Yes, I know, I’ve skipped John, but we have to cover Acts first, because Acts is also by Luke, who is part of the Synoptic tradition. We need to see how Luke puts it all together.
Baptism in the Spirit
Many readers will have noticed by now that I consider all Christian baptisms to be baptism in the Spirit — although the traditional 20th Century Church of Christ teaching is that only the disciples at Pentecost and Cornelius and his household received baptism of the Spirit. This teaching traces back to H. Leo Boles’ influential book The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature and Works, but I believe Boles is mistaken.
First, it would hardly make sense for John the Baptist to say —
(Mar 1:8 ESV) 8 “I have baptized you [in] water, but he will baptize you [in] the Holy Spirit.”
— in reference to only a small minority of Christian converts. Advocates for the Boles theory are forced to argue that John was speaking to the same disciples who were present at Pentecost and no others. But Mark is not describing a singular moment in John’s preaching, but rather the nature of his preaching —
(Mar 1:6-8 ESV) 6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
“Preached” in v. 7 is in the imperfect tense and refers to continuous action. Hence, he “continually preached.” Just so, “saying” is in the present tense and also refers to continuous action — so Mark emphasizes that John repeatedly taught that the Messiah would baptize with the Spirit. The teaching characterized his preaching. Obviously, he preached to more than the 120 disciples present on Pentecost!
Second, consider what Peter actually said regarding Cornelius —
(Act 10:44-47 ESV) 44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
The Churches of Christ have traditionally taken “just as we have” in v. 47 to be a reference to the disciples in Acts 2, but Peter was speaking to “believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter.” The antecedent for “we” is those particular disciples, and Luke emphasizes that these were Jews. Peter’s point is not that Cornelius received the same gift of the Spirit as the apostles, but that he’d received the same Spirit baptism as the Jews. “We” are the Jewish Christians.
And this fits the plot of Acts much better. The point of recording the conversion of Cornelius that Gentiles are saved on the same terms as the Jews.
Third, Peter later defends his actions to the “circumcision party” (Acts 11:2). He says to them,
(Act 11:16-17 ESV) 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
“Us” means “us Jews” — as he wasn’t speaking to the apostles but to a group called “the circumcision party.” F. F. Bruce explains in the New International Commentary that the “circumcision party” is likely —
those Jewish Christians who were specially zealous for the law and sticklers for the ban on social intercourse between circumcised and uncircumcised. “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” they asked (RSV).
Therefore, all Christians are baptized in the Spirit. This doesn’t men that we all speak in tongues! It simply means that John was right to prophesy that Jesus would baptize in the Spirit, in contrast to John’s baptism with mere water.
And the language of John fits. The Prophets had declared that the Spirit would be “poured out.” The Spirit was compared to water, and so it make perfect metaphorical sense for John to declare,
(Mar 1:8 ESV) 8 “I have baptized you [in] water, but he will baptize you [in] the Holy Spirit.”
Pentecost
(Act 1:4-5 ESV) 4 And while staying with them [Jesus] ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
(Act 2:1-4 ESV) When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing 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.
(Act 2:17-18 ESV) 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on 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 female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
(Act 2:33 ESV) 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.
(Act 2:38-39 ESV) 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
There’s no record of the 120 disciples described in Acts 1 ever being baptized in water. They may have been baptized by John, but if so, there’s no record of it. And if such a baptism was essential to their salvation, surely Luke would have recorded it. Rather, Luke presents their receipt of the Spirit at Pentecost as a plain example of baptism with the Spirit in contrast to baptism with water.
Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how Luke could have more powerfully demonstrated that the baptism that most matters is baptism in the outpoured Spirit. Luke’s presentation is designed to show that the prophecies of the outpouring of the Spirit had been fulfilled. Indeed, the portions of Peter’s sermon that are recorded refer repeatedly to the Prophets to demonstrate that what is happening is the coming Kingdom promised by the Prophets and so Jesus is the Messiah.
Thus, Acts 2:38 is a promise that the listeners could receive the same Spirit, the promised Spirit that God was outpouring as a sign that the Kingdom long prayed for had finally arrived. Indeed, Acts 2:39 promises that the Spirit would be for the listeners and their descendants and all who would be called, a reference to —
(Isa 44:3 ESV) 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.
But, of course, Peter calls on his listeners to “be immersed” to receive the gift of the Spirit. It seems clear enough that the baptism Peter refers to is not the receipt of the Spirit itself but something done that corresponds with receipt of the Spirit. Therefore, the old Zwinglian/Baptist argument that all references to Christian baptism are references solely to Spirit baptism simply doesn’t, you know, hold water. Peter was surely speaking at the Temple mount — where else could a crowd of over 3,000 be found? — and there were mikvehs and pools available for water baptism.
And so, we find that Christian baptism includes water baptism along with Spirit baptism — but not always. After all, the 120 disciples did not receive Christian water baptism, and as we’ve seen, Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Spirit before they received water baptism. But Peter did feel compelled to have Cornelius and his household water baptized. Therefore, water baptism appears to have been normative.
But the point of Acts 1-2 and the story of the conversion of Cornelius is that Spirit baptism is primary and essential. The fairest reading of the text is that the combination of water baptism with Spirit baptism is normative, but that Spirit baptism is of the essence. It is, after all, the baptism prophesied by Joel, Isaiah, and John the Baptist. It’s the baptism promised by Jesus in Acts 1. Indeed, the text plainly contrasts water baptism with Spirit baptism, with Spirit baptism supplanting water baptism. And yet … and yet we see that the two are combined in Acts 2:38 and that Peter concludes that Cornelius’ Spirit baptism needed to be completed with water baptism.
Acts 11:17 indeed reflects that the baptism in the Holy Spirit came After they Believed…both the 120 and the house of Cornelius…but isn't that the promise of John 3:16 ?? To whosoever Believes in Him…Good article.
Are you sure it was all 120 who received the Spirit, spoke in tongues, and had the tongues of fire? When "they" is used at the beginning of Acts 2, the last group mentioned was the 12. And people witnessing this said "Are these not all Galileans?". The 12 were most likely all Galileans but the 120 were not, the 120 included Jesus' mother and brothers and they were Judean.
Steven,
You say "The 120 included Jesus' mother and brothers and they were Judean."
Are you sure? True, Mary had a relative who lived in Judea (Luke 1:36, 39-40), but does this make Mary (or Elizabeth) Judean? Mary was in Nazareth of Galilee when the angel appeared to her prior to her marriage to Joseph. Joseph appeared to be resident in Nazareth (or nearby), and it was to Nazareth that they returned after the birth of Jesus. Is it not also possible (if not likely) that Elizabeth lived in Judea because that was the ancestral home of her husband?
While you make a valid point about the antecedent of "they" in Acts 2:1, Jay's point that baptism in the Holy Spirit is for all Christians makes this moot. His point is validated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:13 where he said, "For we were all baptized by [lit., in] one Spirit…." He said this as justifying his comment in v. 12: "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized [in] one Spirit into one body…."
Jay,
If you get a chance, check out this You Tube video:
It is a debate between some Harding professors (Jimmy Allen) and some other Christians. The others argue the meaning of the Greek in Acts 2:38 and the type of tense it was spoken in (first person vs. third person, etc). It has a lot about the meaning of the Greek work "eis" that you alluded to in your earlier post. They said the Greek in Acts 2:38 actually means to be baptized because you have repented and received the Holy Spirit, not in order to be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. I haven't been able to find anyone or anything that can confirm what they said about the passage either way when it comes to the Greek.
Seems like there is only one birth, a birth of water and the Spirit, and that that birth is not complete until both elements are accounted for/ Similarly there is only one baptism, a baptism in water and the Spirit. It is troubling to me when people suggest that water baptism is of lesser value than Spirit baptism. They are both part of the same scheme, you don't have one without the other.
Steven,
It's an interesting question. I don't think it affects the conclusion of this study, but it's still worthy of consideration.
(
Up to this point, the story is about the 11 apostles.
The story now transitions to the 120, called “brothers.”
Here the most recent antecedent for “they” is the 120.
“They” could refer to the most recent antecedent, but that would be “the eleven apostles.” (But why omit Matthias?) Or Luke could be continuing to use “they” in the same sense as in c. 1 — the 120. It seems to me that Luke resolves the ambiguity by adding “all” — “they were all” assembled. This phrase is repeated in 4.
Were all 120 Galileans? Well, all those named are.
I’m not going to insist on this interpretation. The Greek is, I think, ambiguous. The commentaries I have at my house don’t even address the question.
One reason I’m interested in the question is the presence of women among the 120. It would be quite astonishing to us if there were women preaching at Pentecost! But consider this —
Peter argues that Joel’s prophecy that the Spirit would be poured out on men and women was fulfilled on the spot! So the idea that the 120 were those who received the Spirit fits Peter’s sermon better than if just 12 males were speaking.
Adam,
The YouTube video is an unimpressive argument. ALWAYS watch for the false dichotomy — a debater forcing you to a choice that doesn't really have to be a choice.
He argues that "for remission of sins" must modify either "repent" or "be baptized" and cannot modify the other. Why not? His argument about number and person doesn't require that result. It's all one sentence.
