anyone else. They sought forgiveness of sins and would have welcomed the opportunity to spread this gospel to others. To that end they were given the gifts to assist them to witness for Christ.

2. The gift of the Holy Spirit was something that came to them as believers and not something that came to create in them believing hearts. Enlightenment came to them by the word of God so expounded that the divine purpose was made plain and their obligation brought home to them. Peter did not say "You have been the subject of a divine operation by the exercise of God’s power directly upon your minds" - he did say "Repent" or change your mind.

3. To see v. 39 as describing bestowal of an inner power which would work righteousness in them is to:
   1. go beyond the facts of the verse.
   2. suppose that God cannot impute righteousness to a man forgiven of his sins in baptism and who strives to obey the Gospel.
   3. make a statement that is not in accordance with Scriptural testimony. The bestowal of the gifts did not cause righteousness.₁₄ Nor does or did God bestow something that would directly cause righteousness. To have done so would have removed "free will" from the believer’s life.

4. To emphasize that the gifts were not what they needed, and that some source of inner strength and comfort was required, is to impose our thinking upon the chapter. That they needed strength and comfort no one doubts. To suggest from these words that this came directly to their hearts through the gift of the Spirit is very bad exposition. We know that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were necessary for the growth and edification of the early ecclesias, but it did not operate directly but indirectly through men who spoke the revelations theyreceived. Who then are we, to doubt that this is the phenomenon to which these words refer? To suggest that the description of the believers’ joy and fellowship in 41 - 47 is evidence of ‘the inward reality of the Spirit’ is of no relevance. The Samaritans had a similar experience before they received the Holy Spirit (8:8). There are also other instances where, significantly, there is no mention of the gift of the Spirit, e.g. Acts 8:39; 16:34.

5. On the day of Pentecost the converts had witnessed the double miracle of "prophecy", quoting Psalms infallibly, and "tongues", translating them into the many foreign dialects of the Dispersion. To these Jews, still stunned by the sudden realisation that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their Messiah, and that he had been raised from the dead and exalted to God’s right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, there would be nothing to suggest that the Holy Spirit could be anything but the power behind all the staggering events and the marvels they had just witnessed. Nothing could be further from their minds than the idea that the promised Holy Spirit was primarily a transforming inward grace, especially since Peter had given no hint of it in his speech, and after their baptism "many ‘wonders and signs’ (Joel 2) were (still being) done by the apostles" (2:43). They had been convinced, convicted, and converted by the indisputable fact of supernatural events. As each of the 3,000 received one of the gifts by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, the scope of the outpouring gradually widened. The Lord himself, in his infinite wisdom, was "distributing (the gifts) severally as he willed" (1 Cor. 12:11), so that each bestowal was no doubt suited to the future role of its recipient (see Testimony, July 1973, pp. 256-7). And the converts’ new life in Christ was vibrant with joy as they "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship (shared through the saving knowledge that came through that teaching) and in prayers" (2:42).

   Against such a background it is by no means "irrelevant" that the promise of the Spirit, in response to the agonised appeal "Men and brethren, what shall we do?", should be one of power, to perform miracles, and notably to prophesy. This conclusion has been dubbed "morally questionable", and yet the present writers honestly consider that the text allows of no other conclusion.₁₅

SOLUTION VI:

1. This argument at least allows that it is possible for Acts 2:38 to refer to miraculous gifts.

2. The Problem is an argument from absence and is therefore invalid. The author of the Problem statement is found in the position of stating what Peter "would have" done. Does he know more than Peter?

3. At this early stage of the outpouring of the gifts there is no reason to suppose that any exposition on the gifts should have included reference to "their fading out". The pattern is the opposite. When the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10) Peter did not say "You know these gifts are only temporary" nor is there any reason that he should have. Also when Paul gave the gifts to the Ephesians (Acts 19) he did not say they would cease.

SOLUTION VII:

1. The word is "teknon" (B), (S), (V), (Y) not tekna!
   It occurs 99 times (Y) and has quite a variety of meanings. The argument expressed in the Problem, therefore, proves nothing. Other passages may use the same word but that does not define the meaning here.

2. As demonstrated in Solution II point 4 "children" refers to the "sons and daughters" of Joel 2:28.

3. In any case the prophecy concerns Jews. Where is the evidence of Jews receiving this so called "non-miraculous Spirit" for many generations? There is none!

Acts 5:9

"Then Peter said to her, ‘Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test’?"

The AV "tempt" is not a valid translation because "God cannot be tempted" (James 1:13), and the same is obviously true of the Spirit of the Lord. She and her husband had decided to put the Holy Spirit under test to see if they could get away with it. The sin of Ananias was covetousness, lies, pride and double-mindedness.

By the gift of discerning of Spirits Peter knew they lied. By the gift of the miracles of judgement₁ the sentence was pronounced and carried out. The result was the strengthening of the ecclesia (v. 5).

Acts 5:32

"We are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Spirit which God gave to the ones obeying Him". (MARS) (cf. 15:28; Heb. 2:3, 4).

What a blow to the pride of the Sadducee - the fact that none of them had the gift of the Holy Spirit was an evident token that God was not with them. The disciples had the Holy Spirit gifts only because Christ had risen from the dead and ascended to God. He in turn gave them the gifts as a proof that Christ had triumphed over death and had ascended to the Father. (Eph. 4:8-10).

This verse demonstrates that the Holy Spirit was given to almost all converts in the first century in fulfillment of Acts 2:39. The tense used here shows that the meaning intended is continual obedience.

Acts 6:5,6

"They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit . . . and these they brought before the Apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them."

PROBLEM:

It is claimed₃ that Stephen and Philip were filled with the Holy₁ Spirit before they were given miraculous powers by the laying on of hands of the Apostles and that therefore the miraculous powers were intended to fulfil a role separate from and subordinate to the supposed personal and inner non miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit.

SOLUTION:

1. The assumption that the phrase "filled with the Holy Spirit" stands for an inward spiritual grace or activity rather than miraculous powers is contradicted by the occurrences of the phrase elsewhere:
   • "I have filled him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of God" (Exod. 31:3) - a miraculous gift of "wisdom" for the construction of the Tabernacle.
   • "He hath filled him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of God" (Exod. 35:31).
   • "Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Luke 1:41) and prophesied, repeating, without knowing it, the Angel’s salutation to Mary (Luke 1:28).
   • "Zecharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied" (Luke 1:67).
   • "Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit..." (Luke 4:1) - following his baptism.
   • "They (the 120) "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2:4).
   • "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, ‘Ye rulers of the people’… " (Acts 4:8)
   • by the spirit of prophecy (Mark 13:11).
   • Stephen "being full of the Holy Spirit… saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; and said… " (Acts 7:55-6) - this involved the gift of revelation or apocalypse (1 Cor. 14:6), and probably also of prophecy.

2. There is clear textual proof that when Stephen and Philip were said to be "filled with the Holy Spirit" they had already received such spiritual gifts as the Lord judged were needful for the work that lay ahead of them. The choice of the seven deacons, including Stephen and Philip, was not a decision of merely human judgement. They were selected because they were "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom". By the figure of speech hendiadys₂ the phrase means they were chosen because they all had "Holy-Spirit wisdom", which was a special miraculous endowment (1 Cor. 12:8, etc.), supplied to them by the Lord himself.

