Revivalist dogma and the book ofActs

An exegetical and theologicalevaluation

Ian Thomason, Mtheol

Introduction

The aim of this essay is toreview, grammatically and theologically, several blocks of text from the bookof Acts frequently cited by Revivalistsi in support of their belief thatsalvation and speaking in tongues go hand-in-handii. Consequently, the essay isan intentionally selective treatment of Acts.

The Revised Standard Version(RSV)iii forms the basis of the commentary. However, the “original” Greekreadings iv comprise the textual base when weighing the evidence underpinningall the exegetical decisions made. For this reason considerable reference toGreek constructions appears in the body of the paper when establishing crucialpoints of grammatical, syntactical and theological importance. Theologically,the direct work of the biblical authors should form the basis of doctrine, notinterpretations of the same as mediated through English translation.

The analytical method usedthroughout the essay is grammatical-historical exegesis. The application ofsuch a method minimizes the potential intrusion of personal subjectivity andbias, by providing established criteria and guidelines to support the closereading of the various Greek traditionsv of the book of Acts. Consequently wedeal transparently and responsibly with the grammar, the syntax and the rangeof contexts considered, noting the book’s intentionally historical andChristian perspective. The principle aim of grammatical-historical exegesis isto establish what the various biblical passages meant to the original audienceas intended by the author. Theological exegesis is subsequent to exegesis, andis undertaken to bridge the gulf between the first and twenty-first centuries,to translate meant into means, and sense into significance.

The body of the paper itselfconsists of a series of very closely argued conclusions drawn directly from thepassages of Acts as we have them, and from the theological inferences thatresult. They demonstrate decisively, that Revivalist assumptions concerningsalvation and the sign of “unknown” tongues have no basis in or support fromthe book of Acts itself. Put plainly, Lloyd Longfield’s doctrinal legacy owesmore to his thoroughly biased and tendentious “re-imagining” of Luke’s writingsthen to a strictly “literal” reading of the same: Longfield’s understanding ofActs is considerably different to how the original audience would haveperceived the book. Consequently the thesis of this paper is that the Revivalist“salvation message” is completely illegitimate vii.

Version 1.2 2008

2 Background data

Scholarship almost universallyattributes the book of Acts to the author of the Gospel of Luke. The receivedposition within the Christian Church is that the author was Lukeviii, a man whowas most likely a Gentile physicianix converted to the Christian faith, and whoaccompanied the apostle Paul on several of his missionary and pastoraljourneys. The recipientx of Acts is introduced in the prologue to the gospel ofLuke (1:3), and in Acts (1:1) as Theophilus, a common Greek name during thefirst century, one which had as its basic meaning, “loved by God (or thegods)”. Luke accords to him the honorific “most excellent” at the commencementof his Gospel, which translates the Greek κράτιστε, a title generally reservedfor Romans of Equestrian rankxi. The use of the title, the fact that Luke wrotein very polished Greek, and that he “published” a lengthy (and therefore costly)writing in Theophilus’ honour, indicates that Theophilus should be viewed assomeone noteworthy, as a person who was quite possibly serving (or Luke washoping that he would serve) as a “patron” for the beleaguered Christians inRome. That Luke writes in an outwardly deferential fashion—both the gospel andhis Acts demonstrating considerable respect towards Roman figures and Romanauthority in general—infers that Luke-Acts was intended to function as asophisticated apologetic for the Christian faith and its leaders, principallythe apostles Peter and Paul.

Whether Theophilus was himself a Christian is lesscertain, although it seems at the very least possible given that Luke-Acts waswritten, ...That you may know the truthconcerning the things of which you have been informed” (Luke 1:4). That τηχήθης (“to be instructed”) was the termchosen by Luke is interesting, as its basic meaning is a second-hand reportxii.In other words, a report intended to shed light on facts that would nototherwise have been known. Given that Luke-Acts gives every appearance ofhaving been written in the early 60’s,xiii that Paul was then imprisoned in Rome, and that thesituation under the Emperor Nero was moving against the best interests of theChristian community, is itself suggestive. The inference is that Luke publishedis narrative to defend the message of Jesus, and the ministers who proclaimedit, against those who would ordinarily view it as threatening to the PaxRomanaxiv. Our assessment is that Luke approached Theophilus as “client” to“patron” appealing to him to mediate between the Roman Christians and the Romanruling elite xv.

In summary, then, it seemsprobable that neither the gospel of Luke, nor the Acts of the Apostles were“published” either to, or for, a strictly Christian audience.xvi Both writingsdisplay deliberate rhetorical features indicating that they were intended foruse as sophisticated Christian apologetic to a non-Christian audience,specifically with respect to the life and teaching of Jesus as the Son of God,and subsequently of his ministers (principally the imprisoned Peter—by earlyChristian tradition—and Paul). Importantly, Luke-Acts goes to lengths toestablish that Christianity was not a threat to proper Roman social, legal orpolitical order. None of this would have been necessary were the writingintended for an “internal”, Christian audience.

The structure of Acts

Fundamental to gaining a properinsight into the purposes Luke had in mind when writing his Acts, is a solidunderstanding of the structure of the work itself. As we have already intimated,Acts forms the second part of a two-stage work: the first, the gospel, dealswith the earth-bound ministry of Jesus as the Christ of God. With Acts theresurrected Jesus is soon removed from earth to heaven (in chapter one);however, his ministry continues through the agency of the Holy Spirit as heworks through the lives of his chosen followers—the apostles (from chapter twoonwards). It is the ministry of the apostles, or more specifically of Peter(from chapter one through twelve) and then of Paul (chapters thirteen throughtwenty-eight), preaching the universal message of Christ, in the power of God’sSpirit, to the ever-expanding world (from chapter eight onwards), which standsas the book-ends to the Acts narrative.

The pivot around which thepremise of the entire narrative hinges is verse eight of chapter one. There weread of Jesus’ commission to his chosen representatives, the apostles, “but youshall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be mywitnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end ofthe earth.” Necessary to correctly understanding what Jesus intended; however,is the acknowledgement that the context of the commission is restricted inscope to the core group of ministers called apostles, more specifically, to thegroup that was widely known as the “Twelve”.xvii Theologically, in the OldTestament the nations were numbered at seventy (or seventy-two depending onwhich textual variant one takes as authoritative), as were the Elders ofIsrael. Similarly Jesus appointed seventy disciples of his own (or seventy-two,again depending on which textual variant one considers authoritative). And justas in the Old Testament God called to himself a core group of twelve tribes tofunction as his Israel before the nations, so too did Jesus call to himself acore group of twelve men to function as the representative new Israelx viii. Weconsider this theological motif later in the essay.

The essay will focus on four keyevents drawn from Acts, given that Revivalists believe them to presentirrefutable proof that “unknown tongues” always accompanies Christiansalvationxix. First to be addressed will be the outpouring of the Holy Spiritat Pentecost (Acts 1 and 2), which will receive the most substantial discussiongiven the crucial importance the text plays in establishing a correctunderstanding of the theology of Acts. Addressed second will be the conversionof the Samaritans (Acts 8), which stands apart from the other three accounts inbeing unique in its particulars. Third is the so-called “Gentile Pentecost”(Acts 10), which will be followed by the fourth and last account: theconversion of former disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts 19). This selective reading ofActs is not meant to imply that it is unnecessary to undertake a close

reading of (and reflection upon)the entire Luke-Acts narrative. Far from it as such is crucial to properlygrasping the wide ranging themes that Luke crafted into his historyxx. Putanother way, Acts functions as much more than simply as a source forselectively mining “proof-texts” to support the Revivalist doctrine of“tongues”! An important structural feature of the book of Acts deservesimmediate mention: the “ring composition” rhetorical feature (also known aschiasmus) around which the four principle “Holy Spirit” sections arestructured. We note that chapter two parallels chapter ten, with chapter eight parallelingchapter nineteen. We can represent the relationship graphically:

Chapter two (Jewish Pentecost)with the sovereign impartation of the Holy Spirit

Chapter eight (Samaria) with the Holy Spirit being impartedby two apostles

Chapter ten (Gentile Pentecost)with the sovereign impartation of the Holy Spirit

Chapter nineteen (Ephesus) with the HolySpirit being imparted by an apostle

This intentional rhetoricalfeature indicates that Luke planned to demonstrate both comparison and contrastbetween the four “Holy Spirit” passages that he chose to record; further detailconcerning the significance of this feature occurs within the body of theessay, when reviewing the appropriate passages. Pentecost and the coming of theHoly Spirit (Acts 1 & 2)

In the first book, O Theophilus,I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when hewas taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to theapostles whom he had chosen.

To them he presented himselfalive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days,and speaking of the kingdom of God. 4 And whilestaying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of theFather, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, butbefore many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” And so commencesthe Book of Acts. From the very outset it is important to note several featuresthat shape the events that follow. First, the setting is Jerusalem,the city of Christ'spassion and resurrection. Second, the immediate actors that we are introducedto are the resurrected Jesus and his apostles (το ς ποστόλοις is thegrammatical antecedentxxi in verse two to the ο ς, translated “them”, that isintroduced in verse three). Carefully note that Luke nowhere mentions Jesus teachingthe much broader group of his disciples after his resurrection! The first fiveverses of chapter one clearly demonstrates that he limited this sort ofinteraction to just his apostles. Importantly the twice mentioned “them” in theEnglish translation of verse four corresponds to the single occurrence of theGreek pronoun α το ς, which also has το ς ποστόλοις (“the apostles”) as itsreferent. So too the implied “you”xxii in the second person aorist verb κούσατέ(“you heard”); and the implied “you” in the second person future verbβαπτισθήσεσθε (“you shall be baptised”) that is introduced in verse five. Thesevery important promises, all of them forming the basis of the Revivalist’s“Pentecost experience” teaching, are clearly and explicitly limited to the apostlesalone!

By way of a brief summary thusfar: (1) Jesus gave a very specific command (“not to depart from Jerusalem”), to (2) avery specific group (“to the apostles whom he had chosen”), tempered as it wasby, (3) a very specific promise (that “you shall be baptised with the HolySpirit”). Consequently, nothing relating to either the commission or thepromise itself can be construed to be any more broadly intended. To thecontrary, Luke was intentionally and prescriptively specific in what he choseto pen. So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at thistime restore the kingdom to Israel?”7He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons which theFather has fixed by his own authority. 8But you shall receive power when theHoly Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.” 9Andwhen he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloudtook him out of their sight. Ο µ ν ο ν (“so they”) presents as something of afavorite formula in Actsxxiii; it frequently appears to open a new section ofnarrative, yet in such a way as to connect it with the preceding section orsections. The current connection is clear, as the grammatical antecedent to theplural (“they”) of verse six remains the το ς ποστόλοις (“the apostles”) ofverse two. At this juncture in the narrative, Jesus amplified the nature of hispromise concerning the baptism with the Spirit, which the apostles wouldreceive, by stating in verse eight (once again using an implied second personfuture verb) that, λήµψεσθε δύναµιν (“you shall receive power”) when the HolySpirit has come upon µ ς (“you”), and that σεσθέ (“you will be”) my witnessesin Jerusalem, and so forth.

In each and every case thepromise is restricted to the apostles: the grammatical antecedent remains theτο ς ποστόλοις (“the apostles”) of verse two. From a theological perspective itis necessary to note that Jesus said nothing about the apostles becoming savedas a result of being baptized in the Spirit. To the contrary, according to thetext the baptism was strictly for empowerment. We read in verses 13 and 14 thatthe apostles were residing in an “upper room”xxiv in Jerusalem with “the women, and Mary themother of Jesus, and with his brothersxxv”. The apostles are noted as being,“of one accord” with this small and select group, with whom they (that is theapostles) “devoted themselves to prayer”. This is the first instance in thebook of Acts where a group is in connection to the apostles; however, it is notuntil verse fifteen that the emphasis of the action shifts from strictly theapostolic group, to a much broader number of Jesus’ followers.

In those days Peter stood upamong the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred andtwenty), and said, 16 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which theHoly Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who wasguide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and wasallotted his share in this ministry ... 20 For it is written in the book ofPsalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live init’; and ‘his office let another take.’ 21 So one of the men who haveaccompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongus, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken upfrom us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

In verse 15 Peter, for the veryfirst time, inclusively numbers the small apostolic group with the wider groupof disciples, to arrive at the approximate total of one hundred and twenty ofJesus’ followers remaining in the environs of Jerusalem. He refers to the group, whichincluded himself and his fellow apostles, as τ νδελφ ν (“the brethren”)xxvi.However, note that the text very clearly infers that the much larger number ofdisciples (that is, exclusive of the apostles, the women, and the family of theLord), were not staying in the previously mentioned “upper room”. By employingthe clause ν τα ςµέραις ταύταις (“in those days”) to introduce verse 15, Luke temporallydistinguishes what follows from what immediately preceded, thereby dislocatingthe focus of subsequent events from former. Consequently, the clause marks thebeginning of a new division in the narrative in the first half of Actsxxvii(grammatically it indicates a more definite break then the previously discussed[o ] µ ν ο ν doesxxviii). The result is such that there remain no groundsprovided within the text itself, for the widespread belief that the entire “onehundred and twenty” were in the habit of meeting in the “upper room”. Such mayhave been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement thatsuch was so xxix.

In the following verse Peterintroduces the requirement to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot, thereby restoringthe apostles to the theologically significant number of twelve. The context, asindicated by the grammar of the passage, suggests that Luke had by thenreverted to identifying the select group of apostles as the subject of thediscussion until verse 26. At verse 16 Peter specifically addressed the group: νδρεςδελφοί(“men, brothers”), which automatically excluded any women from considerationxxx.Further, verse 17 specifically identified by way of a causal clause, that Judaswas, τι κατηριθµηµένος ν ν µ ν (“numbered among us”), and further, that he wasλαχεν τ νκλ ρον τ ς διακονίας ταύτης (“allotted his share in this ministry”):the apostolic ministry. Equally important from the perspective of culturalcontext is that the term ποστόλος (“apostle”) was the first century Greekequivalent of the Hebrew jlv (“shaliach/shaluach”), which signifies “a sentone” in both languages. In contemporary Jewish custom, a person's jlv was fullyable to represent his master in all matters (note again, the implications of1:8). According to the Mishna, “A man's jlv is like himselfxxxi”. But for themoment we need to trace the flow of thought in verses 21 and 22(b): “So one ofthe men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went inand out among us ... one of these men must become with us a witness to hisresurrection.” The distinction is plain: νδρ ν (“the men”) is distinguishedfrom the first person pronoun µ ν (“us”) given in verse 21, and “these men”(the object is inferred from the context as it is redundant to repeat it inGreek) from σνµν (“with us”) of verse 22(b). Therefore it remains clear thatthe referent has once again reverted to being the smaller number of Jesus’disciples, those whom he specifically called and appointed to be apostles.

And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamedJustus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest thehearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take theplace in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go tohis own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias;and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Having clearly established thatthe discussion no longer centered on the “one hundred and twenty”, but just theapostles, we can approach the final periscope xxxii introduced before theevents of Pentecost took place. Perhaps the first significant point is that wehave established that it was the surviving apostles who put forward the twocandidates for the vacant apostolate, and not the “one hundred and twenty”. Theστησαν (“they put forward”) finds as its grammatical referent the σ νµ ν ofverse 22(b). So too does the προσευξάµενοι (“they prayed”) of verse 24, and theδωκαν κλήρους (“they cast lots”) of verse 26. By contrast, the referent forτούτων (“these”) in verse 24 is the ωσ φ τ ν καλούµενον Βαρσαββ ν and Μαθθίαν(“Joseph called Barsabbas” and “Matthias”) of verse 23. It was the apostles whodecided upon the elevation of Matthias to the apostolate having cast lots, andnot the broader fledgling Christian community! Having successfully traced indetail the “who-was-talking-about-whom-and-when” aspects of Acts chapter one,we find ourselves concluding the narrative to this point with τ ν νδεκαποστόλων (“the eleven apostles”).

A brief word on chapters and verses

It shouldbe obvious to all that the division of Scripture into chapters and verses,whilst extraordinarily helpful in locating particular biblical passages andevents, does not owe its origin to the biblical authors. Versification resultedfrom the need for printers to keep control of the location of the text, when print was setby hand rather than by computer. Consequently, by-and-large it dates fromshortly after the time of the invention of the printing pressxxxiii. And inspite of the help that the versification of Scripture provides, it equallypromotes the unfortunate process of fragmenting the text, and often with it,the reader’s ability to trace the flow of the narrative. This particularfailing is particularly obvious in (indeed it is compounded by) theRevivalist’s preferred translation, the King James Version, where each verseappears as a separate paragraph!xxxiv The reader is therefore left to struggleto determine logical “sense units” for him or herself. Naïve assumptionsconcerning what the text “means” then frequently occurs, for example, that theclosing of one chapter and the opening of another must automatically signal achange in the author’s thought or subject matter. Such is generally not thecase, and is certainly not so when considering the progression of Acts chapterone into chapter two.

(to be cont.)

The coming of the Spirit 

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. With the opening four verses of chapter two, Luke signals what was the beginning of the fulfillment of the promised commission entrusted by the resurrected Jesus to his small band of apostles (see vv. 1:4, 5 and 8). 

The timing, itself, was significant; the feast of Pentecost occurred on the fiftieth day from the holy day of Passover. The original Passover took place in Egypt when God covenanted with the descendants of Abraham, to spare their lives from his angel of death, and to release them from bondage under Pharaoh. For their part, “Israel” was to be God's special possession, a people of his own choosing and one of his own making. So fifty days after fleeing Egypt the Hebrews found themselves at the foot of Mount Sinai, awaiting Moses’ return from communing with God, and the confirmation of the covenant that took place with the delivery of the Ten Commandments. 

Philo Judaeus, a devout Jewish Elder living at Alexandria in North Africa, recounted the Jewish tradition that surrounded the giving of the Law in his treatise, De Decalogo (“On the Ten Commandments”). Written sometime around 25 ADxxxv, in it he had this to say: This, then, might be sufficient discussion on these subjects; but it is necessary now to connect these previous things with that I am about to say, namely, that it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments ... to the whole assembled nation of men and women all together. Did he do so, by uttering himself with some kind of voice? Of course not! Do not let such a thought to even enter your mind; for God is not like a man, he has no need of a mouth, and a tongue, and a windpipe, but it seems to me he did, at that time, perform a striking and evidently holy miracle, by commanding an invisible sound to be formed in the air, one more marvelous than all the musical instruments that ever existed ... but it was a rational voice both clear and distinct, which fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a sort of flaming fire, and what sounded forth was so articulate a voice as breath when passing through a trumpet, that even those who were at a great distance appeared to hear it equally as well as those who were much nearer it ... but the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and caused a completely new kind of miraculous voice, and spreading its sound in every direction, made the end of it even more striking than the beginning xxxvi. 

Whilst the above account is not contained within the biblical record, and as such is not binding upon the believer as is Scripture, it is noteworthy that we are immediately confronted with several striking parallels in the pre-Christian Jewish tradition to what we find recorded canonically in the second chapter of Acts! To begin with both events took place at what was to become the “Feast of Weeks”, called Pentecost. Second, both events drew their significance from a Passover experience, each one occurring 40 days previously: the slaying of the lambs and the sparing of the first-born in Egypt in the Old Testament; the slaying of the Lamb of God, which was the sacrifice of his first born, in Judea in the New Testament. Third, “all Israel” was represented as standing before God’s presence at both events, with the mediator of the former covenant (Moses) giving the law; the mediator of the latter covenant (Jesus) giving the “new” law. Fourth, it was God who announced the fulfillment of the covenant at both events, and he chose the same supernatural signs to do so: the forming of a miraculous sound in the air, which then transformed into a flaming fire, and which became a rational and articulate voice understood by all. It is clear that God expected his Israel of AD to sit up and take notice of what was happening, and to draw a logical conclusion concerning its significance, given their detailed understanding of their earlier Jewish tradition. 

Returning to the biblical text, the first order of business is to determine who the “they” corresponds to in verse one of chapter two, given that it was “they” who were “… all together in one place”. We previously established that according to the basic law of grammar known as the Rule of Concord, the antecedent/referent to a pronoun will be the last noun mentioned that shares the same case, person, gender and number as the pronoun itself. In this instance, however, the pronoun is implicit, as it is contained within a verb. Consequently, two factors come into play in properly establishing the referent: context and syntax. Contextually, the last plural noun mentioned was τ ν νδεκα ποστόλων (“the eleven apostles”), with whom was numbered Matthias. Syntactically, the clause ατ πάντες σε µο κατ ν ε κοσι (“about one hundred and twenty”) is separated from the clause σαν πτ α τό (“they, who were all together in one place”) by more than fifteen subsequent Greek clauses, and each and every one of these has the apostles as its referent! One simply cannot avoid the outcome: Luke very clearly referred to the recently re-formed “Twelve” as the focus around which the miraculous events of Pentecost occurred. It was they who were identified earlier as being constantly together, and it was they upon whom the baptism with the Holy Spirit was originally promised by Jesus (see again vv. 1:5 and 8). The “one hundred and twenty” of verse 15 is far too dislocated syntactically to be grammatically plausible xxxvii. 

The second order of business is to establish where the apostles gathered at this time, as it was at that location that the Pentecostal phenomena occurred. Verse two provides the referent τ ν ο κον (“the house”), but which house is implied? Only two logical options present from the text itself: the house in which the “upper room” was located (so chapter one, verses 13 and 14), or the figurative “house of God—the Temple” (so chapter two, verse 46). Sound arguments exist in support of both locations. With respect to the former, Luke himself tells us that the apostles, the women, and Jesus’ immediate family were in the habit of meeting together there, being of “one mind”, devoting themselves to prayer. Further, it is telling that Luke nowhere else uses the word ο κος (“house”) to refer to the Temple; instead we universally find τ ν ερoν (“the Temple”) in all the undisputed references. In favor of the Temple; however, we might note the following: Pentecost was a high feast day; consequently the expectation was that all devout male Jews gathered in the Temple precincts, worshipping God. Second, verse 15 has Peter mentioning to the crowd that it was the “third hour of the day”, or nine o'clock in the morning. This was one of the three prescribed hours of prayer for the Jewish faithful, with the apostles numbered among the wider Jewish assembly xxxviii. In short the combination of one of the most important days on the Jewish calendar, and the first of the three prescribed hours of prayer, remains telling. Given the tradition outlined by Philo earlier, a location where “all Israel” was gathered becomes necessary. Having reflected at length on the implications of the data, my own judgment favors the location as being somewhere within the general courts of the Jewish Temple, rather than at a private house. At this point it becomes necessary to consider the actual Pentecostal phenomena as recorded by Luke, and the theological implications of the same. 

To begin with we cannot escape the fact that Luke expressly identified three inter-linked and miraculous manifestations: a roaring sound, being similar to the hearing to that of a violent windstorm. The sound then “fell” and rushed into the place where the apostles were sitting, filling it with noise (so verse two). The very fact that Luke records the apostles as sitting is important. Jews prayed to and worshipped God in one of three primary postures: either standing with the hands outstretched, kneeling with the forehead on the floor and the hands outstretched, or lying fully prostrate on the floor, again with the hands outstretched. Sitting only took place in between the prayers and the singing of the psalms, that is, during the interludes. That God arrived as he did, when he did, indicates that the apostles were caught completely unawares: they were not, at the time, praying! xxxix 

The subsequent miraculous manifestation was the visible, hovering sheet-like flame, having an outward appearance of fire, which then parted to rest on each apostle individually (verse three). The manifestation α το ς (“appeared to them”), the referent to α το ς (“them”) being yet again τ ν φθησαννδεκαποστόλων (“the eleven apostles”) plus Matthias of 1:26. And finally we must consider πλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύµατος γίου (“they were filled with the Holy Spirit”) and ρξαντο λαλε ν τέραις γλώσσαις (“they began to speak in other languages”). The third person plural pronouns implicit in the verbs “they were filled” and “they began to speak” are grammatically dependant on τ ν νδεκα ποστόλων (“the eleven apostles”) plus Matthias of 1:26 functioning as the antecedent! There were three supernatural “signs” that concentrated around the recently reconstituted “Twelve” as a group: the sound of a violent windstorm; the visible manifestation of a hovering sheet of flame, which then divided and rested over each apostle individually; and the manifestation of unlearned (albeit recognizable) human languages, which began to be spoken by each apostle, individually. Should we reflect on the Old Testament witness, we would discover that it is replete with examples of God’s Spirit being likened to both fire and wind, which was sometimes accompanied by a voice.xl 

We note that what occurred at the Christian Pentecost bore a very striking resemblance to the events that Jewish tradition understood took place at the giving of the Law at Sinai: a miracle of hearing, followed by a miracle of seeing, followed by a miracle of speaking. But what parallels do we find when we compare all of this to what is claimed by Revivalists for themselves? The short answer is simple: none! To begin with, the purpose for the historical baptism with the Spirit was to focus attention on the baptizer: Jesus Christ as the “new” Law Giver, and on the baptized, the re-formed Twelve Apostles as representatives of the “new” Israel re-constituted by God through the Son. The “baptism” itself served to separate and distinguish the apostles as specially commissioned representatives of the ascended Messiah, “empowered” for service to perform his work. 

By contrast Revivalists believe the “personal Pentecost” to herald the entry point to salvation, a point completely at odds with the situation facing the apostles! The focus, therefore, has altogether shifted away from Jesus Christ, and towards the individual Revivalist. The focus has altogether shifted away from the special commission given to the apostles, and towards the general entry of a believer” into “Christian” service. And the three corporate audio-visual miracles of Pentecost are completely absent from the individual “Pentecost” of the Revivalist. There is no sound of a violent wind that “falls” and fills the Revivalist meeting place. There is no visible sheet-like flame that divides and rests on the Revivalist. And the miracle of unlearned, authenticated human languages is substituted for an incomprehensible, syllabified gibberish that is claimed, and then without a shred of proof, to comprise authentic languages.xli There is no miracle of hearing, there is no miracle of seeing, and there is no miracle of speaking. But perhaps most telling of all is that the Revivalist is usually “frantically” engaged in activities that were completely absent when the Spirit was given at the historic Pentecost: “prayer” and “seeking” (actually, the repetition of a very few words in the hope that the individual’s language changes. In other words the Revivalist’s is often a learned and practiced behavior, more than it is a strictly supernatural experience). In complete contrast to thesituation faced by the original apostles, modern Revivalists specifically seek after a sign xlii and they do so with considerable “muttering”. Put plainly, the Revivalist “experience” parts company at each and every point from the biblical record under review. 

The effect of the miracles 

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and wondered, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, tongues the mighty works of God.” Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

(cont.)

When Jesus walked the earth the first time around he got himself into theological trouble with the teachers of the law. Basically they thought his theology was not up to scratch. It looks like things have not changed much.

2 Cor 1:12 KJV) For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

And:    (1 Cor 2:4-5 KJV) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing  words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

But I fear, lest by means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so you minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ ' 2 Cor 11:3

thanks for the reply.on question do you still have to get baptised?
saved through grace alone opens a lot scope

Ian you say revivalist indoctrination iam just asking questions which you seem to be giving fluffy answers.

can you make it simple for me?

if i came to you and asked you the way to Jesus what do I have to do?

I am asking objectivly.