Here's a more sensible conclusion from Wallace's Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, listing possible interpretations —
In short, Wallace rejects the YouTube argument because it's just too awkward. A common-sense reading of the shift in voice from plural to singular "each one of you" is that Peter was using the shift to emphasize the necessity of obedience. "You all do this — each of you —" is highly emphatic that a decision has to be made by each listener.
Arland,
You have valid concerns. I try to hold a view that is Biblical and historically consistent if a virtual universal consensus is available. I will avoid a discussion on absolute and relative necessity as it relates to immersion in water.
I hope this link helps — http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=39527201…
Jay,
You may think I write so much because I like to write. You are correct…. Great post!
I have raised many eyebrows by saying “normative,” is not absolute. Some people have made Acts 2:38 say “one can ONLY receive the Spirit, if immersion in water occurs first” [granted, there is a minority COC view that gift of the spirit is not the Spirit]. However, that is simply untrue and not what Scripture says. To say that one cannot have the Spirit until he is immersed in water, regardless of “why,” simply contradicts Scripture. God promises those who are immersed in water that they will receive the Spirit and God will keep his promise. However, the promise does not prevent the Father from giving the Spirit to whom he wills. Those of Acts 10 received the Spirit before immersion in water, and those of Acts 8/19 received the Spirit a short period of time after immersion in water. Most ECFs agree.
I know some teach that those of Acts 8/19 received the Spirit at immersion in water, and then received miraculous gifts of the Spirit later. However, a more consistent understanding of Luke is the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:8) as the Spirit is given to all believers closely connected with immersion in water as the gospel spreads. Cornelius and those with him, received the Spirit [with some gifts], like the Jews who were present [even Peter + 120 Jews]. I fully agree that Acts 2:38 is normative for us today, but other Scriptures clearly demonstrate the possibility of a different chronology for receiving the Spirit. The two seem to be closely linked, even with remission of sins.
I would like to add that Christ commanded immersion in water as a relative requirement “in the name of the Father, Son, Spirit”, which is something new compared to the OT believers, because the of NT fullest revelation of the Trinity, and the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. Christ emphasized baptism in the Trinity. This is not so much a formula that must be used as it is a truth revealed to the followers of Christ.
Looking at the Trinity, we now see the Son's role in our redemption related to baptism (Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 2:38). We also see the Spirit's presence in our lives related to baptism as the normative time the Father has chosen to give us the "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). I am not suggesting the understanding of the Trinity and out pouring of the Spirit be pressed to the point that we immerse in water (3x) like the Orthodox, but I believe the COC would do well to more fully appreciate the Trinity and presence of the Spirit in their life. Again, Jay great post.
Thanks for checking it out and giving me some helpful feedback:)
Thanks for the response, Jay. It helps. Now here's another thing that's always confused me. If Peter is saying that prophecy is being fulfilled now, what does the rest of it mean???
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Where was (is? will be?) the blood and fire and billows of smoke, the sun turned to darkness and the moon to blood?
Steven,
What?
Steven,
I don't know why, but DISQUS deleted my comment. I've edited it to put the text back in.
Jay, I appreciate this series of studies. Thank you for your work. I don’t disagree with the direction of your study, though I don’t agree with your reasoning about the 120.
Now, if we can conclude that none of the 120 received Christian baptism on the basis that it is not mentioned in the texts, then there are other conclusions we are free to make, right?
You have pointed out that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John and that it was not Jesus who was baptizing but his disciples. Would “disciples” teach others something they do not believe themselves, and would “disciples” be baptizing others for the forgiveness of sins but ignore that baptism for themselves? That doesn’t fit the nature of being a disciple. Disciples teach what they have accepted. Since the text tells us that the people baptizing were “disciples” (as in John 3 and 4), then I believe we can assume that they believed what Jesus taught and that they accepted the baptism he offered . . . before they engaged themselves in the making disciples process in others. To think otherwise doesn’t make sense to me. I think all the disciples who were assisting Jesus in John 3 and 4 believed his teaching and were baptized for the forgiveness of sins and were then thrilled to play a part in helping others become disciples and be baptized as well. This doesn’t seem like a stretch. I can’t think of another reasonable way to view the disciples we read about in John 3 and 4.
It seems to me that this reasoning could also apply to the disciples/apostles/120 we read about in Acts that were assisting Jesus to teach and baptize others for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Spirit (Christian baptism). Why would we assume different? It doesn’t fit the nature of being a disciple. Yes, they already had faith in Jesus prior to Pentecost. Maybe they didn’t need to be baptized in water again. But, don’t disciples teach others what they believe? . . . and teach others to observe the things that they observe? . . . and teach others to do the things that they do? Though the text does not state that the 120 accepted Christian baptism, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that they did than to assume that they didn’t given the nature of disciples? I'm not sure the absense of a reference in the text to the 120 accepting Christian baptism carries more weight than the assumptions we can make based on the nature of discipleship.