A Careful Analysis of Acts 2:1-4
and its Treatment in the Churches of Christ
Neil Short
updated 20210415
In the churches of Christ, many believe a proper understanding of Acts 2:1-4 is critical to the maintenance of sound doctrine. The particular understandings of which I am speaking are
1. Only the 12 apostles experienced the coming of the Spirit on this particular occasion.
2. The power that was received at this event was only apostolic power.
3. An event like this one is required in order for anybody to receive apostolic power.
I believe the arguments usually presented in favor of the above views are inconclusive at best. I do not believe the above interpretation can be proved nor should it be passionately held. I will analyze the arguments that are usually offered in support of the above conclusions. I will analyze them in a sequence beginning with what I perceive to be strongest argument and ending with the weakest. I will examine whether the claims can be logically affirmed from Scripture.
Acts 2:1-4 reads:
1 When the day of
Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven
there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where
they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue
rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy
Spirit and began to speak
in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. (NRSV)
Argument: When Jesus first gave orders in connection to the events that were fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4 Luke reports: 1:4 While staying with them he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This,” he said, “is what you have heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4-5).
These orders were given to the apostles which implies it applied only to the apostles.
Response: It is NOT true that the instructions were given only to the eleven apostles. The same setting and instructions are reported in Luke 24.
Luke 24:48-49
“You are witnesses of these things, And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
Were these instructions given only to the eleven apostles? No. The two gentlemen from Emmaus were there (Luke 24:33) as were “friends” of the eleven. Clearly, the instructions, as they are related in Acts 1:4-5, applied to a wider group of believers. Why would Acts indicate an instruction being given to the apostles when a parallel passage indicates the instruction was given to more people than only the apostles? In the Acts parallel, the instruction still applied to people they were leading. It is not unusual to hear instructions given to a leader that applies also to those over whom the leader has charge. See Exodus 40:1-2 as an example of an instruction that was given to a leader that applied to more people than only the one receiving the instruction.
The instruction to remain in Jerusalem was obeyed by a wider body of believers than only the original apostles.
Argument: The instruction in Acts 1:8 followed a dumb question by the apostles (1:6).
Response: The assumption is that the apostles would no longer ask dumb questions when they receive the Holy Spirit. But the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, did ask dumb questions and they did dumb things. There are many examples; but these come to my mind at the moment. There are likely better examples.
* Acts 15:8 The apostles did not automatically know the correct answer to the question of whether the Gentiles should be circumcised in order to be saved.
* Acts 21:17-26 The apostles and elders seemed to be certain (still!) that circumcision was a requirement for salvation to Jewish converts. They were certain that Paul could not possibly be teaching such heresy! They seem to have lost control of the church in Jerusalem because there were thousands of believers there who were “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). They advised Paul to go through ritual purification in order to appease the Jewish believers, Paul followed their advice but it didn’t help. The Jewish Christians mobbed Paul and beat him. The Romans rescued Paul from the mob; but Paul remained a prisoner of Rome all the way to the end of the book of Acts.
* Galatians 2:11-16 Peter withdrew from the Gentiles out of perceived pressure from the Jews.
Argument: According to English grammar rules, the nearest antecedent of a pronoun is referenced by the pronoun, Thus, the pronoun “they” in Acts 2:1 refers to the twelve apostles (Matthias plus the eleven) in Acts 1:26.
Response: The word “apostles” is not even a subject in the previous sentence! It is an object of the preposition “to.” The subjects of the previous (compound) sentence are “they” (the 120 disciples), the “lot” they cast, and “he” (Matthias). The pronoun “they” in 2:1 should refer to one of those three subjects: the 120, the cast lot (impossible referent) or Matthias (also impossible).
Furthermore, even in English, the “nearest antecedent” rule is only a rule of thumb. In Greek it is also a rule of thumb.
To demonstrate that the “nearest antecedent” is a rule-of thumb, consider the following passage [with my notes].
Acts 4.23-31
23 After they [Peter and John, Acts 4:19; not “the people” in vs. 21] were released, they [Peter and John] went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 when they [their friends, not the chief priests and the elders] heard it, they [friends] raised their [friends] voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, 25 it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our [friends] ancestor David, your servant: “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their [kings] stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his [Lord's] Messiah.’ 27 For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your [Lord’s] holy servant Jesus, whom you [Lord] anointed, 28 to do whatever your [Lord’s] hand and your [Lord’s] plan had predestined to take place. 29 And now, Lord, look at their [priests and elders, not Pilate, Gentiles and Israelites] threats, and grant to your [Lord’s] servants to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you [Lord] stretch out your [Lord] hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus." 31 When they [friends; not Jesus, the Lord, Pilate, Gentiles, Israelites, priests or elders] had prayed, the place in which they [Peter, John and friends] were gathered together was shaken; and they [Peter, John and friends] were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.