3. The ceremony of laying on of hands was practised in Israel for widely different reasons, and this must be taken into account in the case of Stephen and Philip just cited. The ritual occurs:
   1. As a symbol of benediction (Gen. 48:14f; Matt. 19:13, 15, etc).
   2. As a symbol of the transfer of sin to a sacrifice (Exod. 29:10,15,19; Lev. 1:4, 12).
   3. As confirmation by witnesses on the head of persons charged with a capital offence (Lev. 24:14).
   4. As the outward sign of the delegation of, or appointment to some special office or assignment (Num. 8:10; Acts 6:6; 13:3).
   5. As an outward sign of healing (Matt. 9:18; Acts 9:12, 17).
   6. As an outward sign of imparting the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17,19; 19:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).

   The seven deacons received from the apostles a prophetic confirmation of their call, and a blessing on their work before they assumed their new responsibility, exactly as did Barnabas and Saul from prophets at Antioch before they started on their missionary work (Acts 13:3). It is therefore incorrect to say that Stephen and Philip did not possess any of the Spirit-gifts until the apostles laid their hands on them (Acts 6:6).’_{3 4}

Acts 8:15

"Peter and John . . . prayed for them (Samaritans), that they might receive the Holy Spirit".

John was one of those who on an earlier occasion sought to call down fire upon the Samaritans (Luke 9:54-56). This record indicates that the Apostles alone could be the agents by which others received the Spirit gifts. The power to pass on the Holy Spirit rested with God. Philip could do miracles and signs but, not being an Apostle, he could not be the agent of transmission.

Acts 8:16

"for it had not yet fallen on any of them."

This demonstrates that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit was not automatic at baptism.

"... but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (RSV).

This is the same as "the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38).
The Apostles were concerned about how the Samaritans would fare in the absence of Philip, because there would be no one to guide them in their study of God’s word. The Solution was that they would be given the Holy Spirit so that they could be guided by the gift of prophecy, knowledge etc., and so be built up or edified.

Acts 8:17

"Then they began laying their hands on them."

This act was a necessary part in imparting the Spirit. It was only through "the laying on of the Apostles’ hands (that) the Holy Spirit was given" (v. 18).

"... and they were receiving the Holy Spirit"

This divine gift was only given after some time had elapsed so that they would have had time to prove themselves worthy of such honour.

This power in the Samaritans must have been manifested otherwise how could Simon see (v. 18) that "the Holy Spirit was given"?

Acts 8:19

"Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit".

In God’s design only the Apostles were to have this power. The historical period in which we are now living is between the former and latter rain and is a period of spiritual drought where the sun has gone down on the prophets and we are without the Holy Spirit to guide us, except in so far as the Spirit abides in the Word of God. The statement in v. 18 that only the Apostles could pass on the Holy Spirit is something people cannot answer when trying to prove that they have the Holy Spirit.

Acts 9:17

"And Ananias went his way putting his hands on him ..."

Putting = Grk. epitethemi = "laying his hands" (RSV). This does not always signify the bestowal of the Holy Spirit:

1. In 6:6 the Apostles laid their hands upon the Seven but Stephen, is earlier described as "a man full of . . . the Holy Spirit". This was then an act of dedication or appointment to office.
2. 13:3 presents another case. Both Barnabas and Saul not only possessed the Spirit (11:24; 9:17) but had already been appointed to the work (v.2). This action expressed union of intent.

"... hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight ..."

The emphasis of v. 12, v. 18 and 22:13 indicates that the primary purpose of the laying on of hands was for the recovery of sight. Healing was often accompanied by the laying on of hands (Luke 4:40; Mark 6:5; 16:18). Ananias was therefore probably exercising the gift of healing. (cf. 1 Cor. 12:9).

"... and be filled with the Holy Spirit".

This is the only one of the three records in which the laying on of Ananias’ hands is associated with the reception of the Holy Spirit.

It is important to realize how significant this is, for in 2 Cor. 12:12, Paul substantiates his apostleship upon the ability to perform signs and wonders using the Holy Spirit gifts. In 1 Cor. 9:2₁ he states effectively that the fact that the Corinthians had the gifts was evidence that he was an Apostle because he gave the gifts to them. The basis of the bestowal of the gifts has already been established₂. It could be direct from heaven or indirectly through the hands of an Apostle. However, the person who received the gifts from an Apostle could not in turn pass them on. With this principle in mind, we can appreciate Paul’s comments in Gal. 1:1, 11-12. He clearly emphasizes that he was an Apostle through Jesus Christ, and God the Father - and not of (DIA) or from (APO) man. It is significant therefore that in the three records, the role of Ananias in relation to the bestowal of the Holy Spirit is played down. Also, there is no mention here of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit as for example in 10:44; 19:6. The writer of Acts is, therefore, not intending to convey the idea that the Holy Spirit was transferred by an unknown Ananias. Such a role was Christ’s alone.

What then was the role of Ananias? It is clear that he was associated with the reception of the Holy Spirit as this verse clearly implies it. The answer is that the power was not transferred from Ananias but came direct from the Lord in heaven as in the case of the other 12 Apostles.

A comparable event: At the baptism of Christ by John, the Holy Spirit came independently of John (Matt. 3:13-17).

Acts 9:31

"So the ecclesia throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord ..."

Edification occurred by the operation of the gift of prophecy. (1 Cor. 14:3; Eph. 4: 11,12). "Fear of the Lord" may refer to the result of the miracle of judgement (Acts 5:1-9).

"... and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit. . ."

Comfort (or consolatory exhortation) was made possible through the revelations given by those who had the gift of prophecy. This comfort (paraklesis) is a cognate with Parakletos₁ (Comforter, AV) of John 14-16.

Pentecost of the gentiles

Acts 10:44

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening . . ."

Cornelius was "a devout man and one that feared God . . ." (v.2). It must not, therefore, be assumed that the Spirit was given so that he could believe. The context says the very opposite. The Spirit gift of tongues was what "fell" on them. The reason is given in v.45.

Acts 10:45

"All the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed ..."

"Circumcised" Jews did not expect the sharing of the promises with the Gentiles. The lesson had just been given to Peter through the vision and now the "circumcised", (along with Peter) were shocked by what they heard. They would be converted Jews after that.

"... because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also".

This had been stated many times but the Jews found it difficult to accept.

Acts 10:47

"Surely no one can refuse water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we"

The "we" possibly included six brethren who were accompanying Peter (Acts 11:12) but more likely it refers to Jews in contrast to Gentiles.

This miraculous manifestation was obvious to the circumcised that God had set His seal of approval on the Gentiles. It was bestowed before baptism to dispel any doubts. It was a sign given in most unusual circumstances for the Holy Spirit usually came upon baptized believers.

Acts 11:12

"And the Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings." (cf. 8:29; 10:19.)

Through the gift of prophecy this revelation was made to Peter.

Acts 11:15

"... the Holy Spirit fell upon them ..." (cf. 10:44).

The word "fell" indicated the origin of the gift of tongues. It was from above.

"... just as upon us at the beginning"

The gift was the ability to speak in foreign languages just as it had been earlier at Pentecost. The "us" refers to Jews.

Acts 11:16

"you shall be baptized"

It is true that baptized is used here but this is a quote from chapter 1:5. This does not, therefore, negate the point already made on "pleroo".₁

"with the Holy Spirit"

These are the words of Jesus before his ascension. The "filling with the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2 was a fulfillment of that promise but here again was another manifestation of it. This being the case, Jesus’ words must have applied to Gentiles as well as to Jewish believers.

Acts 11:17

"If God therefore gave to them the same gift ..." (cf. 15:8)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female" but all are one in Christ Jesus.

"... as to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ ..."

It was therefore, not the Holy Spirit which caused the change of heart in the disciples. It was the resurrection. The state of acceptability rests on belief on the Lord Jesus Christ not on circumcision.

Acts 13:4

"so being sent out by the Holy Spirit".

The revelation (v. 2) would have to come through one of the prophets (v. 1). Here was a special commission to "proclaim the word of God" (v. 5) to the Gentiles. It was therefore the Divine Will that Barnabas and Saul were to do this work.

Acts 13:52

"And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit."

Persecution brings joy in most cases. (Matt. 5:12). The messages of edification given by Paul and Barnabas through the gifts of the Spirit would have added to the disciples’ joy (converts, NEB) joy. (cf. also 1 Thess. 1:6). If we adopt the inference of the NEB (i.e. converts) the Problem is virtually removed. They would have been filled with joy because of what they heard.

"When the Gentiles heard this, they were (overjoyed, NEB) glad".

Because they believed and became converts, they would have received the Holy Spirit gifts, as promised in 2:38, 39. We must not, however, assume the joy came directly by receipt of the Spirit. Rather it developed within them from what they heard proclaimed by the Apostles.

Acts 15:9

"He made no distinction between us and them"- Jews and Gentiles.
"cleansing their hearts by faith"

(cf. 10:15, 43 not directly but indirectly). Cornelius was one who feared God (10:2).

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God". (Rom. 10:17). God arranged circumstances so that Cornelius heard the gospel. The hearing produced faith and that in turn caused repentance. Because of this repentance they were baptized (10:48). Thus God imputed righteousness to them; therefore their hearts were cleansed. The whole operation was of God, but indirectly through the gospel.

Acts 16:7

"... the Spirit of Jesus₁, did not permit them;"

We cannot be conclusive as to how this message came. Paul had the gift of prophecy (1 Thess. 1:5) and this revelation would probably have come via that gift or through another prophet (15:32). The purpose of this revelation is seen in v. 9. Christ had work for Paul in Macedonia and Achaia. Notice that in this case "Spirit of Jesus" is equal to "the Holy Spirit" of v. 6.

Acts 16:14

"The Lord opened her heart."

PROBLEM:

Surely, here is evidence of the Holy Spirit causing enlightenment of Lydia’s mind to the Gospel.

SOLUTION:

1. Those who argue for present possession argue that:
   1. enlightenment is a direct result of the Holy Spirit.
   2. "all you have to do is open your heart and be led".

   As can be seen below this is not what happened at all.

2. 1. The opening did not cause the enlightenment. Rather the opening was so that she could be enlightened by the words of Paul.
   2. Note that it was not Lydia who opened her heart but that it was the Lord who did the opening₂.

3. God, through acts of providence, calls many to his way. God was at this time opening the door of faith unto the Gentiles₃. No one, however, comes to an understanding of the Divine plan without giving attention to the Word of God. This Lydia had done in that she was one "who worshipped God" and "she attended unto the things spoken by Paul".

Acts 16:16

"a certain slave girl having" a young damsel who was a slave.
"a spirit of divination met us"

The margin gives us the meaning. "Python" was (in mythology) the name of a great dragon at Delphi. It was supposedly killed by Apollo who was given the title of "Pythius" and inherited its power to act as an oracle or prophet. Plutarch says that such "Pythons" were ventriloquists who had the power to cause an illusion of origin of voice. All this was akin to demon worship.

Acts 16:18

"But Paul . . . said to the spirit"

This is Luke’s record. He was a doctor and would be interested in her mental condition. Modern medical science knows that there was no evil spirit in the girl but the people of Paul’s day did not know this. Therefore they wrote in the language of the day.

"I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!"

i.e. "Disable this power of ventriloquism".

"and it came out at that very moment"

i.e. "it was disabled". This ability ceased. The words "came out" only mean the condition ceased.

Acts 18:5

"Paul was pressed in the spirit." (AV)

"Paul began devoting himself completely to the word" (NASB). It seems that the meaning is that Paul was encouraged by the coming of helpers Silas and Timothy. It was a stimulus that increased his zeal. "Spirit" here means mental attitude.

Acts 19:2

‘Paul said to them’ (disciples at Ephesus) "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when (since, AV) you believed?"

These men were ignorant as to the True Baptism. (v. 3 cf. v. 5). The Holy Spirit refers to the gifts of the Spirit and in particular tongues (v. 6), and prophecy. Ephesus was a cosmopolitan city and the many nations who were represented there would require the gift of tongues if all were to hear the gospel. This is the last mention of tongues in Acts.

Paul’s question indicated that he expected that they would have the Spirit gifts. (cf. Acts 2:38, 39). You will observe that Paul did not say, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit to enable you to believe".

This demonstrates that men are capable of belief of the truth without being endued with something they call "Holy Spirit". (cf. also John 7:38, 39.)

‘And they said to him "No, we have not even heard whether the Holy Spirit has been given"’.

The similarity between these disciples and Apollos indicates the possibility that the twelve were disciples of Apollos.

Acts 20:22

"And now, behold, bound in the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem"

Paul felt that his going to Jerusalem was in God’s Plan and Purpose and that nothing he could do could prevent his getting to Jerusalem. Just as he had on a former occasion been prevented by the Spirit power of God from going to Asia, so now he was prevented again because it was in the Divine purpose that he should go to Jerusalem.

Acts 20:23

". . .the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me"

As Paul went from city to city, he received knowledge by the Holy Spirit Power (through the gift of prophecy?) that he could expect afflictions in Judea.

Acts 20:28

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers":

"overseers" = episkopous = bishops. This term refers to the elders (or arranging brethren) cf. v. 17.

‘Following direct apostolic teaching, the exercise of the early special gifts of the Spirit were expected gradually to give way to the constant manifestation of its fruits. The early ministers of the Word of life, apostles, prophets and teachers, were to yield, clearly with apostolic sanction and active direction, to the more permanent ministry of overseeing elders (bishops) and deacons. That bishops and deacons were the responsible serving brethren of the ecclesias in the second half of the first century is attested by Scripture and non-canonical documents₁’. . .

Acts 21:4

"They kept telling Paul through₁ the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem" (cf. v. 10-14).

The apparent contradictions between the words of the Spirit here with the urging of the Spirit telling him to go to Jerusalem, is explained by the fact that the words of the disciples here were warnings of the dangers which lay ahead and were not specific instructions to Paul not to go. This interpretation is supported by comparing v. 11:

"Thus saith the Holy Spirit, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle. . ."

with v. 12:

"And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem".

By means of the Holy Spirit, they could foresee the troubles that would come upon Paul and, therefore, urged him to stay away from Jerusalem.

Acts 23:8

"For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection".

They had no need of resurrection because they believed in the supposed immortality of the soul. They followed Plato in this view.

"nor an angel"

The existence of God’s immortal angels is so obvious from a study of Scripture that it requires no proof here.₂

"nor an spirit"

Because the Pharisees confessed to believe that a "a spirit or an angel" (note the singular, v. 9) might have spoken to Paul does not prove the claim of most false religions that this "spirit" was a departed human spirit or soul. Far from it. This singular "spirit" whom the Pharisees conceded might have spoken to the Apostle was really the resurrected and corporeal [see John 20:25-27] Jesus (the cause of the Sanhedrin’s dilemma), though they were not prepared to admit it. Note Paul’s dramatic testimony on the previous day that they would have heard:

"And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest" (Acts 22:7, 8). "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Christ] was made a quickening ("live-giving", NASB) spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

So the simple fact is that the Sadducees did not believe in something that was real, while their opposition, the Pharisees, believed in something that was real, though they were not prepared to admit that the "spirit" who had spoken to Paul was in fact their Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. That is why they used the slightly ambiguous word. But Paul’s use of the same word in 1 Cor. 15:45 causes the word to lose its ambiguity in this context.

Acts 23:9

". . . Suppose a Spirit or an angel has spoken to him?"

"Spirit" and "angel" are explained in v. 8.