As we’ve seen, in Acts 2:38 the apostle Peter tells the Jews that have gathered that they need to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. He also says they would receive the Holy Spirit.
It’s fair to ask, “Receive the Spirit in what way?” People in the Old Testament had the Spirit of God come upon them and operate through them. Yet John says the Spirit “wasn’t yet” until after Jesus’ crucifixion (John 7:39).
Does Peter mean that everyone will do miracles? Doesn’t seem like it; for some time after this, the only people we see doing miracles are the Twelve (Acts 5:12). In fact, that was long seen as the mark of an apostle (1 Corinthians 12:12). John the Baptist was said to have been filled with the Spirit from birth, yet never did miracles (John 10:41).
Jesus spoke of an indwelling Spirit, a comforter. That seems to be what Peter is talking about, the presence of God living within us (Romans 8:9-11).
Some people have tried to make much of the fact that the word repent is plural, the word be baptized is singular, and the word “receive” (the Spirit) is plural again. They say that Peter was promising the Spirit to those who repented, not those who were baptized. Need we give serious discussion to that? Notice the phrase “every one of you” after the command to be baptized; unless we’re merely trying to be argumentative, we’ll note that all were told to repent and all told to be baptized.
Peter tells them that if they repent and are baptized, they will receive the Spirit. This is the normal way in which God gives his Spirit, at least according to the book of Acts. Everyone who obeys receives the Spirit (Acts 5:32). Are the Samaritans in Chapter 8 and Cornelius in Chapter 10 possible exceptions? Sure. God is still God, as I mentioned yesterday.
But I’m not sure that we’re being told that the Samaritans hadn’t received the indwelling Spirit in chapter 8. What they were lacking certainly seems to have been observable. It seems more likely that they hadn’t yet received tongues or any of the other outward signs. (I discussed this in an earlier post on “Signs of an Apostle“)
And I think it quite possible that Cornelius and family received similar manifestations. Something happened to let those present know that the Spirit had come upon them. It was something so different that it made Peter remember Pentecost (Acts 11:15). Did they also receive the indwelling? Possibly. We can’t really say. Either way, we know that this was an exceptional case.
Just as Peter said that this promise was for “you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call,” so I believe that it remains today. Repent and be baptized, and you’ll receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Follow the use of the words “promise” and “promised,” from Luke 24 to Acts 2. It is an interesting theme.
Good stuff!
An observation. Across the years, I’ve encountered no small number of my brothers and sisters who believe that if a person isn’t baptized with an awareness that their baptism is specifically “for the remission of sins,” then their baptism is invalid. Which is all the more odd in that I’ve not once encountered anyone who argued that if someone had no understanding they were receiving the Holy Spirit as God’s gift to them upon their baptism, then their baptism wasn’t valid. The same verse – Acts 2.38 – speaks of both. Odd that there would be absolute insistence on the former (freedom from our shackles) coupled with total indifference toward the latter (power to live our liberated life).
Excelente Hno. Tomity.
Dios le bendiga.
According to Acts 6:8, “Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.”
Assuming that this is a reference to some manifestation of what we would call ‘miraculous deeds performed by the power of the Spirit,’ which I think a good case can be made for, it tells us then that the twelve apostles were not the only ones who performed miraculous deeds. There is a further reference in 1 Corinthians 12:28–30 that might suggest such manifestation of the Spirit was not limited to the apostles, depending on how the passage is interpreted.
But let’s assume for argument sake that such manifestations were not limited to the apostles, our heritage has said then in response that such power of the Spirit was only received by the apostles laying their hands on other such believers as they did with the seven, including Steven (Acts 6:6). I don’t buy that argument because I believe it makes magic out of the laying on of hands, as though the power comes from the act itself rather than from God who is the one who gives the Spirit. The Holy Spirit, and the way the Spirit of God manifests itself among the church, is God the Father will to give however he chooses. Does God still give “miraculous power” to some believers? Perhaps so (though I’m always skeptical myself of such claims) as God sees the need, which probably is rare if indeed such manifestation is needed.
A couple of other thoughts…
1). I bring this up only because I get concerned sometimes that we try to limit how God works with a doctrinal box, and this includes the way we talk about the work and manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I am skeptical regarding what I hear of believers in North America who claim to have a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit. However, I’ve heard a couple of stories from non-Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians who live in Africa that have helped me consider the possibility that God may in fact still give certain “miraculous manifestations” of his Spirit at times. So my concern is that we don’t become so convinced that God would not give such miraculous manifestations that we would blind ourselves from seeing/believing such if indeed God was doing such. Make sense?