The antecedent for “they” in Acts 2:1 is unclear; however, the pronoun most logically and grammatically refers to the 120 people in Acts 1:15-26.
Argument: Acts 2:7 reports that those speaking in unstudied tongues were Galileans. If a significantly larger number than twelve received the baptism of the Spirit, there would certainly have been some Judeans in the group.
Response: When a person knows two languages he generally knows one better than he knows the other. He speaks his second language with an accent and he has trouble pronouncing some of the phonetics of the second language. What these people found so astonishing was that they were hearing the tongues-speakers speak in their primary foreign languages. Naturally, many well educated Judean Levites would speak second languages; and they were able to teach in the synagogues (during festival holidays) in the primary languages of the pilgrims. The Galileans were speaking the languages as if they had studied them—possibly even getting right the difficult phonetics or the accents expected to cause trouble for Galileans. There is very little astonishing about a Judean speaking a foreign language. Furthermore, some people sneered and said “They are filled with new wine.” Why would they make that accusation? I propose they heard some of the Galileans speaking in neither Greek nor Hebrew (Aramaic) but some other language that the hearers did not know and so they believed the speakers were slurring their speech like drunk people do.
Does Acts 2:7 require that all those speaking were Galileans? Could “all” apply to a subset of a larger group? Let’s compare this grammar with some nearby passages. Acts 2:12 says
All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"
“All” refers to the crowd of witnesses. Clearly it doesn’t mean absolute “all” because in the next verse, some were not perplexed at all but decided the language speakers were drunk!
The quote from Joel in Acts 2:17 uses the word “all.”
In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
Does the verse mean an absolute “all?” Clearly, it’s a qualified “all.” It means a smaller set of people than “everyone.” It’s a big assignment; but look at all the appearances of the word “all” in the book of Acts. The word almost always has a context smaller than the word by itself suggests.
The object of the question asked by the crowd in Acts 2:7 applies to a subset of language speakers. The Galileans. They were flawlessly speaking foreign languages.
Argument: Acts 1:8 describes power that that assembly would receive when the Holy Spirit comes on them. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and ta the ends of the earth.
Response: Well, sure the recipients received power! A subtlety of the argument seems to be that power equals authority; so focus of the argument is on authority, not miraculous power. In Acts 1:8 "power" (Strongs GK # 1411) does not mean "authority." It means miraculous power. There is a kind of power that means "authority." The word is usually applied to Jesus but sometimes applies to other people. For example, Simon the sorcerer wanted to buy power (authority, Strongs GK # 1849) to give the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18-19).
This proposed point is a non-argument.
The coming of the Spirit does not need to refer only to apostolic power. The Spirit wills who receives what power (1 Corinthians 12:11, Hebrews 2:4. You will see this verse-pair again in the following discussion points. They are key to understanding the work of the Holy Spirit in First Century Christianity). The Spirit willed the apostles receive gifts in accordance with the signs of an apostle. If anybody else received power that day, the set of gifts was not the same set reserved for apostles (whatever those gifts were).
Argument: Acts 1-6 focuses on the power of the apostles.
Response: I don’t see what difference this makes. How does it matter if there is textual silence with respect to spiritual power in the other disciples? Philip is said to be “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5). Philip had been with the believers for a sufficient time as to show his faith to be solid.
We don’t know anything about what Philip was up to before he is mentioned in Acts 6.
Some church-of-Christ-ers are impressed by the apostles’ laying their hands on the seven servants in Acts 6:6. They assume that these men received ability to do miracles on that occasion. If true, then this is the only time (of many in Acts) in which people received ability to do miracles and did not at that very moment manifested miraculous signs—particularly speaking in tongues and prophesying. In New Testament times, people laid hands on people in order to commission them to a particular work. That’s the meaning of Acts 6:6.
Argument: Only Peter and the other eleven apostles preached that first sermon.
Response: Does that fact imply only they received the baptism of the Spirit? There is no such logical conclusion.
Argument: John 14-16 spells out the role the Spirit will perform in the lives of the apostles.
Response (repeated from above): The coming of the Spirit does not need to refer only to apostolic power. The Spirit wills who receives what power (1 Corinthians 12:11, Hebrews 2:4). The Spirit willed the apostles receive gifts in accordance with the signs of an apostle. If anybody else received power that day, the set of gifts was not the same set reserved for apostles (whatever those gifts were).
