Good morning,

The domain name for the pending site has been registered, and should be easy to remember. It is www.pleaseconsider.au

Blessings,

Ian

Hello, all.

If anyone would like pre-publication versions of the Please Consider essays, you can request PDF copies via email at didaktikon@gmail.com The essays are written in a way that promotes understanding. Consequently, they are intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive, but they intentionally address Revivalist misunderstandings and errors, head-on.

The following are almost complete:

1. Pentecost (Acts 1 & 2)

2. Acts 2:38

3. Baptism

4. The Gospel

5. Mark 16

6. Nicodemus' misunderstanding (John 3)

7. Speaking in tongues

The following are underway:

1. What is the church? 

2. Prayer: A user's guide

3. The British-Israel myth

4. What is salvation?

5. How does grace work?

6. Spiritual gifts: trinkets or treasures?

7. Nicodemus, the Centurion

8. The Philippian Gaoler

9. Salvation in Samaria

10. Effusion at Ephesus

11. How to read the Bible: A user's guide

12. Jesus, the Messiah-King

13. The person of the Holy Spirit

14. The trinity: what it is, and why it's important
    

Blessings,

Ian

Hello, All.

I thought it might be good to share one of the pending Please Consider essays here, to provide an example of how they are structured. To this end, I've included the one titled, The British Israel Myth.

Blessings,

Ian

The British-Israel Myth

‘James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.’[1]

The Revival Centres and Fellowship teaches the Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples are the literal descendants of the northern Kingdom of Israel, which the Assyrians overthrew around 720 BC, and then dispersed throughout their empire. The story goes these exiles migrated north and west over the following centuries, eventually settling in lands directly linked to the British Commonwealth and the United States of America. These modern nations are, therefore, believed to be the inheritors of God’s covenant promise to Abraham, Jacob and David, and so will play a critical role in ushering in the Kingdom of God.[2]  

The central importance of the so-called British-Israel message to biblical interpretation in the Revival Centres and Fellowship is immense, and in many respects, is the glue that binds Revivalist doctrine together.[3] Consequently, it would be a mistake to dismiss British-Israel as being a side or secondary issue to these groups. To the contrary, it is as sacrosanct as is their shared belief concerning the importance of speaking in tongues. Consequently, if the British-Israel theory is proven false, then it follows that so too is approximately ninety percent of Revivalism’s major doctrines.

The limits of this essay

As will become clear, I contend the British-Israel myth is false; furthermore, that it can be readily disproven biblically, historically, philologically, and genetically. There are any number of published academic works that do just that, and which I commend to those whose interest in the subject goes beyond the superficial.[4]

Due to its purpose, this essay must necessarily be brief, and so is intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. My aim is to focus on providing a digested summary of critical points that I have personally found conclusive. I will not attempt to refute each and every claim promoted by adherents of the British-Israel myth, as to do so would require the publishing of a rather large book. 

There are three broad issues that coalesce around the subject.

The first relates to the belief that the ten tribes of Israel were lost to history following the Assyrian invasion of the Northern Kingdom. The second issue has to do with the belief that the Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples are physically descended from these supposedly ten lost tribes of Israel. The third, and to my mind the most important issue, has to do with how the Bible presents the subject of Israel, especially in the New Testament. I will limit myself to considering each of these features in brief compass, with an intentional emphasis towards the last of these considerations. But first, a suggestive quote:

The (British-Israel) theory that the British people is ultimately descended from the ten Israelite tribes which were taken captive into Assyria c.721 BC, and thereafter wholly disappeared from Hebrew history. It was often found in conjunction with pronounced imperialist views; and though the numbers and influence of those who defend it are small, they often hold to it with a persistence and enthusiasm which refuse to give a dispassionate consideration to objections urged against it. The theory meets with no support from serious ethnologists or archaeologists.[5]

British-Israel and the Revival Centres and Fellowship 

Lloyd Longfield and Noel Hollins were introduced to British-Israel mythology by Thomas Foster, who was then a pastor in the National Revival Crusade.[6] Foster had previously served as a YMCA representative with the 1^st Australian Armoured Division during the Second World War, and prior to enlisting was affiliated with the World British-Israel Federation. During the pre-war years he was active in proselytizing their message in Pentecostal churches across Victoria, a message that included not only the ‘national identity’ doctrine, but also the historicist approach to the interpretation of biblical books such as Daniel and Revelation.[7]

A defining aspect of the British-Israel myth is the strict demarcation between the ten tribes of Israel (i.e. the ‘Israelites’), and the two tribes of Judah (i.e. the ‘Jews’). We shall consider how the Bible addresses this issue shortly.

Are the tribes of Israel lost?

With the Assyrian conquest, and the forced removal of a significant number of Israelites from Palestine in 720/721 BC, the Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist. The exiles were assimilated into Assyrian society, and from there into related sub-cultures spread throughout the Near East.[8] In this limited, or national sense, a case can be made that the tribes were lost. However, this assertion must be carefully nuanced.

To begin with, the northern Kingdom of Israel was not emptied by the invasion; it was largely the elites whom Tiglath-Pileser III, and Shalmaneser V deported. Next, even in exile many Israelites retained their cultural identity. It is for this reason the Jewish Diaspora at the time of Christ, per Peter’s Pentecost discourse, included ‘Medes and Elamites, residents of Mesopotamia’.[9] These were former territories of the Assyrian Empire.

From their return under Cyrus around 530 BC, Jews accepted the Samaritans were descended from the northern Kingdom of Israel. However, they were shunned for being a mixed race, the result of intermarrying between the people of the land who remained through the Assyrian predation, and the immigrants the Assyrians subsequently resettled into northern Palestine. Historically the Samaritans referred to themselves as בני ישראל (bene Israel, or ‘sons of Israel’), and have scrupulously maintained their genealogies to the present day.[10] Consequently, it would be incorrect to state the ten tribes of Israel were categorically lost.

Are the Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples descended from Israel?

The short answer is, of course, ‘no’. Genetically, Anglo-Saxon Celtic and north western European peoples belong to Haplogroup R1b.[11] Middle Eastern populations, including Israelites, Samaritans and Jews, belong to Haplogroups J1 and J2.[12]

In 2003 the human genome was fully mapped. The next critical step was the generation of a ‘hapmap’, thereby defining ancestral haplotypes. The initial work on this project was completed in 2010, and was principally intended as a tool for isolating and addressing inherited genetic conditions through medical research.[13] While the idea of race is broadly understood as a social and cultural construct, genetic material defines who were are at a biological level. This material enables us to trace human ancestry back thousands of generations, identifying not only distinctive population groups, but also the clearly defined geographic markers and locations inhabited by the groups.

Historically, Bronze Age migrations of Germanic people occurred from the lower Rhine to Britain between 2,500 and 2,000 BC, and they eventually replaced about ninety percent of the genetic heritage of their Neolithic British predecessors.[14] Celts migrated to southern Britain from France around 1000 BC, some three hundred years before the fall of Israel to Assyria. Finally, Anglo-Saxons began arriving in Britain from the fifth century AD.[15] All share in common the R1a and R1b genetic Haplogroups. As they are not genetically Middle Eastern/semitic, the Anglo-Saxon Celtic people are clearly not descended from the so-called Lost Tribes of Israel.

Socially, Middle Eastern and semitic peoples tend towards endogamy; this includes Jews and Samaritans.[16] Consequently, as a small sub-set of humanity they exhibit very stable conformity to paternal and maternal Haplogroups when compared to the rest of us.  

Culturally, there are significant differences between European and Middle Eastern peoples. Language is widely recognised as the foundation of culture, and philologically the languages of Europe and the Middle East are completely unrelated. Every Indo-European language descends from the Proto-Indo-European spoken during the Bronze Age in the steppe regions proximal to Russia and the Ukraine. Conversely, the semitic languages branch from the altogether separate Afro-Asiatic family. Critically, semitic languages were widely spoken across the Near East during the same periods in which Indo-European languages were in use across Europe. Consequently, they are not related. The myth that European languages contain Hebrew syntax and etymologies pointing to an ancient Israelitish heritage is just that, a myth.[17]

To summarise, genetic science, history, ethnology and comparative philology all disprove the fable that Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples are descended from Israelites.

How does the Bible present Israel?

The noun Israel (יִשְׂרָאֵל) occurs over 2,500 times in the Bible, and the semantic range is quite broad. It is so broad that the intended meaning of the word is frequently subject to change within the same passage of the same biblical book! In the list below, I have grouped the semantic range of Israel into ten primary contexts. For ease of reference, and to keep the essay to a manageable size, the summary of findings is from the Old Testament prophets alone:[18]

1.     Israel is understood as the original ancestor of the people, that is, it can connote both Jacob (e.g. Hosea 12:12), and Abraham (e.g. Isaiah 63:16).

2.     Israel is understood as the people that God delivered from Egypt (e.g. Jeremiah 32:20; Amos 3:1).

3.     Israel is understood as the alliance that predated the monarchy (e.g. Jeremiah 7).

4.     Israel is understood as a united monarchy (e.g. Jeremiah 33:17; Micah 5:2).

5.     Israel is understood as the northern part of the kingdom (e.g. Isaiah 7:1; Hosea 1:1).

6.     Israel is understood as the southern part of the kingdom (e.g. Isaiah 1:3; Jeremiah 5:15; Ezekiel 2:3). Notably, Ezekiel used ‘Israel’ one hundred and eighty-five times, and ‘Judah’ fifteen times, when refering to his audience of exiled Judeans![19]

7.     Israel is understood as the Judeans (or ‘Jews’) who were exiled to Babylon (e.g. Isaiah 40-66; Isaiah 49:6; Ezekiel 11:15; Obadiah 1:20).

8.     Israel is understood as the Judeans (or ‘Jews’) who returned from Exile during the Persian period (e.g. Ezra 2:2; Zechariah 12:1; Malachi 2:11).

9.     Israel is understood as a geographical region (e.g. Isaiah 11:16; Ezekiel 27:17).

10. Israel is understood as a future reality (e.g. Ezekiel 37:21; Zechariah 9:1; Isaiah 27:6).

Quite simply, the name Israel was not limited in the sense defended by apologists for the British-Israel myth. To the contrary, Israel was repeatedly used to describe Jews well after the division of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom into two. In many Old Testament contexts, the words Israel and Judah are treated as synonyms, which is precisely how they appear in the New Testament.