2) We should never forget that the gift of the Holy Spirit includes being able to love one another (Paul’s point to the Corinthians in chapters 12-13), to walk by the Spirit rather than the flesh so that the fruit of the Spirit is manifested in our life, and to serve God in various other means that are not as “flashy” as having the ability to heal and perform miracles. I hope that we are always just as excited to have the ability to love and manifest the fruit of the Spirit as we would be to receive any other manifestation of the Spirit. If not then there is something wrong with us.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
P.S. I’m sorry for the long comment but this is a subject that interests me and one in which I find most of the answers I was taught growing up to be insufficient or lacking to a certain degree; currently I have more questions and inconclusive thoughts than solid answers.
Wouldn’t this argument just as effectively address the argument that convert’s baptism is the normative moment when God grants the indwelling Spirit? That’s the argument I’ve heard from people — that it makes something magical out of the water.
Rex,
I don’t think it “makes magic out of the laying on of hands,” though that is the explanation that an outsider might see. Think about what Simon saw in Samaria. He saw “that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands” and thought it was magic. It’s not a question of whether or not the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands (he was), but whether or not it was God’s power or magic.
God could give the Spirit in any way he chose. What if he chose to do it through the laying on of the apostles’ hands? Must we limit him and tell him he can’t do it that way? Think about the authority Jesus gave them. (“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18) Is this so different?
As for Stephen, the comment you quote is about something that happened right after the apostles laid hands on him. It doesn’t contradict what I’m saying in any way. Rather, it coincides with my premise.
Tim – I’m not saying that God doesn’t give the miraculous power of his Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (and didn’t mean to suggest that, though may have) but that we cannot say this is the only way in which God will grant the miraculous power of his Spirit (especially when the point of scripture is not to tell us how the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit was received and how it was not). Also, in your post you said that only the apostles performed miracles and I made my comment about Steven (and the alluding to the Corinthian church) to show that there’s a very real possibility that some other believers had a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit.
Nick – As for baptism and the reception of the Spirit goes, I think we have to look at Acts 2:38, 10:44-48; 19:5-6 and ask which passage should be normative? Or perhaps it is just us who wants to make one instance normative. My point is that it is God who gives the Spirit and one on occasion he did so in baptism, on another occasion he did so before baptism (we not told by what means), and on yet another occasion he did so after baptism through the laying on of hands. The power therefore is neither the baptismal water nor the hands of the apostles but God exercising such power through these means.
To all – I’m not trying to be a stick in the mud about this issue. We doing a class at my church on the Holy Spirit and since I’m not teaching, so I get to observe more. As I listen, I am perplexed by the determination we have to control how the Spirit will be received and work among us. So please regard my comments as questioning/thinking out loud rather than an “on the record” doctrinal position. Also, I’m enjoying this conversation.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex,
I said that, for a long time, the only people we see doing miracles are the apostles. Then we only see people on whom they’ve laid hands doing miracles. (I didn’t state that in the post) If you look at my earlier post on gifts given by laying on of hands, I make it very clear that this is a hypothesis that makes sense to me, but it’s certainly nothing I would bind.
I do think it’s worth noting some distinction between external manifestations of the Spirit (which existed long before the coming of Jesus) and the indwelling Spirit. While we can’t be dogmatic about which we’re seeing in each instance (Luke often uses “came upon” to refer to the Spirit in an external sense, but not always), we do need to recognize the possibility of different things being referenced.
I’ll admit that some of my “push back” on this subject comes from experience with charismatics who over the years (1) told me my father hadn’t been healed because of my lack of faith; (2) told me I didn’t have the Spirit because I didn’t speak in tongues; (3) made numerous people that I know question their faith and devotion. I fully recognize that God has the right and ability to work whenever and however he wants. My studies don’t lead me to expect to see the same miraculous activity today that was present in the New Testament.
Tim,
I understand the reasons for your push-back. It’s an issue that I’m sensitive to as well. As the parent of a child who died, I would like to see some of the people who claim to have the gift of healing from the Spirit to come out of obscurity like the apostles did and take their gift to some place like a pediatric oncology ward.
I say all that to say, that if I am having a conversation about the Spirit with someone of the more charismatic persuasion then I will give them equal push back too :-). Then again, maybe I’m the one who needs to receive push back as well.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex,
In Acts 19, the disciples in question were never baptized into Christ — they’d never even heard of Christian baptism or the Holy Spirit — they had only received the baptism of John (they seem narratively connected to Apollos’ pre-Priscilla&Aquila ministry). That’s where I see a clear difference between it and the former passages.
With regard to Acts 10, there seems to be a clear thematic connection between Acts 1:8 and the three major public manifestations of the Spirit’s power in Acts 2, Acts 8, and Acts 10.
I don’t believe anyone here is arguing that God can’t do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants, without asking our permission or even our advice. That’s how the Spirit has operated throughout the Scriptures. But God also seeks to be somewhat comprehensible to us, so he seems to limit himself by his promises. That doesn’t mean that he won’t act above and beyond them, but that there are certain things that are normative in the story.
Pingback: The Ethiopian’s baptism in Acts 8 | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts