Now that we’ve spent a little time considering some important background information and considerations, let’s consider the text itself.

From the start we are able to notice several important features. First we identify the setting is Jerusalem, the city where Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Next we observe the characters of the account who Luke introduces were: (1) Jesus Christ, and (2) his apostles. The plural Greek noun τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (tois apostolois), or ‘the apostles’, is the grammatical referentx in verse two to the plural pronoun αὐτοῖς (autois) translated ‘them’ in verses three and four, and ‘you’ also in verse four. Greek and English share a grammatical rule known as ‘concord’. Concord requires that a pronoun such as ‘you’, ‘he’, or ‘they’ must refer to its previously mentioned antecedent/referent noun: whether ‘Jesus’, ‘the apostles’, or whomever. The relationship can be identified because the pronoun shares the same grammatical case, gender and number as the noun it points back to.

In the first five verses of chapter one, we notice Jesus limiting his interactions to his core group of followers—the surviving apostles. When you have time, I recommend reading the parallel account in the Gospel According to Luke, chapter 24 verses 33 through 53. In the last chapter of his Gospel, Luke mentions the place where the surviving apostles, Jesus’ mother Mary, and the women were staying—the ‘upper room’ we read of in Acts. And in the first chapter of Acts, Luke identifies that the group who witnessed Jesus’ ascension were the surviving apostles. This is a good example of the Reformation rule of using ‘Scripture to interpret Scripture’ to arrive at the truth.

Now to return to Acts chapter one. As I mentioned earlier, the ‘them’ mentioned twice in the English translation of verse four corresponds to the Greek plural pronoun αὐτοῖς, which shares the earlier mentioned τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (‘the apostles’) as its referent: they share the same grammatical case, the same grammatical gender, and the same grammatical number. This is also true for the implied ‘you’xi in the second person plural verb ἠκούσατέ (ēkousate), ‘you heard’, and the implied ‘you’ in the second person plural verb βαπτισθήσεσθε (baptisthēsesthe), ‘you shall be baptised’ in verse five. Although verbs conjugate differently to nouns (they don’t have ‘case’, for example), they do retain ‘number’, and this feature helps us to identify grammatical relationships. The result is we can categorically state the central promise about being ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’ was directed to the apostles alone.

To summarize thus far: Jesus gave a very specific command: ‘not to depart from Jerusalem’ to a very specific group: ‘the apostles whom he had chosen’; with a very specific promise: that ‘you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit’xii.

6So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8But 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.” 9And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Οἱ μὲν οὖν (Hoi men oun) is translated ‘so they’, and is a favorite formula used by Luke in Actsxiii. It appears 68 times to open a new section of narrative, but in a way that ties it to the preceding section. The connection in our passage is clear, as the referent to the plural Greek particle translated ‘they’ in verse six, is ‘the apostles’ from verse two. Jesus amplified the nature of his promise concerning the baptism with the Spirit the apostles would shortly receive. Using an implied future verb Jesus’ said, λήμψεσθε δύναμιν (lēmpsesthe dunamin), ‘you shall receive power’ when the Holy Spirit has come upon ὑμᾶς (humas, the Greek plural ‘you’), and that ἔσεσθέ (esesthe), ‘you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem’, et cetera. Again, in each and every instance Jesus’ promise was limited to his core group of apostles. They alone were the subjects of Jesus’ address, given the grammatical antecedent/referent remains the τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (‘the apostles’) of verse two. 

Notably, and contrary to what you may have been taught on the subject, Jesus said nothing at this point about the apostles becoming ‘saved’ as a result of them being baptized with God’s Spirit. The text emphatically declares that Spirit baptism was necessary for ‘empowerment’; more specifically, for the ‘empowerment’ needed to support their role as Christ’s appointed eyewitnesses.
Next, in verses 13 and 14 we learn that while they were staying in Jerusalem the apostles lodged in an ‘upper room’xiv, accommodation they shared with ‘…the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers’xv. This small group was said to be ‘…of one accord’, and ‘they devoted themselves to prayer’. This is the first time in Acts that others are mentioned being in close connection with the apostles. As I indicated earlier, it is also an expansion of what Luke shared about the domestic situation in his Gospel. But note carefully, it is not until verse 15 where the emphasis of the action shifts from the apostles, to a broader and more inclusive number of Jesus’ followers.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120), and said, 16 “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. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry ... 20 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.’ 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 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.”

Peter ‘stood up’ and counted the apostles within the larger group of disciples arriving at the approximate total of one hundred and twenty, the sum total of followers who remained in and around Jerusalem after Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. Peter calls this larger group τῶν ἀδελφῶν (tōn adelphōn) or ‘the brothers’xvi, a plural, masculine pronoun. Although the grammatical gender is ‘masculine’, ἀδελφός (adelphos) often has a generic and inclusive sense when used in the plural, which is why it is frequently translated ‘brothers and sisters’ in the English Bible when the context warrants it. Archaeological remains of the 1st century ‘David’s city’ in Jerusalem show the ‘upper room’ or roof space of the average well-to-do house was capable of accommodating about 20 people at most. Not only would space and privacy become a problem through overcrowding, the greater issue was the largely brick and wood construction would not have had the structural integrity required to support any weight beyond this number of people. Put simply, if 120 people were staying in the ‘upper room’ the house would have collapsed, and the occupants would have soon found themselves in the ‘lower room’!