New Testament references to Israel

The essay began with a quote from the letter of James, addressed to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. James’ audience was well known to him; they were members of the Jewish diaspora, and they lived the length and breadth of the Roman Empire. They traded with, communicated with, had relationships with, and engaged in religious practices with the Jews of Palestine during the first century AD.

In the Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus and his disciples are sent, ‘…only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’[20] This, of course, is a reference to their ministry among the Jews. It was only after his glorification, and their subsequent Spirit empowerment at Pentecost, that Jesus directed his apostles to evangelise beyond this single people group (see PENTECOST).[21]

Luke left us the following record concerning Paul’s address to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, ‘Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: ‘Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!’[22] Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, and a Jew. Despite this, he claimed the name Israelite for himself and his Jewish companions.

In his letter to the Church at Rome, notably chapters nine through eleven, Paul explicated the promises that God made to the people of Israel were to be fulfilled in the mixed company that is the Christian church. Luke also intimated as much in his record of Peter’s speech to the Jews at Pentecost.[23]

All things considered, the third chapter to Paul’s letter to the church at Colossae discredits any and all perceived racial primacy or importance within God’s redemptive plan. Verse eleven:

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

A digression?

You will notice I have avoided discussing several rabbit-hole issues, including the fictitious Tea/Tamar Tephi, the similarly fictitious claim that the British Royal family traces its lineage back to King David, and the misguided belief that the Stone of Scone is Jacob’s Pillow. They are pointless digressions, each of which has been categorically disproven.[24]

Conclusion

The British-Israel myth has been conclusively disproven—biblically, historically, philologically, ethnologically, and perhaps most tellingly of all, genetically. It is a racist theory that was created to justify British colonialism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and which was revived following the Second World War when British influence in world affairs was declining.

That the Revival Centres and Fellowship continues to propagate this myth clearly demonstrates that they do not care ‘about the truth, despite the proof’.

[1] James 1:1

[2] See, e.g. E. Raymond CAPT, Abrahamic Covenant, Artisan Publishers, n.d.; M.S. Kragh, The Lost 10 Tribes of Israel in Europe, Covenant Publishing Ltd, 2024; J. Durrant, The Throne of David and the Return of Christ, Revival Centres of Australia, 1988

[3] Not only in the way they interpret the Old and New Testaments, but also their doctrines of salvation and the End Times

[4] See, e.g. T. Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth, Weidenfield & Nicolson, 2003; D. Baron, The History of the Ten “Lost” Tribes: Anglo-Israelism Examined, Morgan & Scot, 1915; Z. Shavitsky, The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes: A Critical Survey of Historical and Archaeological Records Relating to the People of Israel in Exile in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia up to 300 BCE, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012

[5] F. Cross and E. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3^rd. ed., Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 239

[6] D. Cooper, Flames of Revival: The continuing story of the Christian Revival Crusade celebrating Fifty Years of Pentecostal Witness, CRC National Executive, 1995 p. 62

[7] Historicism seeks to interpret prophecy and apocalyptic through the identification of concrete, historical events. As with the competing theories of futurism and preterism, historicism imposes an artificial interpretative grid atop the biblical material, one that would make no sense to the people the writings were originally directed to. Historicism reached its peak in the 19^th century—coincidentally, alongside the British-Israel myth. Both approaches to interpreting prophecy were adopted by 19^th century Millenarian sects such as the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (now the Jehovah’s Witnesses)

[8] See e.g. A. Bregman, A History of Israel, Macmillan, 2002; J. Bright, A History of Israel, Westminster John Knox Press, 2000

[9] See Acts 2:9

[10] E.g. the current Samaritan High Priest, Aabed-El Ben Asher ben Matzliach traces his family lineage 133 generations back to Aaron 

[11] Haplogroups are genetic groupings of people sharing common ancestry, and which are defined by specific DNA mutations. Haplogroups reveal deep ancestral origins and migration patterns, and act like genetic surnames to trace human history

[12] The haplogroups identify paternal heritage, which is appropriate given Hebrew tribe identification was inherited paternally

[13] See https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/hapmap of the National Human Genome Research Institute 

[14] M. Allentoft, M. Sikora, et. al., Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Nature, 522, 2015    

[15] S. Meigs and S. Lehmberg, The Peoples of the British Isles: A New History. From Prehistoric Times to 1688, 4^th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016

[16] A. Katsnelson, ‘Jews worldwide share genetic ties’, Nature, 2010

[17] See, T. Loundsbury, History of the English Language, Kessinger Publishers, 1906, pp. 1, 12-13

[18] I used the prophets given they collectively ministered to both the Northern and Southern exiles

[19] S.v. יִשְׂרָאֵל in J. Kohlenberger III and J. Swanson, The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament, Zondervan, 1998 

[20] Matthew 10:6

[21] Acts 1:8

[22] Acts 13:16; Philippians 3:5

[23] Acts 2:14-39

[24] In the Spring 2001 edition of the Crown and Commonwealth Magazine the World British-Israel Federation acknowledged Tea/Tamar Tephi was a fiction created by F.R.A. Glover in 1861. Next, the British Royal Family’s official website traces their historical lineage back to 1066. Finally, geological testing established the Stone of Scone is red Scottish sandstone with Strathclyde substrates. Sandstones from Palestine are morphologically different, being of Nubian, Kukar and Karstic types

Good afternoon, All.

I thought some might benefit from what will likely be the shortest essay to be included at Please Consider. It corrects the misguided Revival Centres and Fellowship teaching that the word 'Christian' means, 'anointed ones'. If the hierarchy of these groups can't even translate a single Greek work correctly, then how on earth can they be trusted to properly interpret the deeper and more important teachings of Scripture?! 

Blessings,

Ian 

What is a Christian? 

The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost. It started at that moment when the first disciples of Jesus received the anointing of God’s Holy Spirit. They became Christians, ‘anointed ones.’ This is precisely the meaning of the word ‘Christian.’[1]

In the opening paragraph to a small booklet written by Kevin Hollins sometime around 1975, which was recently reissued by the Revival Centres, we are assured of three things. First, that the Christian church began at Pentecost in 30 AD. Second, that the church started when the first disciples of Jesus received the anointing of the Holy Spirit (see, PENTECOST). And third, that the word Christian means anointed ones. While each of these claims is open to significant challenge (see, THE CHURCH), I will limit myself to addressing the final statement.

Definition

The Greek word Χριστιανος (Christianos, or ‘Christian’) is composed of the proper noun Χριστος (Christos, ‘anointed One’), and the adjectival termination -ιανος (-ianos, ‘follower of/belonging to’). A Christian then is not an ‘anointed one’ per Hollins’ misguided claim, but a follower of  Christ. This is so in precisely the same way that a Herodian is a follower of Herod, and a Caesarian is a follower of Caesar.[2] 

The teaching of the Revival Centres and Fellowship on this subject is unambiguously wrong.

In common with all Revivalist pastors, Kevin Hollins had neither first-hand knowledge of, nor any training in the Greek language. He clearly had no understanding of general linguistics either, and given his book was reissued unaltered in 2025, this situation has not changed for the better among the current crop of Revival Centres leaders. 

In the interest of making this essay slightly longer than the single sentence needed to refute this definitional error, and with the aim of providing a small measure of important historical context, I will briefly address how the term ‘Christian’ was used and understood during the first century AD.

New Testament application

Christianos appears just three times in the New Testament.[3] In Acts 11:26 Luke tells us it was, ‘In Antioch that the disciples first bore the name Christians.’[4] Tradition records Luke was a native of the city, so it is not surprising he included this tidbit of contextual information in his Acts, and all the more given the title itself was not viewed as a positive accolade. The other two New Testament occurrences of our word also connote something decidedly negative.

During the first century, believers did not refer to themselves as ‘Christians.’ The label was applied to them unfavorably by Romans, and then uniformly in the context of persecution. Of course, Jews would hardly dignify the followers of Jesus with a name derived from Christos—the anointed One—whom they had long hoped for and expected.

Broader first century application

It is notable that Χρηστιανοι (Chrēstianoi, ‘followers of Chrēstus’) is the reading in all three passages in which the name ‘Christian’ appears in Codex Sinaiticus.[5] During the mid- first through mid- second centuries, this was the term widely attested in Christian and non-Christian sources.[6] Chrēstus, meaning ‘useful,’ was a common Greek slave name, and contemporary Roman writers were prone to using Chrēstianoi spitefully when describing believers in Jesus—followers, it was assumed, of a rebellious and crucified slave.[7] Furthermore, the average Roman would have lacked the cultural sensitivity to comprehend the Jewish nuance implicit in Christ, hence they understood Chrēstos whenever they heard Christos.[8]

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

To be a Christian is to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is to be the kind of person described by the very terms first century believers in Jesus called themselves: disciples (μαθηταὶ, mathētai); brethren (ἀδελφοί, adelphoi); saints (ἁγίοις, hagiois); believers (πιστοί, pistoi); and the elect (οἱ ἐκλεκτοί, hoi eklektoi). It is to prioritize the same things Jesus emphasized.[9]

Uncomfortable as it may be for some to accept, the Revival Centres and Fellowship do not emphasize the name, person, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Messiah-King, Jesus. Calvary is not central to their theology,[10] just as the second Person of the Godhead does not stand at the heart of their so-called ‘salvation message’ (see, THE GOSPEL). At best Jesus Christ is an abstract figure in the Revival Centres and Fellowship, at worst he is replaced as Savior and Advocate by the Holy Spirit (see, THE HOLY SPIRIT).[11]

Conclusion 

The historically pejorative expression Christian means no more, and no less than ‘a follower of Christ.’ Linguistic naivety, coupled with a profound ignorance of the Greek language doubtless caused to the founders and formulators of the Revival Centres and Fellowship to make such a patently silly translation error.[12] However, and despite receiving correction on many occasions over the years, the current leadership refuses to repent and drop this wrong-headed teaching. They apparently prefer to knowingly continuing the error as it better suits what they believe it is to be a so-called ‘Spirit-Filled Christian.’

The Revival Centres and Fellowship are not part of the Christian church given they do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.[13] A more appropriate designation is Longfeldians, given they uncritically follow the multiplied heresies of Lloyd R. Longfield and his spiritual heirs.

