Did You Receive the Holy Spirit When You Believed? by Troy M. Cummings
DID YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN YOU BELIEVED?
By TROY M. CUMMINGS
OUTLINE
TEXT: Acts 19:1-7 ASV; compare KJV and RSV.
INTRODDUCTION:
1. Particular function of Holy Spirit in this passage is of first consideration in this series of lessons.
2. Following points will be discussed: a. Proper classification of this incident in the subject of the Holy Spirit. b. Relationship of John's baptism and baptism in the name of Christ, especially as applied to obtaining member-ship in the church in its beginning period.
I. PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF TEXT IN HOLY SPIRIT-FUNCTION.
1. Introduction: translations and textual matters.
2. Discussion of text; conclusions.
II. CONNECTED SUBJECT IN TEXT OF RELATION OF JOHN'S BAPTISM TO BAPTISM IN NAME OF CHRIST, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING .MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH IN ITS BEGINNING PERIOD.
III. Introduction: Interesting, controversial, and only partially-revealed subject.
IV. Discussion: Summary of principal views; conclusions and observations of this writer.
Introduction:The particular function of the Holy Spiritin this passage is of first consideration since this sermon is a part of a series on the Holy Spirit. In this study these points will be discussed: The proper classification of the function of the Spirit as revealed in the text; and The relation of John's baptism and baptism in the name of Christ, especially as applied to obtaining membership in the church in its beginning period of history. This will include a summary of the principal views on this point, together with my own conclusions and observations.
One other thing: due to the limitations of time and space, most of the citations of Biblical scholars and their detailed arguments will have to be omitted or at least summarized; but in the bibliography in the book of the lectures these scho-lars will be referred to, for your own study, if you wish. At this time I can, do scarcely more than summarize my own conclusions on the various points, after extended study of a wide range of commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, periodicals, and other works, on our text, Acts 19:1-7, together with the closely related passage of Acts 18:24-28 concerning
I. THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS REVEALED IN THIS PASSAGE: Acts 19:1-7
Introduction: Translations and Textual Matters.
In a careful study of the text one should compare the word-ing of the three standard translations: the King James, the American Standard, and the Revised Standard. Scholars of the original Greek will see that the American Standard, including its marginal readings, expresses most accurately the message of this narrative.
One difference among the versions in verse two involves not only a linguistic but also an expository problem. The King James reads: "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost"; while the American Standard has: "Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was (given)," with a marginal reading of "whether there is a Holy Spirit." The Revised Standard returns virtually to the King James: "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Like nearly every other point in the text, the matter of translation right here is difficult and much controverted. The Greek and the English translations of John 7:38-39 should be compared with the Greek and English of Acts 19:2.
The question is: Did the Ephesian disciples mean that they did not even know of the existence of the Spirit, or did they mean that they did not know whether the Spirit was yet given to the obedient? Full consideration of the evidence points to the possibility of either position; my own conclusion is that these disciples probably meant that they had not heard that the Spirit was given.
Discussion: Classification of Acts 19:1-7 The various commentaries, encyclopedias, and dictionaries of the Bible present a number of differing views about the function of the Spirit here. Yet, a careful reading of the whole narrative, and a comparison with certain other New Testament passages, make it clear that Paul's question, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" had reference not to the common reception of the Spirit by the saved, but rather to the miraculous gifts bestowed by the laying on of the hands of the apostles.
This is clear from two standpoints: Many passages in the New Testament teach that all believers in Christ who repent and are baptized in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of sin do receive the Spirit, the gift of the Spirit, in a non-miraculous but spiritual manner, and that such. Spirit-led children of God are "in" the Spirit, and the Spirit "in" them. Some of the passages teaching this truth are: Acts 2:38; Acts 5:32; Acts 9:31; Romans 8:1-28; Romans 14:17; Romans 15:13; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Galatians 4:6-7; Galatians 5:16-26; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 2:21-22; Ephesians 4:30; Hebrews 6:4; Jude 1:20-21.
This being true, Paul would not have asked the Ephesian disciples if they had received the Spirit in this usual manner when they obeyed the Lord. He must have had some other bestowal of the Spirit in mind.
What Paul intended to do is clear from what he did do, as soon as he had handled the matter of their baptism. Immediately through the laying on of his hands the Holy Spirit came in his miraculous power and caused these men to speak with tongues and to use the gift of prophecy.
A similar bestowal of the powers of the Spirit is found in Acts 6:1-8; Acts 8:12-24; and 2 Timothy 1:6; also, compare 1 Timothy 4:14.
In the last two passages the Greek should be noted care-fully: In 2 Timothy 1:6 it is "by" or "through" or "by means of" (die with genitive case) the laying on of Paul's hands; while in 1 Timothy 4:14 it is only "with" or "to the accompaniment of" (meta with genitive case) the hands of the presbytery (eldership). The standard lexical authorities sup-port this distinction of meaning in these prepositions.
The Holy Spirit does not say that the gift came "by means of" the hands of the presbytery.
As to the matter of the bestowal of miraculous powers of the Spirit through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, this phase of the subject was handled in detail by another speaker.
II. THE CONNECTED SUBJECT IN THE TEXT OF THE RELATION OF JOHN'S BAPTISM TO BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH IN ITS BEGINNING PERIOD OF HISTORY.
Introduction: For a long time this has been an interesting and much controverted subject among brethren and also among Biblical students in general. The differences have been caused partly by the fact that on certain points the Scriptures are silent; we can draw conclusions only indirectly, and therefore not positively.
Discussion: Summary of Principal Views; Conclusions and Observations of This Writer. As to the general relation of John's baptism to baptism in the name of Christ, a number of clear distinctions can be made:
John's baptism was not for alien sinners, but for the Jews: Matthew 3:2; Matthew 10:5-7; Acts 13:24; it was not in the name of Christ; it was on confession of sins, Matthew 3:6; it was connected with the temporary, limited commission to the Jews: Matthew 10:5-7 with Matthew 3:1-6, it was a "baptism of repentance unto remission of sins": Mark 1:4; it had no gift of the Holy Spirit: John 7:38-39; it was not valid after the Pentecost of Acts 2.
Gospel baptism, on the other hand, is for alien sinners, for all nations: Matthew 28:18-20; is in the name of Christ, and "into the name" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:18-20 ASV; it is on confession of faith in Christ; it is to put one into the one body, the church: 1 Corinthians 12:13; it is connected with the permanent, world-wide commission of Jesus: Matthew 28:18-20; it is also a baptism connected with repentance, leading to remission of sins: Acts 2:38; it does have the gift of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:38; it began in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, as revealed in Luke 24:46-49; Acts I and Acts II, and is binding until the end of time.
While some Biblical students think that the two baptisms are basically one, the foregoing facts certainly show a number of important distinctions and contrasts.
Passing by for now many secondary matters, let me focus the remaining discussion by asking this question: Were those who received John's baptism when it was valid required to be baptized again, this time in the name of Christ, in order to be added to the church? Or, were they automatically added to the church, as being saved people and in the preparatory state of the kingdom?
Let this truth stand out: The Bible does not specifically answer this question. Our conclusion, then, must be a deduction, and must consider a number of obscure and difficult points.
Let another truth stand out: No matter what may be the exact truth on these matters, it cannot change what we today are required to do in order to be saved and added to the church of our Lord.
But, even at that, let us see what some of the arguments are on both sides. First, we need to connect the related pas-sage of Acts 18:24-28 about Appollos. Luke tells us that Appollos "spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John." "But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. And when he was minded to pass over into Achaia, etc. . . .
Nothing is written about whether he was re-baptized. On the other hand, remember that specific statement is made that the twelve at Ephesus who had received John's baptism were re-baptized.
Was Appollos baptized again? Since the record is silent, we cannot be positive either way. One might argue for the probability that Apollos was not re-baptized, for this reason: in this solid narrative (only men made the chapter and verse divisions) the baptism of John is discussed, first, as pertaining to Apollos, and second, as pertaining to the Ephesian twelve. Nothing is said about rebaptism concerning Apollos, but definite statement is made of the rebaptism of the twelve. Is it not therefore probable that Luke in writing Acts intended to make this distinction by the contrast in the narrative?
On the other hand, the opposite conclusion has been drawn from this narrative by Reuel Lemmons in an editorial in the "Firm Foundation" of January 19, 1960. He writes: "In these two instances, one following directly upon the other we are first taught, then have the teaching repeated, that those who had received baptism at the hands of John were taught and commanded to be baptized into Jesus Christ." Lemmons further states in a later editorial (March 1, 1960) that the baptism of Apollos on this occasion is "the reason-able and logical conclusion" from the text, "since this point was the one on which he was in error, and upon which they straightened him out."
Writing from a different viewpoint, Gus Nichols in the "Gospel Advocate" of April 14, 1960 states concerning Apollos that "there is nothing to prove he had to be re-baptized."
Many brethren hold to this general position: they point out the fact that the record nowhere specifically states that the apostles on Pentecost were re-baptized, nor the one hundred twenty brethren of Acts 1, nor Apollos in Acts 18:24-28; and that most likely all of these had been baptized with John's baptism, being obedient persons; and that since the apostles and the one hundred twenty were Jesus' disciples and therefore saved people, they were prepared spiritually to become original or "charter" members of the church or, were "created" in the church without rebaptism, when it was fully established on Pentecost.
The rebaptism of the twelve at Ephesus in Acts 19 is ex-plained as "evidently" being a case where people received John's baptism after Pentecost, that is, after such baptism had become invalid and had been replaced by baptism in the name of Christ.
Some of those taking this general position are B. W. John-son, T. W. Brents, J. W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb, H. Leo Boles, Gus Nichols, and Roy H. Lanier, Sr.1 (This would not mean that these men agree exactly on every point.)
One phase of this position concerns the degree of preparation which John accomplished by his teaching and baptism. E. G. Sewell agrees with Gus Nichols' idea that this spiritual preparation for the coming of Christ and his kingdom is advanced enough to be described as the "preparatory state of the kingdom," or, "the kingdom of Christ existed in a preparatory state before it was established on Pentecost." Nichols cites the following passages: Matthew 11:12; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:20; Luke 16:16; Luke 17:20-21; which conclusively prove that the kingdom existed during Jesus' personal ministry, in some way. (In Matthew 12:28 and in Luke 11:20 the Greek verb is ephthasen, aorist indicative, which literally says that the kingdom of God "came" upon you.)
Both Sewell and Nichols would agree, of course, with other brethren that the kingdom or church was not established fully until Pentecost in Acts 2. Some brethren, of course, will not go as far as Sewell and Nichols go in describing the preparatory spiritual state under John's baptism and during Jesus' ministry.
This point has been discussed as bearing upon the matter of whether John's disciples could have been "automatically" constituted as citizens in the fully established kingdom on Pentecost, since they were already in the preparatory stage.
Gus Nichols writes that since John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) that a second baptism would have to be "because of" the remission of sins. This conclusion would not necessarily follow, however, since all of us sin from time to time following our baptism. All of God's acceptable children must continue to confess their sins, and re-pent, in order to be cleansed: 1 John 1:7-10.
But think of this problem: certainly we all agree that not only the apostles on Pentecost were saved people before the Holy Spirit came on that Jay, but also surely out of the one hundred and twenty disciples (including Mary the mother of Jesus) who were continuing steadfastly in prayer, at least many if not all of them were saved people, too. These were all obedient believers in the Saviour, who loved him, followed him, and were now giving themselves in prayer. To believe that these were in a lost condition before Pentecost is an un-thinkable position. Remember that Jesus during his personal ministry said: "the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins," Matthew 9:6, with parallel account in Luke 5:17-26. In Luke 5:20 Jesus speaks to the palsied man: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." The verb in the Greek here is apheontai, perfect passive indicative, which literally means "Thysins have been forgiven thee."
Any theory that no sins were forgiven until the cross or until Pentecost runs squarely into opposition to Jesus' own words and actions of forgiveness during his personal ministry.
Now for the application: If the apostles and others were in a presently saved condition on Pentecost, could they have re-pented and been baptized at that time "for the remission of sins"? Was Peter's command in Acts 2:38 for the saved or for the lost? Gus Nichols comments: "It would be a case of baptizing saved people to get them into the church."
In the editorials previously cited, Reuel Lemmons offers a number of arguments to prove that all of John's disciples (except the apostles) had to be re-baptized in order to enter the church.
Part of his argument reads as follows: "We believe Acts 2:38 proves the re-baptism of John's converts inasmuch as John baptized 'all Jerusalem and Judea'; yet, on the day of Pentecost 3,000 more Jews were added. The number arose to 5000 men (Acts 4:4). Yet John had already baptized more than that number during his lifetime."
It seems that this argument is not conclusive, however, for this reason: On this great annual Jewish feast of Pentecost, where all males were commanded to appeal (Exodus 23:14-17), many thousands of Jews from many lands gathered, as is indicated in Acts 2:1-12. Most of the three thousand converts on Pentecost could have been from other places, and may never have received John's baptism.
However, a point to be reckoned with right here is the wording of the Spirit's command in Acts 2:28 " . . . repent ye, and be baptized every one of you . . . " No matter how many visitors were there, in all probability there were many Jews present who had received John's baptism, since John did his preaching and baptizing in areas near Jerusalem.
Did this command mean that every Jew regardless of his past actions had to be baptized at the time to be added to the church? Did the command actually make an exception to the Jews who had already been baptized with John's baptism?
The wording of the command, plus the fact that nothing is said about any exceptions, seems to make it probable that all were required to be baptized. Even at that, Lemmons andothers who agree with him believe that exception was made for the apostles, on whom the miraculous powers of the spirit fell. Lemmons makes these two statements about the apostles:
"The twelve upon whom the Spirit fell upon the day of Pentecost constituted the New Testament church when Peter preached his sermon. They were God's new creation as completely so as Adam was God's creation. All others were included in the command to the audience in Acts 2:38."
Acts 2:41 reads: "They then that received his word were baptized; and there were added (unto them) in that day about three thousand souls." The words "unto them" are in italics; they are not in, the original Greek. McGarvey's as-sumption that the one hundred twenty are included in the original group along with the apostles is not necessarily true. The whole context (Acts 1:26 to Acts 2:14) indicates that the Spirit came upon the apostles only; and Peter stood up with the eleven to speak not with the one hundred twenty.
The expression: "there were added in that day about three thousand" certainly does indicate, however, an original group that existed before the adding. All agree that this group is or includes the apostles.
Lemmons writes: "It is also contended by some that Apollos was administering John's baptism. This cannot be substanti-ated. Acts 18:25, we believe, indicates not that Apollos was preaching and practicing John's baptism, but rather that that was the only baptism Apollos himself had received."
But in examining this argument, let us ask: Does this mean that Apollos in his preaching would not teach his converts to submit to John's baptism? Apollos, being a devoted man of God, had certainly been baptized with John's baptism; believed in it; and knew only this baptism, as "he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus." Knowing this baptism was a command of God for the Jews, why would not Apollos in his fervent preaching strive to get his hearers to receive this baptism the only one he knew?
Lemmons says further: "If John's converts automatically were made members of the Lord's church then the church did not start on Pentecost, but rather at the cross. The blood was shed at the cross. The blood is the cleansing power. If John's converts were ready for it, when it became effective it cleansed them. Therefore they were cleansed immediately upon, the shedding of the blood, and the church started at that moment rather than upon Pentecost. The very fact that the church did start on Pentecost is our proof that John's converts could not have automatically become members of it."
These remarks seem clearly to take the position that there was no real forgiveness of sins before Jesus died. But in view of such passages as Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:20-24; Luke 7:47-50; and Luke 19:9-10, how can, such a viewpoint be correct? Jesus specifically claimed authority "on earth" to forgive sins, and several times said to different persons: "Thy sins are forgiven," and in at least two places the Greek is in the perfect tense, meaning literally: "thy sins have been forgiven." Also Jesus said: "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." Again he said: "Today is salvation come to this house . . ." Were the apostles of our Saviour still in the guilt of their sins duringthe years they served the Lord during his personal ministry? Can this be possible?
Also, it appears that Lemmons assumes that the church had to start at the moment when the sins of John's converts were actually forgiven. But this is not a correct conclusion. In addition to the preceding passages about when sins were forgiven, remember that from the beginning of John's bap-tism he preached "the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins," Mark 1:4-5. The people submitted to his baptism, "confessing their sins." This shows two points: (1) That these penitent, baptized Jews did receive "remission of sins" several years before the cross or Pentecost; and (2) that the time of the remission of their sins was not necessarily the time when the church was fully established.
Again, Lemmons says that if John's converts automatically became members of the church, then the church did not begin in Jerusalem at all, unless "every single one" of John's con-verts were in Jerusalem on that day.
However, such a strictly-interpreted idea of Jerusalem as the starting place to the point that not one person could be absent from the city does not seem to be essential in accepting this main truth.
Time and space forbid further discussion of this difficult question. Personally, I have gained much from a study of both sides of the question, seeing some good arguments on each side, and, in my judgment, seeing some weak or unten-able positions in each viewpoint. The question is so compli-cated, and so little is revealed in Scripture on the specific points, that I have not been able to be positive in my own mind on which position is correct. Also, I do not see how any one else can feel absolutely positive either way when so much depends upon deductions rather than clear revelation.
But remember: the way of salvation and entrance into the church today is not affected by this controversy.
QUESTIONS FOR CLASS DISCUSSION
1. Compare the three standard translations on Acts 19:2; give reasons for your preference of the translation which you believe to be most accurate.
2. When Paul asked: "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" did he have reference to the common reception of the Spirit by the saved, or to the miraculous gifts? Give reasons for your answer.
3. Do all who are saved today have the right to expect the miraculous gifts of the Spirit? Why?
4. After close examination of the translations on 2 Timothy 1:6 and 1 Timothy 4:14, and the original Greek if possible, do you believe that the presbytery actually conveyed the gift as much as Paul did? Why?
1. Do the Scriptures specifically answer the question as to whether those who received John's baptism had to be re-baptized on Pentecost?
2. Name five points in which John's baptism differed from the baptism of Acts 2:38.
3. To what extent does this rebaptism question affect the conditions of salvation and church membership to us today?
4. Show how that this whole narrative of Acts 18:24 to Acts 19:7 has been used by both positions, that is, (1) to indicate that Apollos was not re-baptized; and (2) to show that he was re-baptized.
5. Would the rebaptism of the twelve at Ephesus prove that all of John's disciples had to be re-baptized in order to be added to the church? Why?
6. After examining Matthew 11:12; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:20; Luke 16:16; Luke 17:20-21, would you say that the kingdom (the church) existed in a preparatory state during Jesus' ministry? If so, to what extent?
1. All agree that the blood of Christ is the actual atoning power to cleanse our sins. Would this truth necessarily mean that God and Christ would forgive no one's sins until the moment when Jesus died on the cross? If so, how can the teaching in the following passages be harmonized with that fact: Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:20-24; Luke 7:47-50; Luke 19:9-10; and Mark 1:4-5?
2. John's disciples were baptized with the "baptism of repentance unto remission of sins" (Mark 1:4); would this make it im-possible for them later, on Pentecost, to be baptized" unto the remission of sins"? Why?
3. In Acts 2:38 Peter commanded the multitude to "repent, and be baptized every one of you . . ." Is there anything in the whole narrative to indicate any exceptions to this?
4. Is there any probability that the apostles of Christ received John's baptism? Would Jesus likely choose men for his apostles who had been disobedient to God's command of baptism through John?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott-Smith, G. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. (Vol. II, Acts.) Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Barnes, Albert. Barnes' Notes On the New Testament. (1 vol.) Boles, H. Leo. Acts of the Apostles.
Boles, H. Leo. The Holy Spirit.
Brents, T. W. The Gospel Plan of Salvation.
Bruce, F. E. Commentary on the Book of Acts.
Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. The Acts of the Apostles.Gen. ed., J. J. S. Perowne.
Cooper, James E. "What Happened to John's Disciples?" in GospelGuardian, pp. 204-205, year 1959 (?).
Expositor's Greek Testament. W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. 5 vols. (Vol. II).
Greek New Testament. Westcott & Hort.
Greek New Testament. (Novum Testamentum Graece).D. EberhardNestle, ed. 22nd ed.
Hastings, James, ed. Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. 2 vols. Article: "Baptism."
Hastings, James, ed. Dictionary of the Bible. 1 vol. Articles: "Bap-tism," and "John the Baptist."
Hastings, James, ed. Dictionary of the Bible.4 vols. Articles: "Baptism," and "John the Baptist."
Hastings, James, ed. Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.2 vols.Articles: "Baptism," and "John the Baptist."
Howell, F. O. "John's Converts Were Automatically Brought Into the Church,"Firm Foundation, March 1, 1960, p. 133.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The. James Orr, gen. ed.5 vols. Article: "Baptism."
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, The. George Arthur Buttrick, ed. 4 vols. Articles: "Baptism," "Holy Spirit," and "John the Baptist."
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausett, and David Brown. A CommentaryOn the Old and New Testaments. 6 vols. (Vol. VI, Acts.)
Johnson, B. W. The Peoples New Testament. (Vol. 1, Acts.) Lemmons, Reuel. "Were John's Converts Baptized Into Christ?" Editorial, Firm Foundation, January 19, 1960, p. 34. Lemmons, Reuel. John's Converts Again," editorial, Firm Foundation, March 1, 1960, p. 130.
Lenski, R. H. Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles.
Lipscomb, David. A Commentary On the Acts of the Apostles.
McGarvey, J. W. New Commentary On Acts of the Apostles.
Nichols, Gus. "Queries and Answers,"in Gospel Advocate, April 14, 1960, pp. 229-230.
Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures In the New Testament.6 vols. (Vol.III, Acts.)
Sewell, E. G. Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell.M. C.Kurfees, ed. Articles: "Apostles, Were They Baptized?" and "At Hand, Meaning of." pp. 21-22, 25-26.
Teacher's Annual Lesson Commentary on Bible School Lessons, 1950. (Roy H. Lanier, Sr., ed.) Lesson VI, May 7, 1950, "Paul Preaches in Ephesus," pp. 118-123.
Thayer, J. H. (trans., ed.) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies In the New Testament. 4 vols. (Vol. I, Acts.)