The clause ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις (en tais hēmerais tautais) ‘in those days’ used to introduce verse 15, distinguishes what follows from what took place immediately before, and so serves to dislocate the focus of subsequent events from former events. Luke used exactly the same clause four times in his Gospel and two other times in Acts to achieve this effect. Consequently, the clause marks the beginning of a new division in the narrative of the first half of Actsxvii (grammatically it indicates a more definite break then the previously discussed [oἱ] μὲν οὖν doesxviii). The effect is a shift between the localized and specific domestic situation of ‘… the apostles, the women and Jesus’ immediate family’, from the much broader group referred to as, ‘… the brethren’. Consequently, there is no grammatical basis whatsoever for the widespread belief the entire ‘one hundred and twenty’ were in the habit of meeting in an ‘upper room’. The final chapter of Luke’s Gospel speaks against it, and the Greek text of Acts chapter one speaks against it. And significantly, the archaeological record also speaks against it.

Next, in verses 16 through 21 Peter introduces the urgent requirement to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot, restoring the apostles to the theologically significant number of twelve. The grammatical context indicates that Luke had reverted to identifying the apostles as the subject of the discussion until verse 26. For example, in verse 16 Peter specifically addressed the group: Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (Andres adelphoi) ‘men, brothers’, which as a fully gendered statement automatically excluded any women from considerationxix. While the latter word can be used generically, as we discussed earlier; the former word cannot. Combining the two words together highlighted the male gender of Peter’s audience in a way that was completely unambiguous. Further, verse 17 specifically identified through a causal clause that Judas was: ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν (hoti katērithmēmenos ēn en hēmin) ‘numbered among us’, that is, Judas had been numbered among the apostles. Further still, Judas had been ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης (elachen ton klēron tēs diakonias tautēs) ‘allotted his share in this ministry’—the apostolic ministry. The term ἀποστόλος (apostolos) or ‘apostle’ is the first century Greek equivalent of the Hebrew (‘shaliach/shaluach’), which signified ‘a sent one’ in both languages. The custom of the time was a man's shaliach was fully empowered to represent his master in all matters: legal, social and religious. According to the Mishna, ‘a man's shaliach is like himself’xx.

(more to follow)

23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

The coming of the Spirit

1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Philo Judaeus was a devout Jewish elder who lived at Alexandria in North Africa; he was, more-or-less, a contemporary of Jesus Christ, the apostles and Paul. Philo recorded the Jewish tradition around the giving of the Law at Sinai in his exposition, De Decalogo (‘On the Ten Commandments’). Composed sometime before AD 25xxii, he had this 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 marvelous than all the instruments, and fitted with perfect harmonies, not soulless, not composed of body and soul like a living creature, a rational voice full of clarity and distinctiveness, which giving shape and tension to the air, and changing it to a flaming fire, 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.xxiii

Obviously Philo’s account is not Scripture, and so is not binding as an article of belief for Christians. But it is suggestive that in his record we are confronted with several striking parallels to what Luke recorded in the second chapter of Acts. To begin with both events took place at the ‘Feast of Weeks’, or ‘Pentecost’. Second, both events drew their significance from a Passover experience: the slaying of the lambs and the sparing of the first-born in Egypt under the Old Covenant; and the slaying of the Lamb of God, which was the sacrifice of his first born in Judea under the New Covenant. Third, ‘all Israel’ was represented as standing before God’s presence at both events, with the mediator of the Old Covenant—Moses—giving the ‘old’ law; and the mediator of the New Covenant—Jesus—giving the ‘new’ law. Fourth, it was God who announced the ratification of the covenant at both events, 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, that was understood by all present. It seems clear God expected his Israel of AD 30 to sit up and take notice, and having done so, to draw a logical conclusion concerning its significance.

Returning to chapter two, it is critical that we identify who the ‘they’ corresponds to in verse one, given that it was ‘they’ who were ‘… all together in one place’. Concord requires the antecedent/referent to a pronoun to be the last noun mentioned sharing the same case, person, gender and number as the pronoun. In this instance, however, 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 (‘the eleven apostles’), to whom was added Matthias. Syntactically, the clause αὐτὸ ὡσεὶ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι (auto hōsei hekaton eikosi) ‘about one hundred and twenty’, is separated from the clause 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, each and every one of which has the apostles as its referent. Consequently, it is difficult to miss the fact that Luke intended his readers to understand it was the apostles (i.e. the original ‘eleven’ plus Matthias) who were the focus around whom the Pentecost theophany occurred. They alone were said to be constantly in company, and they alone were promised the baptism with the Holy Spirit for ‘empowerment’ by Jesus. The ‘one hundred and twenty’ of verse 15 is simply far too dislocated, syntactically, to be grammatically plausible.xxiv

The next thing to work out is where the apostles were at the time the Pentecostal phenomena occurred. Verse two provides the referent, τὸν οἶκον (ton oikon) ‘the house’, but which house is the one implied? There are only two logical options provided from the text itself: the house in which the ‘upper room’ was located (so chapter one, verses 13 and 14); or the figurative ‘house of God—the Temple’ (so chapter two, verse 46). Sound arguments exist to support of both locations. With respect to the ‘upper room’, Luke told us the apostles, the women, and Jesus’ immediate family were in the habit of meeting there, being of ‘one mind’, and devoting themselves to prayer. Further, it is telling that Luke nowhere else uses the word οἶκος (oikos) ‘house’ to refer to the Temple in Acts. Instead we find τὸν ἱερoν (ton hieron) ‘the Temple’ in all the undisputed references. In favor of the Temple, however, we might note the following considerations: First, Pentecost was a Jewish high feast day; consequently, it was expected that all devout male Jews would be gathered in the Temple precincts, worshipping God. Second, verse 15 has Peter mentioning to the crowd that it was the ‘third hour of the day’, or nine o'clock in the morning. This was one of three prescribed hours of prayer for the Jewish faithful.xxv The combination of one of the most important days on the Jewish calendar, and the first of the three prescribed hours of prayer is telling for me. Given the tradition outlined earlier by Philo, a location where ‘all Israel’ was gathered becomes necessary. Having spent quite a bit of time mulling over the pros and cons for both positions, my own judgment favors the location as being somewhere within the general precincts of the Jewish Temple—probably the Court of Israel—rather than in a rented house. The ‘Court of Israel’ seems likely for me, as it was the location where devout Jewish men (including the apostles) gathered for prayer and teaching. As it was immediately before the ‘Court of Priests’, and immediately past the ‘Court of Women’, it was a location where ‘all Israel’ could have witnessed the remarkable events Luke described.

We should now consider the significance of the Pentecostal phenomena described by Luke. First, we cannot escape that Luke expressly identified three inter-linked and wholly miraculous manifestations. The first was a roaring sound, being outwardly similar to a violent windstorm. We are told the sound soon ‘fell’, and then rushed into the place the apostles were sitting, filling it with noise. As a side note, the fact they are described as sitting is significant. First century Jews prayed and worshipped God in one of three postures: either standing with the arms outstretched, kneeling with the forehead on the floor and the arms outstretched, or lying fully prostrate with the arms outstretched. Sitting only took place in between the prayers and the singing of the psalms; during interludes in the Jewish worship service. That God arrived as he did, when he did, identified the apostles being caught completely unawares: That is, they were not praying at the time.xxvi

Next to note is the visible hovering sheet-like flame, which then parted and rested on each apostle individually (verse three). The manifestation ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς (ōphthēsan autois) “appeared to them”, the referent for the plural, masculine adjective αὐτοῖς (‘them’) is the plural masculine genitive noun τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων (‘the eleven apostles’). The case of the referent is genitive in this instance, because of the implicit ‘possession’ involved in the final verse of chapter one. Importantly the passage does not state that it was only the apostles who saw the theophany; rather, the inclusion of the plural aorist verb ὤφθησαν (ōphthēsan) ‘appeared’ indicates it was the apostles who experienced the effects of the theophany.

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’. Grammatically the third person plural pronouns implicit in the plural verbs ‘they were filled’, and ‘they began to speak’, find their referents in the τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων (‘the eleven apostles’) of chapter one, verse twenty-six. Again, the ‘one hundred and twenty’ can be excluded on both grammatical and syntactical grounds. No matter which way you approach the grammar, it is the reconstituted ‘Twelve’ who remains in the forefront of the unfolding Pentecost narrative.

But how does all this fit with respect to the Revivalist’s ‘personal Pentecost?’ The simple answer is, ‘it doesn’t.’ There were three supernatural ‘signs’ that concentrated around the apostles as a group: the sound of a violent windstorm; the visible manifestation of a hovering and dividing flame-like sheet; and the manifestation of unlearned, but recognizable human languages. When we reflect on the Old Testament, we soon discover that it is replete with examples of God’s Spirit being likened to either fire or wind, and which was sometimes accompanied by a voicexxvii. We also note that what occurred at the Christian Pentecost bore a very striking resemblance to events that Jewish tradition records took place at the giving of the Law at Sinai: a miracle of hearing; followed by a miracle of seeing; followed by, a miracle of speaking. There are simply no parallels between the Pentecost record and the Revivalist or Pentecostal claim. The purpose for the historical baptism with the Spirit was to focus attention on the baptizer: On Jesus Christ as the ‘new’ Law Giver replacing Moses as the ‘old’ Law Giver, and on the baptized: towards the re-formed Twelve Apostles as representatives of the ‘new’ Israel, re-constituted by God through the Son.

The ‘baptism’ itself served to distinguish the apostles as Jesus’ specially commissioned representatives, who were fully ‘empowered’ for service by him through the Spirit, in order to continue his work and represent him before the world. By contrast, Revivalists believe in and promote a non-corporate, ‘personal Pentecost’, one which they believe heralds the entry point to ‘salvation’. Revivalism’s focus has shifted away from Jesus Christ and the apostles, towards the individual Revivalist. The focus has shifted from the special commission given to a select group of Spirit-empowered men, to a supposed general entry-point of an individual believer into Christian life and service. And the three corporate audio-visual miracles of the historic Pentecost are completely absent from the so-called ‘individual Pentecost experience’ of the Revivalist. There is no sound of a violent wind that ‘falls’ and fills the meeting place. There is no visible sheet-like flame that divides to rest upon the Revivalist. And the miracle of unlearned, publicaly authenticated human languages is substituted for an incomprehensible, syllabified gibberish that is claimed without the slightest shred of proof, to comprise authentic languages.xxviii Put simply, in the Revivalist example there is no miracle of hearing, there is no miracle of seeing, and there is no miracle of speaking. And of course, unlike the completely unexpected arrival of the Spirit in power upon the apostles at Pentecost, the ‘seeking’ Revivalist is always actively engaged, chasing after his or her ‘defining experience’. In Revivalism Pentecost has been replaced by the ‘seeker’s meeting’. The wholly miraculous Spirit-centered outpouring of Acts chapter two is supplanted by a wholly contrived, human-centred novelty. Miraculously spoken, unlearned but authentic languages are substituted by ‘coached’, ‘learned’ and ‘practiced’ series of non-language gibberish.

(more to follow)

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up 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. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 ‘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; 18 even on my male servants and my female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

Pesher

But how should we understand Peter’s rather loose quotation from Joel? To begin with it is important to realize that Peter was quoting from the Greek version of the book (the so-called Septuagint, or LXX), rather than from the Hebrew original. This was likely intentional, given the Greek translation of the Old Testament served as the Scriptures for Jews of the Diaspora. Second, Peter explained the phenomena as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 as it appears in the Septuagint version (which corresponds to 3:1-5 in the Hebrew text). The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in the mid twentieth century highlighted a method of biblical interpretation that was very common among Jews during the first century: pesher (from rvp, ‘to interpret’). Two aspects to pesher are noteworthy. First, pesher attempted to explain the fulfillment of biblical passages in contemporary events. Second, pesher emphasized the fulfillment of prophecy, but without attempting to exegete the details of the passage being interpreted. In other words, pesher can be thought of as ‘big-picture’ interpretation. We know that Peter was engaging in pesher because he used the standard pesher formula, “… this is that”.

Peter’s quoting of the prophet Joel seems, at first blush, a little odd. The context of the passage related to the closing of the age, which would usher in the long-anticipated ‘Day of the LORD’. The Jews believed that this apocalyptic event would see Israel vindicated before the nations, with the gentiles cast-down and humbled. Of course the very same theme formed the basis for Jesus’ message, the irrupting and apocalyptic ‘Kingdom of God’ (or the corresponding ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ in the Gospel According to Matthew). The two perspectives—the Jews versus Jesus—were markedly different. To the Jews the apocalypse was to be a time of gloom, darkness and judgment. But to Jesus it signified the extended grace and mercy of God towards humanity. To Jesus the time expressed yet a further opportunity for repentance before the end. And received Jewish prophecy had indicated that Israel—the nation—would play a significant role in this coming to pass.

The great prophet Moses had prayed that Covenant Israel would become a “nation of prophets”xxxii. God had destined Israel to be a “light to the Gentiles”xxxiii. Joel developed this theme, and prophesied of the time when God’s Spirit would rest on all of the covenant people. Therefore, from a Jewish perspective Pentecost AD 30 was the fulfillment of a long-standing covenant promise by God to his chosen people, Israel. And it was for this reason that representatives from all the tribes, both Judean and Dispersion, were present at the Pentecost. The context was fully Jewish!

Peter’s proclamation

22 “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— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 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; 26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh will also dwell in hope. 27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. 28You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’
29 “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. 30 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, 31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. 33 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. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Having undertaken to explain the prophetic significance of the various manifestations by referring to the well-known apocalyptic passage in the prophecy of Joel, Peter directed the attention of his audience squarely towards Jesus—God’s appointed Messiah. It was Jesus who was both the cause and the agent for the fulfillment of the promises that had unfolded before their eyes. Peter quoted Psalm 16:8-11 and 110:1, again from the Greek Old Testament (the LXX), and he did this to establish the superiority of Jesus Christ over King David. Further, Peter asserted that David was simply a man, and being a man he died, he was buried, and so he too awaits the eventual resurrection of the body to life with all men. But Jesus, being in every respect also a man, was at the same time much more. As a man he lived, and died; but as God’s Messiah he was not destined for physical decay awaiting the final resurrection. As God’s Messiah he rose again to life, and what the Jews had just witnessed was the external vindication of this claim.

The effect of Peter’s proclamation

Peter’s audience was in a state of considerable agitation and turmoil. Everyone had heard of Jesus of Nazareth, and many of those who heard Peter speak had no doubt witnessed both Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and his debased execution on a Roman cross. Most probably considered him to be a well-meaning but misguided fool; to some he was, perhaps, a demonized deceiver. The visiting Jews probably also had heard the rumors that were circulating about his tomb being empty. But these same men had just become eyewitnesses to an event that bore too many striking parallels to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai to be just a coincidence. And as eyewitnesses they were obliged under Jewish law to render a verdict as to its cause. Peter had just provided an explanation, one drawn from their own Scriptures that made perfect sense in light of the events of the past seven weeks.

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 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. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

We know that Acts chapter two verses thirty-seven and thirty-eight forms the doctrinal ‘mantra’ around which all Revivalist faith claims hinge. Every Revivalist sect maintains as a core belief, the idea that verse thirty-eight proves people must: ‘repent’; ‘be baptized’ (by full immersion in water); and ‘receive the Holy Spirit’ (with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues) to be ‘saved’xxxiv. 

Of course the ‘explanatory additions’ in italics are just as important to Revivalists as are the actual passages, to the extent that the additions are always quoted as if they formed part of the scriptural passage. But they are not. Consequently, there is nothing in verse thirty-eight that says baptism must be by ‘full immersion’xxxv, or that ‘speaking in tongues’ is the supposed ‘Bible evidence’ of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. On these two Revivalist assumptions the text is silent. Curiously the Revivalist approach lifts Acts 2:38 from its various contexts, and turns it into a ‘one-two-three-step formula’ for supposedly getting saved. And every part of the formula involves human effort to achieve what is clearly intended to be a spiritual outcome. In short, the Revivalist reading of Acts 2:38 inescapably leads to a theology of salvation by human works, in contrast to the biblical model of humans being the passive recipients of God’s active gracexxxvi.
Given the importance of the above two verses to Revivalist dogma, it is necessary to consider in some detail what is presented both exegetically and theologically.

Acts 2:37 and 38

Peter’s proclamation concerning the identity of Christ within God’s plan for Israel had been effective. His fellow Jews had begun to realize the enormity of the Passover-Pentecost chain of events, and what they signified—both for Israel nationally, and for them spiritually. And it is necessary to acknowledge that the Jews believed themselves to be in a right relationship with God by virtue of being born Jews, or by becoming Jewish through ritual conversionxxxvii. Contrary to the Revivalist misunderstanding, Acts 2:37 was not the response of Jewish men who wanted to ‘convert’. They were already Jewish and, therefore, they believed they had no need whatsoever to convert. What we encounter in verse thirty-seven is the cry of men who feared for their lives, and for the continued existence of their nation! These men were in mortal fear of God’s immediate judgment falling upon them, and Israel. And such a fear was well-founded, given their history provided ample testament to the overwhelming of the Jewish nation when it departed from God’s revealed Lawxxxviii.

We will pause at this point to consider another clue regarding the identity of those who experienced the Pentecost outpouring. Verse thirty-seven clearly distinguishes between the

(more to follow)

What was Peter’s response? His passionate, thundering command was simple: ‘repent!’ The Greek word mετανοήσατε (metanoēsate) invokes the concept of turning from something to something, or in this instance, to someone. It speaks to the theological concept that we associate with the word ‘conversion’. Peter commanded—a grammatical imperative—the assembled masses to convert from their sin of racial pride, and to humbly turn towards Jesus. Peter then spoke a further command: βαπτισθήτω (baptisthētō) ‘be baptized!’ the rhetorical effect of which would’ve been very keenly felt. He was declaring that they, although Jewish, were as removed from God as were the Gentiles. Consequently, although Jewish they needed to humble themselves as Gentile proselytes were obligated to do, in order to secure God’s New Covenant promises.

Grammatically there are two principle clauses in verse 38: ‘…and Peter said to them, “repent and be baptized!”’, followed by, ‘…and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’. Principle clauses distinguish ‘main ideas’ from ‘supporting ideas’, which are expressed by subordinate clauses. The principle and subordinate clauses of verse 38 can be graphically represented as:

[unfortunately the diagram was not reproducable in this format]

The distinction in ideas becomes more apparent when we consider the shift between second person plural and third person singular forms in the underlying Greek text. The shift emphasizes that receiving the Holy Spirit is dependant only on repentance; further, that repentance remains the trigger for being baptized. ‘Repentance’ and ‘baptism’ are intimately connected, but the connection is one of ‘cause-and-effect’.

Historically baptism was undertaken in the name of Jesus Christ; the ‘naming’ act indicating not only a change of spiritual status, but also of literal ‘ownership’xl. An immediate consequence of this ‘baptismal transference of ownership action’ was ‘the forgiveness of sins’. Accordingly it is not the physical action of baptism that leads to ‘the forgiveness of sins’, but the ‘transference of ownership’ that the action describes. The baptism action functions in much the same way that a signature on a deed document does in modern times.

To summarize, the ‘main ideas’ of verse 38 are: that on repenting, and through submitting to baptism as a consequence of repenting; the promised gift of the Holy Spirit is given. The ‘supporting ideas’ involve the ‘who’ and ‘why’ statements: ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’; and, ‘for the forgiveness of your sins’. As mentioned earlier, the inflected form of the Greek verb ‘repent’ is mετανοήσατε, which is the 2nd person, aorist aspect, active voice, imperative mood, and plural form. The 2nd person describes the relationship between Peter as the speaker and the audience whom he addresses, from Peter’s perspective. That the verb is aorist expresses that the action involved, that is the ‘repentance’, would occur without any sort of time restrictions or limitations. Peter simply stated that it was necessary. And because the command to ‘repent’ is in the active voice, it is the Jews whom Peter addressed that he had in mind. They were the subjects in view. And in Greek, just as with English, imperatives are commands rather than requests. The subsequent verb, βαπτισθήτω, is the 3rd person, aorist aspect, passive voice and imperative singular inflection of the standard verb ‘to baptize’. The 3rd person facet describes that Peter is the speaker, distinguishing him from the subjects of his address. The emphasis is on Peter indicating that the Jews needed to be baptized. Once more the verb is aorist and the mood imperative. The important difference—the crucial distinction—in this instance is that the verb is presented in the passive voice. This indicates two things to us. First, the Jews needed to submit to being baptized by others. Jewish proselyte baptism, by contrast, was an action that one undertook oneself; the proselyte functioned as both ‘baptizer’ and the one baptized. Second, that Peter did not use an anticipated active voice form demonstrates that ‘baptism’ was not co-ordinate with ‘repentance’ as being fundamentally necessary in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. To Peter’s thinking, being baptized is, and remains, subordinate to repentance. This presents a significant dilemma to Revivalist doctrine and practice. According to Peter’s teaching a person cannot be baptized unless he or she was repentant, and therefore had already received the Holy Spirit in the mystery of conversion! According to Peter baptism was the prerogative of Christian believers; it was not part of a ‘one-two-three-step’ process that somehow turned someone into a Christian believerxli.

So what of the all-important ‘gift of God’s Holy Spirit’? The verb ‘you shall receive’, or λήμψεσθε, is the 2nd person, future aspect, middle voice, and indicative mood. The future aspect indicates that receiving the Holy Spirit would take place at an undetermined point in the future from Peter’s perspective as he spoke. In other words, his hearers would receive the Spirit at some point after Peter had explained the ‘ground-rules’ to them. That the verb is in the middle voice indicates that the repentant Jews could act for their own benefit by receiving the Holy Spirit as God gave him through Jesus. However, they could not coerce or in any way pre-empt the Spirit being given. This presents another significant dilemma to Revivalist doctrine and practice, as according to Luke’s record of Peter’s speech there is absolutely no possibility that the Jews could somehow ‘seek’ for the Holy Spirit. The grammar of Acts 2:38 completely refutes the Revivalist practice of ‘seeking’ for the Spirit. Finally the indicative mood qualifies the future aspect by indicating that receiving the Spirit becomes an actual fact at the point a person repentsxlii. In other words the Jews who heard Peter preach, and who responded by repenting and being baptized, could be assured that they had received the Holy Spirit because they had repented, and then consequently submitted to being baptized. Their eternal destiny was based on the unequivocal testimony of God. It was not dependent on any subjective personal experience, for example, Revivalism’s ‘speaking in tongues’.

To conclude, the biblical relationship between repentance/belief, baptism and the Spirit is more complex than the simplistic and formulaic ‘one-two-three-step’ process of Revivalism. This should be expected given the complex of issues that combine to form Christian salvation. However the grammar of Acts 2:38 in the underlying Greek text assures us that a person who has repented, and who has been baptized as a consequence, has received the gift of God’s Spirit. On this issue the grammar and syntax of the Greek is patently clear.

The localized results of Peter’s Pentecost sermon

41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The immediate effect of Peter’s Pentecost sermon was impressive—approximately three thousand Jews responded positively to the message that Jesus was the Christ. They received Peter’s testimony, and they believed in Jesusxliii. As a consequence of believing the three thousand submitted to the public rite of Christian identification—baptism—and became numbered with those who were Jesus’ pre-Passion followers. It is important to acknowledge that Luke gives no record of a replication of the ‘Pentecostal’ phenomena; further, that the supposed ‘Pentecostal experience’ of Revivalism was completely missing from the three thousand Jewish to Christian conversions. There is a significant gulf in the significance of personal experience between Luke and Revivalismxliv.

Conclusion

I trust this essay has conclusively demonstrated that the Revivalist position on the events, and the significance, of the Christian Pentecost cannot be supported from a close reading of the text. Further, that there is nothing in Acts chapter two that either supports or justifies the Revivalist ‘one-two-three-step’ process, as illegitimately wrested by them from Acts 2:38. Finally it has been shown that there are zero similarities between the historical Pentecost experience of the apostles, and the much vaunted personal experience of Revivalism. They are nothing alike in either the generalities or the particulars.

Pastorally, it concerns me that the average Revivalist experiences his or her ‘tongues’ event in a contrived and coached setting—the so-called ‘seeker’s meeting’. This predisposes me towards the opinion that normative Revivalist ‘tongues’ is simply a learned behavior rather than a supernaturally endowed ability. However, as there are those who came upon ‘tongues’ in non-contrived ways, their experience is more representative of the simple ‘gift of tongues’ that Paul discusses at length in his first letter to the church at Corinth. Of course the biblical gift of tongues known to Paul is not the same as the gift of the Holy Spirit discussed in Acts: the former is something the Spirit gives, the latter is the Spirit given as the gift itself. Again, Revivalists have completely failed to appreciate this very significant distinction, and the theological and practical consequences that result.

Finally, let me reinforce that neither the Revivalist doctrine concerning ‘tongues’ and the Holy Spirit, nor the experience that is subsequent to it, is actually biblical. The record left to posterity by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles conclusively demonstrates that salvation remains a free gift offered by God, one that is received and embraced by the willing, and which is not dependent on any human effort, worth or work. One cannot ‘seek’ for the gift that is God’s Spirit, one need only to ask in order to receive it. After all, one ‘seeks’ for something that is lost, and from Pentecost AD 30 onwards, the Holy Spirit certainly is not that.

The Revivalist stands perilously close to the presumption of Simon Magus: an unhealthy (and unholy) preoccupation with ‘signs’ and ‘power’. Scripture presents that salvation results from a relationship with a Savior; Revivalism presents that salvation results from a relationship with a sign. Only the former saves.

Author’s background

Given the nature of this paper, I believe it fair that I provide a brief summary of my qualifications to undertake research of this sort, on this subject.

To begin with, I am a former member of the Revival Centres International (RCI), who fellowshipped in both the Brisbane and Toowoomba assemblies during the mid to late 1980s (February 1986 through July 1989). Consequently, I gained my formative exposure to the philosophies and teachings of L.R. Longfield first-hand. When I left the RCI it was by my choosing, rather than as a result of any sort of discipline. Consequently, I am not encumbered by latent feelings of hostility that derive from perceived psychological or social injustices towards me. My decision to leave centered on several issues, both practical and doctrinal.

I am the holder of bachelor, research master and research doctoral degrees in biblical studies and theology. My undergraduate major was in New Testament Greek language and literature, while my master degree was awarded on the strength of my exegeting the Greek texts of Acts, Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. Perhaps most importantly, my doctoral research was on the Spirit passages in the Acts of the Apostles, specifically a comparison of the Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscript traditions. Consequently, I am qualified to comment on the meaning of the book of Acts in Greek. I was for fourteen years on the faculty of an evangelical theological college; consequently, my research and analytical skills are sufficiently developed for a project of this sort.
Above all else I am a committed Christian believer. I do not approach the subject matter of this essay from a disinterested, ambivalent or detached perspective. I believe the issues to be of eternal importance, having eternal consequences. My motivation, then, is pastoral rather than polemical.

(more to follow)

i Theological exegesis is the tool used to provide the modern-day ‘application’ of the original author’s message. In this respect, it concludes the ‘hermeneutical circle’: spirituality-exegesis-exposition-application-spirituality.

xiv Possibly the site of the Last Supper.

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

xvi In other words, the group numbered about 109 less the surviving apostles.
xvii Cf. 6:1 and 11:27 in the Greek.
xviii E.g. in 1:6.
xix Ἄνδρες is not inclusive in Greek, but is specifically gendered. It refers to males alone.
xx Berakoth 5:5.
xxi A pericope is a self-contained unit of biblical material.
xxii Scholarship dates this writing to between AD 20 and AD 30. We know that Philo 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 50. In short, his recording of the Pentecost phenomena that accompanied the giving of the Law took place, at best, 10 years before the events of the Christian Pentecost, and at the very latest, 10 years before Luke wrote Acts. Philo was not a Christian, nor was he sympathetic to the Christian cause; there is no reason to presume, therefore, that he would borrow a Christian tradition so as to back-cast it into a Jewish mould. What would be the purpose, other than to present the Jews of his time in a negative light? Further, there is no evidence whatsoever to presume that Philo’s description of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai was a later Christian interpolation, inserted to give credence to the NT description of the Christian Pentecost. Philo was a devout Jew, writing as a Jew, recording a Jewish tradition. This fact is borne out by later references to the same tradition in the Talmud, a Jewish work including decidedly anti-Christian sentiments.
xxiii Philo Judaeus, De Decalogo: 32-33 and 46. The English translation is mine, and is based on the standard critical Greek text in the Loeb Classical Library edition, published by Harvard University Press.
xxiv Of the various commentaries which state (or infer) that the 120 were intended, not one that I consulted provides any sort of grammatical evidence to support the contention. The argumentation is near universally theological. However, of the commentaries and monographs that I consulted that indicate the “Twelve” were intended, all demonstrated that the referent derived directly from the syntax and grammar of the Greek text.
xxv Especially given that they were very keen to identify themselves with gathered Israel, and their teacher as Israel's anticipated Messiah.
xxvi Contrast this with the universal Revivalist practice of seeking after, or praying for, the Holy Spirit. The apostles were seeking nothing, and were not even praying at the time the promised baptism with the Spirit took place.
xxvii See, for example, Exodus 3:2.
xxviii Numerous controlled studies into Pentecostalist ‘tongues-speaking’ have been undertaken by linguists during the past forty years. In spite of populist claims to the contrary, not a single example of xenolalia (unlearned foreign speech) has yet been identified. Neither have the preconditions for authentic speech yet been observed: that is, recognizable syntactical patterning, substantial vocabulary, etc. In each and every case what has been evident was simply the repetition of vocables that correspond fully with the range expected in the tongues-speaker's normal language. This is not to suggest that the modern form of tongues is illegitimate, simply that it bears more in common with the gift described in 1 Corinthians than it does what we read of in Acts.
xxix 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.
xxx The language being post-Exilic Aramaic, and not pre-Exilic Hebrew.
xxxi The charge of public drunkenness in the Temple, on a high feast day, and during a prescribed hour of prayer, ought not to be downplayed. The twelve apostles faced the very real prospect of being dragged outside the city walls and stoned had the charge been publicly supported.

xxxii Numbers 11:29.
xxxiii Isaiah 49:6.
xxxiv ‘Salvation’ in Revivalist dogma is a somewhat hazy and imprecise condition. It is rarely if ever defined, with the effects (and benefits) being grossly misunderstood. In effect, to Revivalists ‘salvation’ equates to little more than the opportunity of potentially receiving eternal life.
xxxv Incidentally, there is nothing intrinsic to the words ‘baptism’ or ‘baptize’ which lexically requires the action of ‘immersion’, ‘dipping’ or ‘plunging’. The only Greek word that requires such an action is bapto, which is nowhere used to describe ‘baptism’ in the New Testament. Revivalists claim that both ‘baptism’ and ‘baptize’ derive from the root form bapto, which is true enough. But the English word ‘pineapple’ is derived from the words ‘pine’ and ‘apple’, but I have yet to hear any Revivalist protest based on etymology, that a pineapple must be a kind of apple that grows on pine trees.
xxxvi See Ephesians 2:8, 9.
xxxvii In the first century, a non-Jew became a Jew by associating with a Synagogue as a proselyte. He then received instruction in the obligations of the Law. Once such had taken place, a prospective convert was circumcised, offered sacrifice, and baptized himself when the circumcision wound had sufficiently healed. From that point forwards, he was considered to be completely Jewish.
xxxviii The Abrahamic Covenant was itself established on the provision by God of land, numerical growth and blessing. Each of the three pillars weakened through continued national disobedience, which eventually led to judgment.
xxxix In Greek the construction is a genitive of apposition, also known as an epexegetical genitive: the ‘gift’ is the Holy Spirit himself. There is no way ‘tongues’ can be inferred from the Greek text.
xl Baptism served precisely the same function as the religious manumission of slaves in Greco-Roman society during the 1st century: a slave was ‘freed’ by the relevant God through the payment of a price in a temple. Consequently, s/he no longer belonged to the former owner, but to the God (and by extension, the temple).
xli Contrast this with the all too common (and biblically unsupportable) Revivalist practice of baptizing unbelievers. Revivalists do not accept that a person is ‘saved’ unless there is the so-called evidence of ‘tongues’, yet they very willingly will baptize people who clearly cannot do so. From a biblical position Revivalist baptism is without warrant and so is ineffectual.
xlii The result of this construction is discussed at length in Dr D.B. Wallace’s excellent, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 369-371.
xliii See Acts 16:30 and 31
xliv Which is, of course, the very point of this essay.

(End)

Good afternoon, all.

Anyone who would like a PDF copy of the 'shorter' Acts essay, which includes additional information and expanded references, can contact me at didaktikon@gmail.com

Blessings,

Ian