[1] K. Hollins, What Must We Do To Be Saved? Revival Centres International, 1975 (reissued 2025), p. 1

[2] See, s.v. Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ in, F. Danker, et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd, ed., University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 1090

[3] Acts 11:26; 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16

[4] The infinitive χρηματίσαι (chrēmatisai, ‘to bear’) connotes a negative implication

[5] Codex Siniaticus is a fourth century Greek manuscript containing the majority of the Old Testament, and all the books of the New Testament. It is one of the earliest complete Christian Bibles currently known

[6] E.g. Ignatius, Magnesians 10, Romans 3, Philadephians 6; and Tacitus, Ann. xv.44; Suetonius, Nero xvi; Pliny, Epistles X.xcvi

[7] Crucifixion was the ordinary punishment meted out to rebellious or insubordinate slaves

[8] The vowels eta and iota were pronounced the same in first century koinē Greek, hence Chrēstos and Christos would have sounded identical

[9] See, e.g. John 13:34, 35 and Luke 6:46

[10] See, John 19:30

[11] Perhaps more correctly, he is replaced by ‘speaking in tongues’

[12] Notably Strong’s Concordance correctly translates the term

[13] See Matthew 7:21-23

Good afternoon, All.

I've received several emails asking me to post the Please Consider essays here. I won't do this for all of them, but I am happy to share those which build on earlier posts of mine that appear here. To this end, please see my piece on Mark 16.

Blessings,

Ian

Mark 16

“He (Jesus) said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”  

The Revival Centres and Fellowship appeals to the closing verses of the Gospel According to Mark chapter sixteen as a standard proof-text to authenticate what they claim is the individual Pentecostal experience of their members (see, PENTECOST). However, there is an all-too-common practice of selective reading within these fellowships, where the contexts of the various biblical passages are often not read—nor applied—in their entirety.[1]  

The Revival Centres promotes founding pastor Lloyd Longfield's idiosyncratic interpretation that Mark sixteen should be read metaphorically from verse nine onwards. The reason for this is to justify the absence of the majority of the signs described in our passage from Revival Centres’ experience. Given there is nothing in the closing verses to Mark that implies a shift between literal and metaphoric senses, this is a clear example of special pleading; more on this later.

Our essay will review the closing verses of Mark sixteen by comparing what it presents against what the Revival Centres and Fellowship teaches, and which will necessarily involve a close reading of the passage in Greek. I contend the passage when read in context does not sustain the beliefs promoted by these groups. 

The longer ending(s) 

I will begin by briefly addressing an issue that seems quite controversial in Revivalist circles: the question of authenticity with respect to Mark 16:9-20.[2] Many are concerned that an overwhelming majority of modern English Bible translations contain footnotes to the effect: the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. They worry because the King James Version (see, KING JAMES VERSION) includes these verses without reference or comment, and so perhaps modern translators are attempting to distort or even remove the passage from God’s Word. At issue seems to be the trustworthiness of Scripture. However, as I will demonstrate, this simply is not the case.[3]

There are approximately five thousand, eight hundred Greek manuscripts of the New Testament currently known, and the vast majority of these are incomplete dating from the eighth century onwards.[4] Two important considerations result from this. First, the bulk of the manuscript evidence is almost seven hundred and fifty years older than the account that originally left Mark’s pen. Second, they represent a form of the Greek text fixed at Constantinople sometime between the fifth and seventh centuries. The overwhelming majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts therefore reflect a polished and edited form of the text commonly referred to as the Byzantine, or Majority text type. This developed in the centuries immediately following Constantine’s elevation as Roman Emperor, and is largely the same Greek text that underpins the King James and New King James Versions.

However, there are many Greek manuscripts that date considerably earlier than the eighth century, generally from the third, fourth and fifth centuries. The so-called Church Fathers quoted multiplied New Testament passages from the second century onwards in their writings, and there are numerous early translations of the New Testament beginning with the third century. What we discover is the form of the Greek text in widespread use—from Palestine through to North Africa and Asia—displays marked differences to the later Byzantine/Majority text.

Critically, every manuscript of the Gospel According to Mark that includes chapter sixteen includes the text up to verse eight: “And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” However, from verse nine onwards significant differences appear, and many would be surprised to learn there are, in fact, three ‘longer’ endings:

“Early, on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had previously cast out seven demons. She went and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. And when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they did not believe. After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Then he appeared to the eleven while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.' After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. The eleven went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.”

Of course, this is the best known, and ‘common’ longer ending found bracketed as doubtful in most English translations. It is also included without comment in the King James Version that is preferred by the Revival Centres and Fellowship. 

There is also:

“They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things, Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and enduring preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.”

This expansion was frequently added to the common longer ending, especially in manuscripts dating from the seventh century onwards, and indicates there was some uncertainty as to which was the ‘proper’ text. Finally, there is the version quoted by Jerome, early in the fifth century:

“And they replied, saying, 'this age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who through his demons doesn't permit the true power of God to be understood; therefore, reveal your righteousness now!' They were speaking to Christ, and he said to them in reply, 'The limit of the years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near, even for the sinners on whose behalf I was delivered up to death, that they might turn to the truth and no longer sin, so that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.'”

The manuscript evidence in its entirety knows four endings to the Greek text of this Gospel, and the earliest among them do not include any of the ‘longer’ endings. In a similar vein, the ‘longer’ endings are missing from the earliest translations. Quotes of Mark chapter sixteen in the letters of the Church Fathers from the second and third centuries demonstrate no knowledge of the common ‘longer’ ending either, the sole exception being Irenaeus:

“Towards the conclusion of his gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God.[5]'”

It is only from the mid to late third century that endings after verse eight start to multiply in the manuscripts, and in the letters written by Church Fathers.

The brief overview of the textual evidence indicates the author of the Gospel According to Mark, who probably wrote sometime around AD 60, did not write verses nine through twenty. However, the evidence also suggests that ‘longer’ endings to his Gospel began to circulate from the middle of the second century, and these clearly reflected traditional beliefs and understandings held within segments of the early Church.

Two issues warrant consideration. First, there is nothing in the common ‘longer’ ending, or in any of the ‘longer’ endings, which stands contrary to the rest of the New Testament witness concerning Jesus Christ and his teachings. Second, the Church recognized all four endings as canonical in the fourth century. Consequently, all qualify as Scripture, and so it is perfectly correct to appeal to Mark 16:9-20 in this way.

Mark 16:15-18

Having briefly reviewed the passage’s history, we can consider what Mark 16:15-18 presents. 

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.”[6]

Jesus' parting words to his disciples began with, “Go into the world, and preach the gospel to everyone.” To Christ, the most important thing in the world was not that the disciples went into it, but that they preached the gospel there. The single Greek imperative; the sole command, is κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (kēruxate to euangelion), ‘preach the gospel’ (see, THE GOSPEL). I have contended elsewhere that the Revival Centres and Fellowship has fundamentally misunderstood the content of the gospel, and so has fundamentally misunderstood the nature and requirements for salvation (see, SALVATION). 

When presented with the message about Jesus as Messiah-King, the hearer is compelled to make a binary choice: either believe, or disbelieve. Jesus assured his disciples the one who believes, and is then baptized, will be saved (see, BAPTISM). However, the one who disbelieves the gospel will be condemned. It is at this point that we need to take note of several features of Greek grammar. The words translated ‘believes’ (πιστεύσας—pisteusas) and, ‘is baptised’ (βαπτισθεὶς—baptistheis), are both aorist, active voice participles. The verb ‘will be saved’ (σωθήσεται—sōthēsetai) is in the future tense, passive voice, and indicative mood. This indicates the person who exercises belief in the gospel message, the person who demonstrates his or her faith through baptism, can rest assured of receiving everlasting life from God from the point of believing forwards. Crucially, the baptism component is consequent on the believing component. The Greek coordinate conjunction translated and functions in a copulative sense, which is the normal role of the second protasis in implied conditional Greek sentences.[7] In other words, a lack of baptism does not lead to a lack of eternal life. The same is true of the baptism component in the oft-quoted Acts 2:38 proof-text (see, ACTS 2:38).

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on the signs, themselves.

These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover...

Given Jesus used the Greek plural for signs (σημεῖα—sēmeia) in our passage, the first questions we need to ask ourselves are simple: how is the word used within the New Testament record generally, and in the Gospel According to Mark in particular?

Our word appears seventy-seven times in the New Testament. Most of the occurrences are in the Gospels (forty-eight, with six in Mark); however, the word also appears eight times in Paul's writings, once in Hebrews, and seven times in John's Revelation. The standard definition is, “(1) a sign or distinguishing mark whereby something is known, and (2) an event that is an indication or confirmation of intervention by transcendent powers.”[8]

Notably, the semantic domain for sēmeion includes the concept of ‘miracle’. A standard reference distinguishes clearly between sēmeion, and τέρας (teras—’miraculous sign’), but notes the latter occurs exclusively in the plural, and only occurs in combination with the former in the New Testament.[9] This indicates the author of the passage in Mark intended his readers to understand the signs of 16:17 pointed to the direct intervention of God in an openly miraculous way.

We should also note the Gospel According to Mark describes five very specific signs that would accompany those who believe. First, in Christ's name they will drive out demons (see, DEMONS).[10] Next, they will speak in new languages (see, SPEAKING IN TONGUES). Further, they will pick up snakes with their hands, they will drink poison without harm, and they will heal the sick through the laying on of their hands.

The problem

Revival Centres founder Lloyd Longfield taught the majority of these signs were metaphorical, but this clearly smacks of special pleading. Longfield altogether rejected the existence of demons,[11] and he simply would not credit Mark literally meaning what is implied by the references to the handling of snakes and the drinking of poison. Consequently, the Revival Centres teaches the first sign is “the casting out of false religious ideas”. The third sign deals with “the handling of sly, malicious people”, and the fourth sign with “hearing false doctrine without being spiritually harmed”. Of course, this sort of picking-and-choosing of what to take metaphorically versus literally in a grammatically uniform passage simply is not honest, nor is it in any sense defensible from what the text actually states. We will address why this is so shortly. 

The Revival Fellowship seems split on the issue. Some of the first generation of pastors are inclined towards Longfield’s weak excuse,[12] while others potentially accept the literal interpretation of the majority of the signs, but understand them to be latent promises to be applied when, where, and as required. A significant difficulty with this latter interpretation is that it confuses what the Gospel According to Mark calls signs, and what Paul refers to in his first letter to the Corinthians as spiritual gifts. The former serve to miraculously demonstrate the reality of God before an unbelieving world, while the latter serve to build-up an already believing Christian community. In reality though, they too have attempted to reinterpret the straightforward teaching of Scripture because it does not conform to the organization's doctrine, experience, or practice. 

The Revival Centres and Fellowship claim the literal gift of speaking in tongues. However, because they mistakenly link this spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation (see, THE HOLY SPIRIT), they are unable to jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties a straightforward reading of the passage presents. Hence the interpretative wrangling. Unfortunately for them, the grammar of the passage does not allow for so casual a picking-and-choosing of what one is prepared to accept as literal versus metaphoric. The signs described are either all to be understood literally, or they are all to be understood metaphorically. The antecedent to the ‘they’ implicit in each of the third person sign verbs (‘drive’, ‘speak’, ‘pick up’, ‘drink’, and ‘place), is the ‘those who believe’ of verse seventeen, referring back to the ‘whoever believes’ of verse fifteen. The Greek language has available a range of abstract grammatical and syntactical markers an author can use to highlight metaphorical language, none of which are found in our passage. In our verse the opposite is the case. Mark chose to employ the future tense, active voice and indicative mood verb παρακολουθήσει (parakolouthēsei, ‘will accompany or follow’) in a declarative sentence. This grammatical construction defines a concrete statement or assertion, one which must be taken literally from the author’s perspective.[13] A metaphorical interpretation is expressly excluded!

Herein lies two Gordian knots the Revival Centres and Fellowship have unsuccessfully sought to unravel. First, and contrary to Longfield’s mistaken assertion, the grammar of the verse demands a literal interpretation. Next, according to the logic of the second approach, all believers must evidence all of the signs, all of the time, as a sign is only a sign when it is on display.

The solution

The Revival Centres and Fellowship assumed two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse seventeen: ‘… these signs shall accompany those who believe’. First, that the future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. Second, that it is a promise to every individual believer. However, the statement itself appears after a conditional sentence (verse sixteen), and the range of subsequent conditions: ‘he that/and is/shall be’ demonstrates the reverse is the case: it is predictive rather than promissory. Furthermore, all of the six instances of third person verbs mentioned with respect to the signs listed in verses seventeen and eighteen are Greek categorical plurals. Categorical plurals function to separate and distinguish a group of one sort, from every other group, and when applied they yield a generic notion.[14] To put this another way, the focus is towards an action rather than it is towards an actor—e.g. ‘this is the sort of person who does this’. In our passage, the various signs function to distinguish Christian believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet. 

The evidence conclusively demonstrates the longer ending to the Gospel According to Mark chapter sixteen does allow a picking-and-choosing between literal and metaphorical interpretations, and neither does it teach that all believers will cast out demons, through to healing the sick. The stress is not on the notion of promises made to believers; it is on the miraculous authentication of Christianity before an unbelieving world.

The longer ending teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast out demons. Others still may be involved in the snake handling, poison drinking and faith healing effects described in the passage. However, the purpose of the effects is to demonstrate the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to, and separate from, every other religious group. The effects—the signs—are not promises to individuals, they are corporate predictions. 

Conclusion

The Revival Centres and Fellowship appeals to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their experience of speaking in tongues. They further appeal to the passage to validate their mistaken belief that one must speak in tongues in order to be classified as a true believer. However, this is not what the text presents. Mark 16:15-20 neither reflects nor represents the doctrine, experience or practice of the Revival Centres and Fellowship. And while they have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain-away the missing signs, what has been missing all along is an appreciation of the passage's proper meaning and application.[15]

The grammar of the Greek text of Mark 16:15-20 does not support what the Revivalist groups believe and teach. It actually stands directly odds to their dogma.

[1] This speaks to their untethered and subjective method of interpreting Scripture, which largely reads into the Bible what they already believe, rather than reading out from the Bible what is actually there

[2] Various Revival Centres and Fellowship pastors have presented public talks or papers defending the common ‘longer’ ending over the years

[3] The issue relates to the discipline of textual criticism, which involves the close study of ancient manuscripts, their similarities and differences

[4] About 85% of them

[5] Irenaeus (d. 200), Against Heresies 3.10.6. This is a clear, direct quote from Mark 16:19

[6] This is a good example of an implied conditional sentence in Greek, one employing a substantival participle in place of the formal structural markers of, ‘if / then’

[7] The two conditions listed in the protasis (the implied ‘if’) do not bear the same relationship to the apodosis (the implied ‘then’). The first is the cause (‘[if] you believe’), and the fulfilment of the apodosis depends on it (‘[then] you will be saved’). The second functions as the evidence of belief (‘and [if you] are baptised’); consequently, the apodosis does not depend on it for fulfilment. Baptism, therefore, is a not a salvation requirement

[8] F.W. Danker, et al. (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., University of Chicago Press. 2000, s.v. σημεῖον, ου, τό

[9] C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2

(rev. ed.) Paternoster Press, 1985, s.v.v. σημεῖον & τέρας pp. 626-635

[10] See, e.g. Luke 10:17-20

[11] This despite Longfield being subject to ‘deliverance’ himself by Tom Foster, when he was a member of the National Revival Crusade

[12] See, e.g. Brad Smith https://www.brf.org.au/videos/showvideo.jsp?videoid=118

[13] D. Mathewson and E. Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for the Students of the New Testament, Baker Academic, 2016, pp. 160-161

[14] D. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1996, p. 405-406

[15] The leadership of the Revival Centres and Fellowship lacks the training and skills required to read and interpret the Greek text of the New Testament

Good morning, All.

Please find below, my revamped essay on John 3 for Please Consider.

Blessings,

Ian

John 3:1-8 Nicodemus’ misunderstanding

¹ Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. ² He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” ³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[b] gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You^[c] must be born again.’ ⁸ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

The Revival Centres and Fellowship appeal to John 3:1-8 in support of their shared belief that baptism by immersion in water (see BAPTISM), followed by the Holy Spirit (see THE HOLY SPIRIT), will result in speaking in tongues (see SPEAKING IN TONGUES, and ACTS 2:38). I contend Acts 2:38 has been misconstrued and misrepresented by these groups.

The aim of this small essay is to demonstrate a notable misunderstanding on the part of Revivalists regarding The Gospel According to John, chapter three. This of itself is quite ironic, given John the apostle made significant use of the ‘misunderstood statement’ as a literary device when writing the Gospel account that bears his name.[1]

‘You must be born from above…’

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and a member of the Jewish High Council—the Sanhedrin. The character mentioned in John’s Gospel was likely Nicodemus ben Gurion (נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן־גּוּרְיוֹן), a well-known and respected leader in Jerusalem during the first century.[2] This Pharisee approached Jesus by night, possibly because he was fearful of people seeing him in the company of the carpenter from Nazareth. Nicodemus acknowledged the miracles Jesus performed attested that God had sent him. Jesus, recognising Nicodemus’ praise fell short of properly acknowledging his identity as Messiah-King, challenged him to be born 'from above'. The Greek word he used is ἄνωθεν (anōthen).[3] On hearing this, Nicodemus automatically assumed the word's secondary, or analogous meaning, thereby interpreting Jesus as saying, ‘...you must be born again.’ However, Jesus sought to distinguish between the natural and the regenerate states of humanity, so verse six. He further identified the natural man would not be able to εἴδω (eidō)[4] ‘see’ or ‘perceive’ the Kingdom of God. To Jesus the mysteries of the kingdom were beyond the apprehension of unspiritual/unregenerate people.

Our passage uses a series of puns based on sophisticated Greek word plays to explicate Jesus' teaching.[5] English translations, being translations, generally fail to identify this rhetorical feature.[6]

Nicodemus categorically demonstrated through his responses that he was reasoning from an unregenerate state, so verse four. Consequently, Jesus leveraged Nicodemus’ confusion and misunderstanding to develop the point of his message. He informed Nicodemus that a person is unable to enter the kingdom of God unless first born of water and wind. Both water and wind come from above (i.e. anōthen), which is the first aspect of the pun, and a reframing of the ambiguity in meaning associated with this word. The second aspect involves leveraging the semantic ambiguity inherent in the word πνεύμα (pneȗma).[7] Context properly determines if our word means ‘wind’, ‘breath’, ‘spirit’, or a combination of these in parallel, and so Nicodemus further demonstrated his inability to properly grasp Jesus' meaning. We know Christ meant to liken the Spirit to wind, because he described how the Spirit ‘… blows wherever it pleases’, which is itself a subtle reference to the ordering of creation.[8] This reference to the Law Nicodemus also missed.

Jesus emphatically declared an unregenerate person would not be able to perceive the kingdom of God, while entry into the kingdom as a subject required a person to be born from above. To Jesus only spiritually regenerate people would understand the implications of his teaching, given that only such people were truly spiritual.

What is the meaning behind Jesus’ references to water and Spirit? To answer this question, I will begin by explaining what it is not, and that is a reference to baptism. By virtue of his being a Pharisee, Jesus expected Nicodemus to recall immediately Ezekiel 36:24-27.

²⁴ “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. ²⁵ I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. ²⁶ I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. ²⁷ And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

The historical and theological context refers to the people of Judah returning from exile in the latter days to the land of Israel, whereupon they would become Spirit-endowed in a way not previously available to God’s people. More on this later.   

The phrase ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος (hydatos kai pneȗmatos), translated water and Spirit, is a hendiadys. This is a grammatical construction where two words joined by a conjunction express a single idea. In a hendiadys the first word reinforces the second; consequently, the meaning of our passage is, ‘...by water/Spirit’. This frames the third part of the pun. The Spirit of God himself comes from above, much like water falling in a rain shower sprinkles onto a person, making them clean. In this, the third chapter of the Gospel According to John, we find Jesus linking the promise foretold in Ezekiel 36 to its subsequent and eschatological fulfilment as recorded in Acts 2 (see PENTECOST).

‘You are Israel’s teacher…’

In verse 10, Jesus called Nicodemus Israel’s teacher. The Messiah-King had been discussing with him the nature of his kingdom; a kingdom eagerly anticipated by Israel suffering under the yoke of Rome. Given Nicodemus' position in his nation, Jesus fully expected him to make the obvious connections to several prominent Old Testament passages. In addition to Ezekiel 36:24-27, they include Ezekiel 37: 1-11:

¹The hand of the LORD was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. ² He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. ³ He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

I said, “Sovereign LORD, you alone know.”

⁴ Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! ⁵ This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. ⁶ I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’”

⁷ So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. ⁸ I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

⁹ Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” ¹⁰ So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

¹¹ Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ ¹² Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. ¹³ Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. ¹⁴ I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.’”

Moreover, there is Isaiah 44:1-5:

¹ “But now listen, Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. ² This is what the LORD says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. ³ For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. ⁴ They will spring up like grass in a meadow, like poplar trees by flowing streams. ⁵ Some will say, ‘I belong to the LORD’; others will call themselves by the name of Jacob; still others will write on their hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and will take the name Israel.

What about speaking in tongues?

The Revival Centres and Fellowship continues to promote a myth first published many years ago. The claim runs along the lines, ‘The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound…’ of verse eight, is a reference to the voice of speaking in tongues (see SPEAKING IN TONGUES). In an article published at the Brisbane Revival Fellowship website in 2006,[9] pastor Brad Smith stated the word phōne was always translated voice in the English New Testament, excepting for our verse. Smith’s implication was the translators were inconsistent, and so we should read voice rather than sound in our verse. I have read and heard many appeals made to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defending this interpretation over the years, but they invariably fall over. First, Revivalists are superimposing a preferred theology onto the text’s actual meaning. Second, Strong's Concordance is fundamentally inadequate in determining the semantic range of meaning for the words φωνή (phōne), translated sound, and ἀκούω (akouō), or hear. The reference in Strong's Concordance for phōne is a scant four lines long. Bauer's Lexicon,[10] the academic standard for biblical Greek, devotes an entire column and a half to the word quoting scores of references spanning the Greek translation of the Old Testament through the New Testament, and to sources contemporary to the New Testament. What we discover is the word has a far broader range than pastor Smith claimed, or Strong's Concordance infers. As but one example, phōne can refer to music produced by instruments,[11] with this meaning also found in our New Testament.[12] The English translation of phōne in John 3:8 is correct—no voice was intended, just a sound. 

Even should one wish to promote the incorrect position that voice is the primary meaning of phōne, we can readily dismiss John 3:8 as a reference to speaking in tongues. Alongside Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Vine’s Expository Dictionary is another older, entry-level reference frequently appealed to as authoritative in the Revival Centres and Fellowship.[13] Under the heading ‘HEAR, HEARING’[14] Dr Vine discusses several passages highlighting the marked difference in meaning that variation in grammatical case has on Greek words. He describes the change in outcome that results when akouō appears in the genitive case, in contrast to the accusative. He does this by commenting on an apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9. He writes, ‘The former indicates a hearing of the sound; the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived (Cremer[15]).’

With respect to our current passage Dr Vine wrote, “In John 3:25, 28, the genitive case is used, indicating a 'sensational perception' that the Lord's voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the wind the accusative is used, stressing the thing perceived.'" 

The point missed by pastor Smith in his article, the point missed by Revival Centres and Fellowship leaders and apologists who attempt to pry their mistaken doctrine from our passage is this: akouō does not automatically mean to hear something audibly; it just as likely points to perceiving something spiritually. As Dr Vine so clearly described in his dictionary, this is precisely what Jesus intended in John 3:8.

Conclusion

Nicodemus categorically demonstrated that he was unregenerate, unspiritual, and unsaved. Consequently, he did not possess the insight that comes from being regenerate, spiritual, and saved. Nicodemus completely missed what Jesus the Messiah-King was saying to him, because he was looking at the matter from a purely natural angle. One can make the argument the same rings true for those in the Revival Centres and Fellowship[16].

To close, John 3:8 does not teach that baptism by water followed by the Holy Spirit will lead to the 'voice' of speaking in tongues. What it conclusively demonstrates, however, is that unregenerate people will miss completely the point Jesus made between earthly/natural understanding, and spiritual/supernatural perception.

[1] See, e.g. E.E. Reynolds, The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel, in the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9/1-2, 1988

[2] Josephus, The Jewish War 2.17.10; b. Talmud Ta’anit 19b

[3] The adverb means, ‘from above’, or ‘from a higher place’. By analogy the word can also mean, ‘from the beginning; again.’ The adverb appears 13 times in the New Testament, and is used exclusively in contexts involving God initiating action

[4] The verb means, ‘to see properly’. By implication, it refers ‘to knowing’ something in the sense of grasping its significance.

[5] See, e.g. E. Richard, Expressions of Double Meaning and their Function in the Gospel of John, New Testament Studies 31, 1988

[6] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, p. 183, InterVarsity, 1991

[7] The noun can mean, ‘wind, breath or spirit’, depending on the context.

[8] See Genesis 1:2

[9] My response to Brad Smith’s article prompted a spirited debate on the BRF forum. When I categorically disproved his position, the complete thread was deleted and pastor Smith’s article was removed from public display

[10] FW Danker, et al (ed.), A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., University of Chicago Press, 2000

[11] Plato’s Republic 3. 397a

[12] See Matthew 24:31; 1 Corinthians 14:7; Revelation 8:13

[13] Leaders in the Revival Centres and Fellowship must necessarily rely on these dated resources, as none of them have first-hand competence in the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek

[14] S.v. ‘HEAR, HEARING’ pp. 534, 535 in W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Nelson Publishers, 1997

[15] The reference is to Herman Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität, Perthes, 1885

[16] Like Nicodemus, the common Revival Centres and Fellowship position with respect to our passage is based on a complete misunderstanding born of earthly/natural thinking

Good morning, All.

Posted below is an updated revision of my essay on Pentecost, which I trust some might find useful in making sense of one of Revivalism's most significant doctrinal errors.

Blessings,

Ian

Pentecost

This essay will provide a close reading and analysis of the first two chapters of the Acts of the Apostles[1]. We will do this to review the doctrines promoted by the Revival Centres and Fellowship, in order to provide a biblically informed assessment of their teaching.[2]

This is necessary given the Revival Centres and Fellowship teaches a personal Pentecost is essential in order to be saved. Put slightly differently, they believe the signs and significance of Pentecost are not only repeatable for every individual believer, but necessary.

I contend this is not the case. Furthermore, that the subjective personal experience promoted as fundamentally necessary by the Revival Centres and Fellowship cannot be established from what the first two chapters of the Acts objectively presents. 

Author, date and purpose

The traditional opinion is Luke the Evangelist wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a companion work to his earlier Gospel. Both were addressed to Theophilus,[3] who Luke called κράτιστε (kratiste) or ‘most excellent’. This formal title was generally reserved for Romans of high status,[4] so it is likely Theophilus was an influential patron for Christians in Rome.[5] During the first century it was common for letters to be published; they were read to, shared with and discussed among friends and social contacts. As the Acts of the Apostles was written in an educated and literary form of common Greek, it is very likely the work was prepared for this purpose.

Both the Gospel According to Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles were almost certainly written in the early to mid-60’s.[6] Paul was a prisoner of Rome, and the situation for Christians living throughout the Empire under Emperor Nero was perilous. Luke may have intended his two-volume work to defend Jesus’ message before those who would otherwise view it as subversive, and threatening to the Pax Romana.[7]

Given these sorts of features it is doubtful Luke’s two letters were intended for a strictly Christian audience.[8]  Luke-Acts presents the message that Christianity did not pose a threat to proper Roman social, legal or political order; the sorts of concepts that would not have been required had the letters been meant only for Christians. This does not diminish the fact of the work being read, copied, taught from and cherished by believers from the mid- first century onwards.

The structure of the Acts of the Apostles

The text of the Acts of the Apostles circulated in the early Church in two quite distinct forms. The earliest witnesses include fifteen Greek papyri dating from the third through seventh centuries, and five major majuscule manuscripts dating from the fourth and fifth centuries.[9] There are also early Latin, Syriac, and Palestinian Aramaic, Coptic and Ethiopic translations from the first five centuries, all of which are quite fragmentary in nature.

Thematically the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles comprise a two-part work; the former addresses the earthly ministry of Jesus, identifying him as the long anticipated Jewish Messiah-King. It presents Jesus’ message about the irrupting Kingdom of God.[10] In the Acts the glorified King Jesus is translated from earth to heaven—chapter one. However, his teaching and his ministry continues through the Holy Spirit working in the lives of his chosen apostles—chapter two onwards. There is a clear focus on Peter in chapters one through twelve, which then shifts to Paul in chapters thirteen through twenty-eight. The Christian mission is to the Jews in the first half of the book, and the gentiles in the second half.

The blueprint for the unfolding mission is summarized in chapter one, verse eight. The resurrected Jesus commissions his apostles with the words, ‘… you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the very end of the earth.’

Overview of chapter one

In the first five verses of chapter one Luke records Jesus teaching the surviving apostles.

In the first book, O Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the Kingdom of God. And while staying with them, he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which he said, ‘you heard from me. For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’

A critical aspect of the ability to read well, is the capacity to follow a storyline by tracing the thematic flow while keeping important details, such as the key characters, in clear focus. Luke was a good writer. He used a literary form of the common Greek of the day, and he was scrupulous in following proper grammatical and syntactical conventions. By-and-large the English translations of Acts do the same. As readers, we must look for these grammatical and syntactical markers to ensure we understand who was talking about what, to whom. As will become very clear shortly, the leaders of the Revival Centres and Fellowship have not done this.  

Chapter one opens with Luke introducing the resurrected Jesus and his eleven surviving apostles. The noun τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (tois apostolois) or the apostles, is the noun in verse two that the pronoun αὐτοῖς (autois) or them in verses three and four, and the implied plurals you heard in verse four (ἠκούσατέ—ēkousate), and you shall be baptized (βαπτισθήσεσθε—baptisthēsesthe) in verse five refers back to. The Greek and English languages both have a rule of grammar known as concord. This requires a pronoun to point back to a previously mentioned noun known as its antecedent/referent. The relationship between the two is obvious given the pronoun shares the same grammatical case, gender and number as the noun it points back to. Although verbs conjugate differently to nouns, they do not have case for example, they do retain number and this helps in identifying grammatical relationships.

If you re-read the first five verses of chapter one, you will quickly identify that only Jesus and his surviving apostles are in the storyline. The pronouns used to refer to Jesus are he, his, himself, and me. The pronouns used to describe the apostles are them and you. The colour-coding of the nouns and pronouns helps to draw out the connections.

So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know the times or seasons the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.’ And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

We can categorically state that Jesus gave a very specific command: not to depart from Jerusalem, to a very specific group: to the apostles whom he had chosen, with a very specific promise: that you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.[11] There is absolutely no mention of any other believers being directed to do anything up to this point, never mind the one hundred and twenty we read of later.

Grammatical analysis

Οἱ μὲν οὖν (hoi men oun) translated so when they in verse six, is a favourite formula Luke used in his Acts.[12] It appears sixty-eight times to open a new section of narrative. The connection is clear as the antecedent/referent to the particle translated they in verse six is the apostles from verse two. Jesus amplified the purpose of his promise about the Spirit baptism the apostles would soon receive. Using an implied future verb Jesus said, λήμψεσθε δύναμιν (lēmpsesthe dunamin), you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. And, ἔσεσθέ (esesthe) you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, et cetera. This was to be no run-of-the-mill Christian experience. We are told the power the apostles alone would receive, would enable them to be Christ’s special witnesses before the world.

This does not speak to a general salvation experience.

Saved pre-Pentecost—a brief digression 

Contrary to what is promoted within the Revival Centres and Fellowship, Jesus said absolutely nothing about the apostles being saved as a consequence of them being baptized with God’s Holy Spirit at Pentecost. In the tenth chapter of his Gospel, Luke wrote about Jesus sending his seventy (-two) disciples before him to preach the Good News about the Kingdom of God. When they later regrouped with him, the returning disciples said, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!’ Jesus responded to them, ‘Do not rejoice that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.’[13]

Several factors warrant mentioning about this apparently incidental comment. First, ἐγγράφω (engraphō) properly means to enrol, and in common usage referred to the listing of names in a Roman city’s roll of citizens.[14] The verb in our passage is the perfective aspect, indicative form ἐγγέγραπται (engegraptai). In Greek, the perfective aspect is used by a writer to describe an action that took place in the past from his perspective, but the effects of which continue into the present. Next, the indicative is the grammatical mood of assertion; the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as being real. According to Luke, the author of Acts, Jesus told his pre-Pentecost disciples to rejoice because they were citizens of heaven!

For an illustrative and topical comparison, when you have time review how Paul addressed the Christians at Philippi in his letter to them written almost thirty years after Pentecost. He contrasted the believers at Philippi with those living as ‘… enemies of the cross of Christ.’[15] Paul wrote, ‘But our citizenship is in heaven.’ The position of the Revival Centres and Fellowship—that no one was saved in a Christian sense prior to Pentecost—stands completely at odds with Jesus’ own words. And given that Luke recorded Jesus’ statement in his Gospel, it is inconceivable that he would take the position that salvation was only possible after Pentecost in his Acts of the Apostles.

To state the obvious, the Revival Centres and Fellowship are mistaken.

The upper room?

In chapter one verses thirteen and fourteen Luke stated that while they were staying in Jerusalem, the apostles lodged in an upper room.[16] This accommodation they shared with ‘…the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.’[17] The close-knit family group was said to be ‘…together,’[18] and that ‘…they devoted themselves to prayer’. This account is an expansion of what Luke shared about the domestic situation in his Gospel.[19] Note carefully, it is not until verse fifteen where the emphasis of the action shifts from the apostles to a broader and more inclusive group of Jesus’ followers. This we shall now consider.

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company was about one hundred and twenty) and said, ‘Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’

We will reflect on the significance of the opening clause shortly. For the moment note that Peter included the surviving apostles within the larger group of disciples in order to arrive at the approximate number of one hundred and twenty people. This larger group is called τῶν ἀδελφῶν (tōn adelphōn), which as a plural, masculine pronoun literally means the brothers. While the grammatical gender is masculine, ἀδελφός (adelphos) has a generic and inclusive sense when used in the plural, which is why it is ordinarily translated brothers and sisters, or brethren in most English Bibles. Given their large number, it is likely they met in one of the antechambers of the Jerusalem Temple.[20]

It is worth noting that archaeological surveys in Jerusalem have demonstrated the upper room or roof space of the average first century well-to-do four to five roomed house was capable of accommodating no more than thirty people. Not only would space and privacy become a problem through overcrowding, the greater issue was the largely mud brick and wood construction would not have had the structural integrity required to support any weight beyond this number of people. Quite simply, if one hundred and twenty people were staying in the upper room, then the house would have collapsed!

The election of Matthias

To return now to the significance of the opening clause of verse fifteen. Luke intentionally chose ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις (en tais hēmerais tautais), translated in those days, to begin verse fifteen, given it introduces the common Greek literary device of parenthesis. This involved the introduction of information considered incidental to the main point of a narrative.[21] Luke used exactly the same clause four times in his Gospel, and thrice in Acts to achieve this effect. It was a way of indicating a temporary branch or transition in a story.[22] It also marks the beginning of a minor break in the narrative,[23] but it also indicates a more definite break then does the previously discussed hoi men oun.[24] The rhetorical effect highlights the shift between the specific domestic situation of the apostles, Mary, the women, and Jesus’ brothers, from the much larger group referred to as the brethren. Consequently, there is no basis in the text as we have it for the mistaken belief that one hundred and twenty Christians were in the habit of meeting in an upper room prior to Pentecost. The final chapter of Luke’s Gospel speaks against it,[25] the Greek text of Acts chapter one speaks against it, and the archaeological record also speaks against it.

Structurally the parenthesis extends from verses fifteen through twenty-six. Its purpose was to demonstrate the replacement of Judas Iscariot by Matthias, thereby restoring the number of apostles to twelve. Literarily then, the only reason Luke included the incidental information about the one hundred and twenty was to explain the fact of there being twelve apostles described at Pentecost in chapter two, rather than the eleven described earlier in chapter one.

Verses twenty-one and twenty-two reads, ‘So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us ... one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’ The singular pronoun ἀνδρῶν (andrōn) one of the men, is distinguished from the first person plural masculine pronoun ἡμῖν (hēmin), us. The singular pronoun ἡμῶν (hēmōn), one of these men, is also distinguished from the plural pronoun σὺν ἡμῖν (sun hēmin), with us. Peter clearly distinguished the apostles from the others who were tangentially mentioned the passage.

And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’ And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

The discussion quickly shifted from the incidental commentary about the one hundred and twenty of verse fifteen, to the apostles from verse sixteen onwards. Note it was the surviving apostles who put forward the two candidates for the vacant apostolate, and not the one hundred and twenty as is often assumed. The antecedent/referent for the plural verb ἔστησαν (estēsan), they put forward, is the first person plural masculine pronoun σὺν ἡμῖν (sun hēmin) with us of verse twenty-two. This also applies for the plural participle προσευξάμενοι (proseuxamenoi) they prayed of verse twenty-four, and the plural indicative verb ἔδωκαν κλήρους (edōkan klērous) they cast lots of verse twenty-six.  

With the closing of verse twenty-six we reach the point in the text where the narrative of chapter one concludes as it began, with the apostles as the very clear subject.

The coming of the Spirit

When the day of Pentecost arrived; they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like the roar of a mighty wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues like fire appeared to them, and rested on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit enabled them.

The opening four verses of chapter two signals the beginning of the fulfilment of the commission promised by the resurrected Jesus to his apostles (see vv. 1:4, 5 and 8). The timing was significant. The celebration of Pentecost occurred on the fiftieth day from Passover. The first Passover took place in Egypt when God entered into a covenant with the descendants of Abraham to spare their lives from his angel of death, and to release them from their bondage under Pharaoh. Fifty days after fleeing Egypt, Israel found themselves at the foot of Mount Sinai awaiting Moses’ return from communing with God. The delivery of the Law in the form of the Ten Commandments confirmed the covenant was in effect.

Pentecost in Jewish tradition 

Philo Judaeus was a devout Jewish elder who lived at Alexandria in North Africa.[26] He was a contemporary of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Philo recorded the Jewish tradition about God giving the law to Israel at Sinai in his exposition, De Decalogo (On the Ten Commandments). Composed sometime before AD 25,[27] he had the following to say: 

I should suppose that God wrought on this occasion a miracle of a truly holy kind by bidding an invisible sound to be created in the air, one more marvellous than all the instruments. He fitted it with perfect harmonies, not soulless, not composed of body and soul like a living creature, but a rational voice full of clarity and distinctiveness. Which, giving shape and tension to the air, and changing it to a flaming fire, it sounded forth like breath through a trumpet an articulate voice so loud that it appeared to be equally audible to the farthest as well as those nearest it. From the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience, and so clearly and distinctly were the words formed that they seemed to see rather than hear them.[28]

Philo’s account contains striking parallels to what Luke left us in the second chapter of Acts. Both describe events that took place at the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost. Both drew significance from a Passover experience, and Israel was represented as standing before God on both occasions.[29] God ratified the covenant at both, and he apparently chose the same supernatural signs to do so: the forming of a miraculous sound in the air, which then transformed into a flaming fire, which later became a rational and articulate voice heard and understood by all present.

They were all together in one place

It is critical to establish who the pronoun they corresponds to in the first verse of chapter one, given that it was they who were ‘… all together in one place.’[30] Concord requires the antecedent/referent is the last noun mentioned sharing the same case, person, gender and number as the pronoun. In this instance the pronoun is implied, 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 τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων (tōn hendeka apostolōn—the eleven apostles) with whom Matthias was numbered. Syntactically, the parenthetical clause αὐτὸ ὡσεὶ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι (auto hōsei hekaton eikosi) ‘…about one hundred and twenty’, is separated from the ἦσαν πάντες ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (ēsan pantes omou epi to auto) ‘… they, who were all together in one place’, by a score of subsequent clauses, every one of which had the apostles as the referent. Consequently, the one hundred and twenty of verse fifteen is simply far too dislocated syntactically and structurally to be grammatically plausible.[31]

According to Luke, the only people who were promised a baptism in the Holy Spirit for empowerment at Pentecost were the apostles. We read this in chapter one. According to Luke, the only people who experienced the shekinah hovering over them; the only people who spoke in authentic yet unlearned human languages at Pentecost, were the twelve apostles. We read this in chapter two.

The Revival Centres and Fellowship continues to promote and defend a doctrine that Lloyd Longfield arrived at because he failed to properly read the letter that Luke wrote to Theophilus. Longfield apparently had a self-defining spiritual experience. Consequently, when he read the first two chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, he read his experience back into the text, rather than reading out from the text the message it actually contained! We shall return to this point later.

The location of Pentecost 

We will now consider where the apostles were located when the Pentecostal phenomena occurred. The second verse of chapter two states τὸν οἶκον (ton oikon) or the house. But which house is implied? There are two logical options: the house in which the upper room was located (so chapter one, verses thirteen and fourteen); or the figurative house of God—the Temple (so chapter two, verse forty-six). Sound arguments exist in support of both locations. With respect to the upper room, Luke stated the apostles, the women, and Jesus’ immediate family were in the habit of staying there. Also, Luke nowhere else uses the word οἶκος (oikos) or house in his Acts to refer to the Temple, preferring instead τὸν ἱερoν (ton hieron) or the Temple.

However, we should reflect on several important considerations. First, Pentecost was a Jewish high feast day. Consequently, all devout male Jews would be in the Temple precincts worshipping God. Second, verse fifteen 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 three prescribed hours of prayer for faithful Jewish men.[32] Third, in the last verse of his Gospel Luke mentioned the apostles were continually at the Temple.[33] The combination of these reasons is conclusive for me. Having spent quite a bit of time mulling over the pros and cons for both positions over the years, my judgment favours the Jewish Temple rather than a strictly domestic setting. The Court of Israel seems as likely a location as any, given it was where devout Jewish men gathered for prayer and teaching. It was immediately before the Court of Priests, and immediately past the Court of Women, so it was the one location in Jerusalem where all Israel could have witnessed the remarkable events Luke described.

The specifics

A popular quip reads, a text without its context is a pretext for a prooftext.[34] We cannot escape that Luke expressly identified three inter-linked and wholly miraculous manifestations. The first was a roaring sound at height, one that was outwardly similar to a ferocious windstorm. Luke tells us the sound then fell, and that it rushed into the place where the twelve apostles were sitting, filling it with noise. That the apostles were sitting is very significant. First century Jews prayed and worshipped God in one of three postures: they stood with their arms outstretched. They kneeled, with the forehead touching the ground, and their arms extended outwards. Or they lay fully prostrate, with the arms outstretched.[35] Sitting only took place in the intermissions between the prayers, and the singing of the psalms. That God arrived as he did, when he did, demonstrated that he caught the apostles and everyone else completely unawares, as the apostles were neither praying nor worshipping at the time.[36]

We note there was a visible, hovering, sheet-like flame, which parted and rested on each apostle individually (so verse three). This shekinah ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς (ōphthēsan autois) appeared to them. The plural, masculine adjective autois (them) is a reference to the plural masculine genitive noun τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων (the eleven apostles). The case is genitive only due to the implicit possession involved in the final verse of chapter one.[37]

Finally, we must consider what was intended by the clauses ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου (eplēsthēsan pantes pneumatos hagiou) they were filled with the Holy Spirit; and ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις (ērxanto lalein heterais glossais) they began to speak in other languages (see SPEAKING IN TONGUES). The third person plural pronouns implicit in the plural verbs they were filled, and they began to speak, refer back to τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων (the eleven apostles) of chapter one, verse twenty-six. Again, we can conclusively dismiss the incidental one hundred and twenty of verse fifteen on grammatical and syntactical grounds.

Pentecost and the Revival Centres and Fellowship

In chapter one Jesus Christ promised his apostles that they alone would be baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to receive the power they needed to represent him as his specially selected witnesses before the world. In chapter two we see the fulfilment, and we note a series of very specific and miraculous manifestations that surrounded the Spirit-baptized apostles.

The question that now begs asking is: how does the personal Pentecost experience of the Revival Centres and Fellowship match the details that Luke specified in his account of Pentecost? If the Pentecost experience is intended to be timeless and repeatable; if the Pentecost experience is mandatory as the Revival Centres and Fellowship maintains, then Luke’s record and the Revivalist’s so-called personal Pentecost experience must of necessity match in every way. If they do not, then clearly two distinguishable and separable occurrences are involved.  

Luke described three supernatural portents. There was the sound of a violent windstorm, there was a visible manifestation of a hovering and dividing flame-like sheet, and there was the manifestation of unlearned, but recognizable human languages. The Old Testament provides examples of God’s Spirit being likened to fire or wind, which was occasionally accompanied by a voice.[38] We notice that what occurred at the Christian Pentecost bore a striking resemblance to events that Jewish tradition recorded at the giving of the Law at Sinai. First, all Israel was gathered before God at his holy place (Mount Sinai, and the Jerusalem Temple). Second, there was a miracle of hearing, quickly followed by a miracle of seeing, which was quickly followed by a miracle of speaking.

Both events involved the ratification of a covenant between God and his called-out people, Israel/the Church. Necessarily therefore, the setting was corporate rather than individual for both. Next, the purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was to focus attention on the baptizer, on Jesus Christ the new Law Giver fulfilling and replacing Moses the old Law Giver. 

When comparing the specifics between Pentecost as recorded by Luke, to what the Revival Centres and fellowship claims for themselves, we see no parallels whatsoever. They are nothing alike.

At Pentecost the twelve apostles were distinguished as Jesus’ specially commissioned corporate representatives; they were a small group of men who were fully empowered for their special service through the Spirit, and who were charged with continuing Jesus’ work before the world. Further, in his Gospel Luke recorded Jesus declaring these men saved before Pentecost. By contrast the Revival Centres and Fellowship has taken a corporate event, and transformed it into something individual. The Revival Centres and Fellowship has taken a specific empowering for apostolic service, and transformed it into the entry point for individual salvation. The focus of the Revival Centres and Fellowship has shifted away from the relationship between Jesus Christ and his apostles, to the Holy Spirit and the individual Revivalist. And even a fleeting assessment of the personal Pentecost of the Revival Centres and Fellowship must acknowledge the three corporate audio-visual miracles described by Luke are altogether missing. Where is the miracle of hearing? Where is the overwhelming sound of a violent windstorm in the experience of the Revivalist? Where is the miracle of seeing? Where is the hovering shekinah flame in the experience of the Revivalist? And where is the miracle of speaking? Where is the authentication by others of miraculously spoken human languages in the experience of the Revivalist?[39]

No member of the Revival Centres and Fellowship can claim their so-called Holy Ghost experience is the same as what took place on the Day of Pentecost. They are different in both the generalities and the specifics. This leads me to pose a rhetorical question: given they are clearly not the same, what are the implications for members of the Revival Centres and Fellowship?[40]

The immediate effect

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

The crowd who witnessed the events at the Jerusalem Temple that morning comprised two distinguishable groups. There were Judean Jews, local natives of Palestine; and there were Jews from across the Diaspora, people who had travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts of Passover and Pentecost.[41] The local Jews spoke Aramaic and Greek, while the visitors spoke Greek and the languages of their respective home communities.

Luke recorded the effect on the visitors when they recognized the substance of the apostles’ inspired speech. There was an immediate upheaval. The members of the Jewish Diaspora knew the tradition recorded by Philo about giving of the Law at Sinai, and yet some locals saw fit to challenge the work of God by accusing the apostles of public drunkenness, which they caustically said was caused by too much ‘new wine’[42] (see ALCOHOL AND REVIVALISM). 

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted his voice and addressed them, ‘Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. These people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall 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. Even on my male servants and my female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

Peter stood—up to this point he was seated, passive, as the miraculous events and their aftershock unfolded around him. And as he rose, so too did his eleven peer apostles. As the apostolic spokesman, Peter began to reason with his countrymen by appealing to their shared Scriptures and Messianic expectations. 

Did you happen to notice the assembled Jews identified that the people miraculously speaking in unlearned human languages were all Galileans (see 2:7)? Luke did this by using a contextually masculine pronoun: the plural demonstrative οὗτοι (houtoi). Some English versions translate the pronoun as ‘people’, but as its grammatical referent is ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι (andres galilaioi), the men of Galilee mentioned by the angels in chapter one verse eleven, it is an explicit reference to the male apostles. This is further borne out in the fact that Jesus’ followers included women, Judeans and other non-Galilean Jews, so clearly it cannot include them. All twelve apostles were Galilean men.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

How should we understand Peter’s loose quotation from Joel? First, it is important to recognize that Peter was citing the Greek translation of the book rather than from the Hebrew original.[43] The Greek version was the Scriptures for Jews of the Diaspora. Peter explained the phenomena as the fulfilment of Joel 2:28-32 in the LXX, which corresponds to 3:1-5 in the Hebrew version.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-twentieth century highlighted a common form of biblical interpretation used by Jews during the first century: pesher (פשר, ‘to interpret’). Two aspects of the method are noteworthy. First, pesher sought to explain the fulfilment of biblical prophecy via contemporary events. Second, while it emphasized the fulfilment of prophecy, it did so without necessarily exegeting the details of a given passage.[44] Consequently, we might think of pesher as big-picture interpretation.[45] We know that Peter was using this method because he employed the standard pesher formula, ‘this is that.’

Joel’s apocalypse 

The historical context of the passage from Joel related to the closing of the age, which would usher in the much-anticipated Day of the Lord. The Jews believed this apocalyptic event would vindicate Israel, and humble Rome. Of course, the very same theme formed the basis for Jesus’ message of the irrupting and apocalyptic Kingdom of God. However, the two perspectives were markedly different. To Jews the apocalypse was a time of gloom, darkness and judgment. For Jesus it signified God’s grace and mercy being extended to humanity, and so included opportunity for repentance. In this Israel would play a significant role.

The prophet Moses prayed that Covenant Israel would become a nation of prophets.[46] God destined Israel to be a light to the Gentiles.[47] Joel developed this theme, and prophesied of the time when God’s Spirit would rest on his covenant people. From a Jewish perspective, Pentecost AD30 was the fulfilment of God’s promise to his chosen people Israel, and it was for this reason that representatives from all the tribes, those of Judea as those of the Diaspora, were present. The context was fully Jewish.

Who is Jesus?

‘Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore, my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh will also dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’

‘Brothers, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’

Peter addressed representative Israel gathered at the Temple. He explained the prophetic significance of the various manifestations by referring to the well-known apocalyptic passage in the prophecy of Joel. He then directed the attention of his audience towards Jesus—God’s appointed Messiah-King. Jesus was both the cause of, and the agent for the fulfilment of the promises that had unfolded before their eyes. Peter quoted Psalms 16:8-11 and 110:1, again from the Greek Old Testament, and he did this to establish the superiority of Jesus Christ over King David. Peter asserted that David was simply a man, and being mortal, he died and was buried and awaits the eventual resurrection of the body to life. However, while Jesus was also a man, he was at the same time much more. As a man he lived and died, but as God’s Messiah-King he was not destined for physical decay awaiting the resurrection. As God’s Messiah-King Jesus rose again to life, and what the Jews had just witnessed in the Temple was a vindication of this claim.

The effect

Peter’s audience is described as being in a state of considerable agitation and turmoil. Everyone knew of Jesus of Nazareth. Many had witnessed his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, followed shortly thereafter by his execution on a Roman cross. Some considered him a well-meaning but misguided fool, while to others he was a demonized deceiver. The visiting Jews possibly heard the rumours circulating about his tomb being empty, and now these men had become eyewitnesses to an event that bore too many striking parallels to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai to be simply coincidence. As eyewitnesses they were obliged under Jewish law to render a verdict as to its cause.[48] Peter’s explanation, drawn from their Scriptures, made perfect sense in light of the events of the past seven weeks.

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, to every one whom the Lord our God calls.’

I have argued at length elsewhere that the Revival Centres and Fellowship has misunderstood, misconstrued and misapplied the meaning Peter intended his hearers to grasp from these verses (see ACTS 2:38). For the moment I will point out that verse thirty-eight is not a blueprint for how everyone through every age receives eternal life (see THE GOSPEL).

Peter’s proclamation concerning Jesus being Israel’s Messiah-King was effective. Verse thirty-seven records the desperate cry of men fearing for the continued existence of their nation.[49] In responding to them, Peter identified that being Jewish by birth or conversion was not sufficient to be considered right in the sight of God. However, he also emphasized that God had not given up on his Israel. He stressed this via two exhortations, and by two promises. The exhortations involved the Jews repenting of their misplaced racial pride, by identifying with Jesus through baptism in his name. If they complied, then Peter promised they would receive God’s Holy Spirit, as would their children. The immediate context of our passage is neither timeless nor universal, but immediate and thoroughly Jewish.[50]

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’  Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common.  They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the good will of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.[51]

Three thousand Israelites perished when they turned from God after Moses delivered the law at the first Pentecost.[52] At the Christian Pentecost three thousand Israelites turned to God and were saved. These Jews repented, and on repenting they received God’s Holy Spirit and were baptized. Did you happen to notice that Luke gave no indication of a repeating of the outwardly miraculous signs? To the contrary these new Christians are described as being awestruck ‘… at the wonders and signs performed by the apostles.’ [53]

At Pentecost three thousand Jews were converted to Christ. They repented, and on repenting they received the Holy Spirit and were baptized. But they did not experience the sound of a violent windstorm. They did not experience the shekinah flame resting on them. They did not miraculously speak in authentic human languages. Their experience was unlike that of the twelve apostles, because its purpose was different. And, as verse forty-three makes plain, only the apostles performed ‘… wonders and signs.’

Conclusion

Acts chapters one and two demonstrates a very specific promise, involving a very specific empowering, that was intentionally limited to the twelve apostles for a very specific reason. Consequently, it would be unwise to assume that the apostles’ encounter with the Spirit at Pentecost was intended to be normative for all subsequent generations of believers. The subsequent encounters in the Acts of the Apostles, along with Paul’s doctrinal letters, clearly demonstrates otherwise.[54]

Luke was a sometimes companion of the apostle Paul, and Paul declared that baptism in/being filled with the Holy Spirit in a more general sense, was a universal Christian experience.[55] However, nowhere in any of his letters did Paul tie the experience of the apostles’ Spirit baptism for empowerment at Pentecost, to the gift of the Holy Spirit given to believers in salvation. Put simply, not every Spirit baptism/filling described in Scripture is of the same type, or has the same purpose, or has the same outcome.[56]      

The Revival Centres and Fellowship cannot sustain their so-called salvation doctrine of a personal Pentecost from a close reading of the first two chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. They have misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied Luke’s very clear record in their attempt to justify a contrived personal experience, one constructed around an altogether incorrect teaching regarding God the Holy Spirit, and an apparent inability to distinguish between the sign of speaking in languages described by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, from the very minor spiritual gift of speaking in unknown tongues described by Paul in his First Letter to the Church at Corinth. They are not the same.

To conclude, there are absolutely no parallels whatsoever between the events of the Day of Pentecost that we find in the Acts of the Apostles, and the contrived, subjective, and coached personal experience of the Revival Centres and Fellowship.

[1] An obvious clue to the emphasis of the work is found in the title: The Acts of the Apostles

[2] My contention is every Christian doctrine must be based on what the Bible clearly teaches in context

[3] A common enough name used by Romans, Greeks and Jews alike during the first century

[4] It is likely Theophilus was a member of the Equestrian class. In the Roman class system, the Equestrian rank was second only to the Senatorial class, from which were drawn the Emperor and Senators

[5] Patronage was an established custom in Rome. A ‘patron’ surrounded himself with a number of ‘clients’ whom he supported financially, with each party having certain rights and responsibilities to the other (see, e.g. A. Busch, J. Nichols and F. Zanella (eds.), “Patronage” in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum: Intelligentes Register, 26:1109–1138, 2005)

[6] Scholarly consensus dates Luke-Acts two to three decades later; however, such is open to considerable challenge (see, e.g. J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1976)

[7] The so-called Peace of Rome: the social, legal and political order established, and defended, by Roman military force

[8] This diminishes the Revivalist assertion that the entire New Testament is strictly Christian mail, and therefore is (1) not intended for non-Christians, and (2) cannot properly be understood by non-Christians

[9] Majuscule refers to the type of writing, being upper case. These manuscripts were written on a fine leather known as vellum, and so they were very costly to produce

[10] Irruption, as opposed to eruption, refers to God’s sovereign rule forcefully breaking in to human history in an open and miraculous way

[11] The specificity is equally as obvious in English translations as it is in the underlying Greek text

[12] Cf. 1:18, 2:41, 5:41, 8:4 and 25, 9:31, 11:19, 12:5, 13:4, 15:3 and 30, and 16:5

[13] The Gospel According to Luke 10: 17 and 20

[14] S.v. ἐγγράφω, Liddel, Scott, Jones A Greek-English Lexicon, 9^th ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1925

[15] Philippians 3:20

[16] Possibly the site of the Last Supper

[17] Matthew 13:55 (Mark 6:3) names them as James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon and Judas (or Jude). Very early Church tradition names his sisters Salome and Mary (so, for example, Epiphanius, Pan. 78.8.1; 78.9.6)

[18] By the first century ὁμοθυμαδὸν (homothumadon) had come to mean ‘together’, in contrast to the Attic Greek meaning of ‘one accord’

[19] See Luke 24:33-47

[20] So, Luke 24:53

[21] The compound word comprises παρά (para), ‘beside’; εν (en), ‘in’; and θέσις (thesis), ‘placing’. The word parenthesis literally means ‘placing in beside’, and is an explanatory clause, phrase, or discourse inserted as an aside or digression, that if removed would not affect the internal coherence of a written account

[22] B. Newman and E. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, United Bible Societies, New York, 1972, p. 24

[23] Cf. 6:1 and 11:27 in the Greek

[24] E.g. in 1:6

[25] See Luke 24:33ff

[26] Philo was born around 20BC. He was a prolific writer; a renowned thinker, and a strident apologist for his faith and people

[27] Philo likely wrote this work between AD 20 and AD 30. We know he wrote De Decalogo before his visit to the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula, which took place in AD 38, and that he published all of his works prior to his death in AD 45. In short, his recording of the Pentecost phenomena that accompanied the giving of the Law took place, at best, ten years before the events of the Christian Pentecost, and at the very latest, ten years before Luke wrote Acts

[28] Philo Judaeus, De Decalogo: 32-33 and 46. The English translation is my own, which I based on standard critical Greek text of the Works of Philo of Alexandra in the Loeb Classical Library edition published by Harvard University Press, 1931

[29] Note the implications of 2:5 and 22. This is damaging to the 19^th century British-Israel myth that seeks an artificial distinction between the terms Israel and Jew

[30] Manuscripts 326, 614 and 1505 adds οἱ ἀπόστολοι (i.e. ‘they, the apostles, were all together in one place’

[31] See, M.C. Parsons and M.M. Culy, ACTS: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament series, Baylor University Press, 2003. Also, M.L. Sweeney, The Identity of “they” in Acts 2.1, Bible Translator Vol. 46, no. 2, United Bible Societies, April 1995

[32] The first hour of prayer (9.00am) was known as shacharit. The second (3.00pm) was called minchah, while the third hour of prayer (6.00pm) was known as ma’ariv

[33] Luke 24:53

[34] Understanding and appreciating context is critical to the responsible interpretation of Scripture

[35] L. Ginzbeg, “Adoration, Forms of” in The Jewish Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-1906

[36] Contrast this with the practice in the Revival Centres and Fellowship of ‘seeking’ or praying for the Holy Spirit. The apostles were seeking nothing, and were not praying at the time the promised Spirit baptism took place

[37] The genitive case of Greek nouns and pronouns indicates possession, or close association

[38] See, for example, Exodus 3:2

[39] Multiple studies into modern ‘tongues speech’ have been conducted during the past seventy years. In spite of populist claims to the contrary (e.g. C. Brumback, “What Meaneth This?”: A Pentecostal answer to a Pentecostal Question, Elim Publishing n.d.), not a single example of xenolalia—the miraculous speaking of unlearned yet authentic human languages has ever been established. See e.g. V. Poythress, “Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitations”, in W.E. Mills (ed.) Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, Eerdmans, 1986; and M.J. Cartledge, Charismatic Glossolalia: An empirical-theological study, Ashgate, 2002

[40] I would strongly encourage reading and reflecting on the implications of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:21-23

[41] The Diaspora was the result of the forced dispersion of Israel by the Assyrians and Babylonians. It is from this dispersion that Revivalists presume there to be the so-called ‘ten lost tribes of Israel’, whom they mistakenly identify with the Anglo-Saxon peoples. See, e.g. T. Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth, Orion, 2002

[42] The charge of public drunkenness in the Temple introduced risk to the apostles

[43] The Septuagint, abbreviated by the Latin numerals LXX

[44] A common pesher precept was Qal va-wahomer (קל וחומר), to argue from the lesser to the greater

[45] So, L. H. Schiffman, ‘Pesharim’, in The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4 pp. 459-461, Abingdon Press, 2009

[46] Numbers 11:29

[47] Isaiah 49:6

[48] m. Sanhedrin 4.5.2

[49] The Old Testament record is replete with God punishing Israel when they depart from his law

[50] See, e.g. Isaiah 49 and Ezekiel 36:22-37

[51] Acts 2:40-47

[52] See Exodus 32:1-28

[53] See Acts 2:43

[54] See, e.g. 2 Corinthians 12:12

[55] See 1 Corinthians 12:13

[56] See, e.g. Isaiah 44:3; Matthew 3:16, 17; John 20:21-23; Acts 2:43; Acts 4:31; Acts 9:17, 18; Acts 13:49-52; Ephesians 5:15-21