Argument: There are certain key marks of an apostle. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, signs and wonders and mighty works (2 Corinthians 12:12).
Response: The signs God gave through the apostles (including Paul) outclassed those of Paul's critics. A reasonable conclusion here is that the apostles were able to show far greater signs than were non-apostle disciples (as the Spirit willed).
An unreasonable conclusion is that the Spirit gave apostolic power to every single person who received it in Acts 2:1-4. The Spirit never worked the same way through every disciple (1 Corinthians 12:11; Hebrews 2:4).
Argument: The Spirit was given in different measures (suggested by John 3:34-35). Thus, the coming of the Holy Spirit as it occurred in Acts 2:1-4 involved a different measure (a baptismal measure) than what was received by later disciples.
Response: Even if I concede this point, it doesn't help the claim that the apostles received a “special” measure of the Spirit. Different people received different gifts. That's a fact of scripture.
Side Discussion (for discussion only):
In John 3:34-35 God gives the Spirit without measure. I don’t dispute that Jesus received the Spirit without measure. I do question whether God gives to other people the Spirit with measure! I spent a few hours trying to track down the origin of the term “baptismal measure.” It seems to have originated with Foy E. Wallace, but I am still not certain of the origin. There are loads of class outlines and materials across the brotherhood that use the term “baptismal measure.” It appears to be an unbiblical term.
God's blessings are poured out without measure (the point of Mark 7:24-30).
Argument: To hold that the Spirit in Acts 2:1-4 included all 120 disciples living in Jerusalem is to contradict the settled doctrine that women are not permitted to lead in public assembly.
Response: If the position against woman leadership in public assembly is threatened by admitting the possibility that more than only apostles received God’s Spirit in Acts 2:1-4 then the "doctrine" against woman leadership is weak. Maybe we should reexamine whether the men-in-charge "doctrine" is otherwise defensible.
Argument: Only Jesus (or God, in some arguments) can administer the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Response: So what? How does this claim support that only twelve people received the baptism of Acts 2:4-4? It doesn't. It is just tossed into the evidence pot—like eggplant in a stew. It’s just filler.
Argument: Jesus hand-picked his apostles.
Response: Again. So what? Is the point that because the twelve were hand-picked then the event of Acts 2:1-4 resulted singly in apostolic power? Maybe this is the argument:
(1) Only Jesus administers the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
(2) Only Jesus picked his apostles.
(3) Therefore, both of the above happened in Acts 2:1-4 (?).
I am bewildered in trying to understand this line of reasoning!
Only the 12 apostles experienced the coming of the Spirit on this particular occasion.
Response: Luke was not sufficiently meticulous in his account to specify that the only people present at the Acts 2:1-4 event were apostles. Luke must have believed that numbering the participants was not important.
The power that was received at this event was only apostolic power.
Response: Why is this assertion required? The Holy Spirit came on that day and at that time. It was a big event. It was something new. It ushered in a new era of God’s covenant with man (Revelation 21:3). The assertion is an assumption grabbed out of thin air.
An event like this one is required in order for anybody to receive apostolic power.
Response: This claim is also an assumption grabbed out of thin air. Apostolic power wasn't bestowed upon apostles by baptism of the Holy Spirit or by baptism into apostleship or by taking an apostle pill. Apostolic power was bestowed upon apostles by the will of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11; Hebrews 2:4).
What's at Stake?
Why is it so important we agree that the event of Acts 2:1-4 happened only to the twelve?
Claim: Because we need to define the role of an apostle.
Response: We should be able to define that role without practicing eisegesis on Acts 2:1-4.
Claim: People who believe in modern day baptism of the Holy Spirit can maintain their position if more people than the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 received the baptism of the Spirit.
Response: Modern day baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a necessary conclusion even if up to 120 people received it on the day of Pentecost. It was clearly a unique event that was repeated at most only once in Acts 10. This event is not described in Acts in order to promote it as status quo but rather as something exceptional and unique. Acts 8:4-19 should put an end the matter; but it is not the only support for cessation of miraculous spiritual gifts.
Claim: If the 120 received the baptism of the Spirit, then women can be preachers.
Response: The conclusion is not required. Only the twelve apostles preached that first lesson. If someone wants to prove the authority to have women preachers, he/she will have to prove it elsewhere (and I think it is easily doable).
Conclusion
Defending the position that only twelve apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:1-4 requires a burden of proof that, in my judgment, is unmet. Teachers who espouse this position should teach it; report their own convictions on the matter; admit that the position, while strong, is inconclusive and then move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment