Many
Pentecosts?
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit
fell on them,
even as on us at the beginning.”
Acts 11:15
________________________________
Some Scriptures lend
themselves to wrong readings. Here are a
few to consider:
·
1 Thess. 5:22
(KJV) reads, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” I was once taught (and for a while
believed) that this means that Christians should avoid not only actual
evil, but should also avoid anything that merely gives the appearance of
evil to someone watching. It does not
mean that. It means Christians should avoid actual evil
when it might appear. Specifically, in
context, we should avoid evil that is put forth as “prophecy” (otherwise, we
are to cling to what is “prophetically” good).
·
Matt.
18:20 reads: “For
where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them.” This verse is far too
frequently used to validate lightly attended worship events. It means no such thing (read the whole
section). It means that the results of
church discipline are binding, because the Lord supports the judgment of the
(two or three) witnesses.
Luke’s writings in
Acts regarding the Holy Spirit are easily misread. As in the erroneous readings
exampled above, the wrong reading seems to make sense. That does not mean it is a good reading. This will take a little effort, but our
intent is to show why these passages spawn different readings, to show why Luke
wrote in such a way that perhaps contributes to the confusion, and to suggest
the best way to read these important texts.
We
made a somewhat oblique approach to these competing readings (in Chapter One)
when we defined “baptism in the Holy Spirit” as a judgment, while noting that
others define it as an overwhelming personal experience of the supernatural. While I believe this is a misreading, I can
see how it arises when one reads Acts.
Both readings seem to make sense.
The mistake is what we might call a “natural” one.
“BIG EVENT” and “little events”
The confusion arises when we
try to read Acts and understand the relationship between what I call the
“BIG EVENT” and what I call the “little
events.” Watch how this plays
out.
We have said that the
“BIG EVENT” was Pentecost. This was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
upon “all flesh.” This was the falling
of God’s judgment, dividing Spirit-indwelt Christian from Spiritless
unbelievers. In grammar, the “perfect
tense” speaks of an event in the past that continues to have effects in the
presence: “I have become a
Christian!” That transformation
occurs only once and is never repeated, but its effect is felt forever
after. In this sense, Pentecost was a
“perfect tense” event: the Holy Spirit
has been outpoured, once with lasting results.
The “little events” are those evangelistic
conversions that incorporate baptism into Christ (water-baptism) and reception
of the Holy Spirit.
We include among these the conversions of the Samaritans
(Acts 8), of Cornelius (Acts 10), and of the Ephesian disciples
of John the Baptist (Acts 19).
All of these “little events”
share something in common with the “BIG EVENT”:
speaking in tongues.
I see the relationship
between them as one of “cause and effect.”
The conversions are simply results of what happened on Pentecost. Some of what happened on Pentecost was “non-repeatedly”
unique (especially, the Spirit was outpoured this once, not repeatedly). However, since Luke does not want us to miss
the “cause and effect” relationship, he paints large some things that, to be
sure, are “repeated” between the BiHS and the conversions that follow
later.
In contrast to me, others
see the relationship between “EVENT/events”
as a “this-is-that equivalence.” That means Pentecost was not unique. As the Spirit was outpoured in the “BIG
EVENT”, so He was outpoured in the “little
events.” If this is so, then the
experience of the apostles may be repeated in the experience of every believer,
when the Spirit is also outpoured upon them.
If there was a Jerusalem Pentecost, then there was also a Samaritan
Pentecost, a Gentile Pentecost (with Cornelius), and another Pentecost with the
disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus.
The
nub of the matter is whether Pentecost was unique as THE event in which the
Spirit was outpoured. Or, was it rather
merely another “little event”?
Luke’s
use of “catch-words”
It is more than tongues that
are shared. When Luke writes his story
of the church (Acts), he also employs “catch-words” that link the experience
of apostle with that of convert. It is
as though each of these special words fairly glows on the page, and Luke ties
them together with luminescent pieces of string. The links tie episodes separated by long
sections of narrative. In each case, one
or more of the “little events” is
connected back to Pentecost. Watch the
way shared vocabulary makes this happen:
1. An entire quotation from Jesus:
Pentecost:
“For John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts
1:5).
Cornelius: “And I remembered the word of the Lord,
how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the
Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:16).
2.
The word “gift”:
Pentecost: “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Samaritans: “Thy silver perish with thee, because thou
hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money” (Acts
8:20).
Cornelius: “And they of the circumcision that
believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts
10:45).
Cornelius: “If then God gave unto them the like gift
as he did also unto us” (Acts 11:17).
3.
The words “outpoured” or “poured forth” or “poured out” (same word in Greek):
Pentecost: ”I will pour forth of 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: Yea and on My servants and on My handmaidens
in those days Will I pour forth of My Spirit; and they shall
prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).
And, “Being therefore by
the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of
the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and
hear” (Acts 2:33).
Cornelius: “And they of the circumcision that
believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues” (Acts
10:45-46).
4. The words “fell upon”:
Pentecost: Peter “casts back a line” from the experience
of Cornelius to the experience of the apostles (see below).
Cornelius: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell
on them, even as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).
Ephesians: “And when Paul had laid his hands upon
them, the Holy Spirit came on
them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” (Acts 19:6)
Luke
is able to use these catch-words to link episodes without disrupting the flow
of his narrative. He does not need to stop
in each case, and offer a lengthy explanation.
Instead he just drops these eye-catching markers and keeps his story
moving. Obviously, Luke wants to
associate “BIG EVENT” with “little events.”
But exactly what association is he making?
A “this-is-that”
equivalence?
If this really is Luke’s
meaning, he might have written this way.
This is one possible explanation for Luke’s writing strategy. And so, I would be irresponsible to not give
this due consideration. However, we may offer
the following reasons not to support this reading.
First, regarding
tongues, we have seen that this experience is not a “normative” part of
Christian conversion in Acts, as Luke presents it. These incidents fell, not commonly, but
strategically—every time evangelism needed to break a barrier. Luke records other conversions that make no
mention of tongues; yet baptism is a consistent part of conversion. This downplaying of tongues contradicts the
theology of Pentecostalism, which understands tongues to be the essential mark
of every true conversion.
Second, Pentecost is
not presented with such low significance.
The significance is not simply that it was the first among many
incidents. When
Peter made a case for the significance of that great day, he insisted that what
took place here had significance for the whole of humanity (“all flesh”), and
not just for the Jewish apostles. This
was the very day to which the prophets of long ago had pointed.
Third, you can accept
this reading only if you contradict “judgment” as the primary aspect of what
happened on Pentecost.
We made a substantial case for this understanding. The supernatural experience of tongues is so
alluring that many see it as the primary aspect. It is not.
The only responsible way to define Pentecost is to see it as a judgment,
and this fundamental decision then should inform other decisions of
interpretation, such as the one at hand.
Get that first step wrong, and many false paths may be entered. Get it right, and the way broadens under your
feet.
Fourth, and this is
crucial, this reading wrongly identifies the entrance-point of the Holy Spirit
into the life of a Christian. It is not at the point of speaking in tongues. We have established baptism as the entrance-point
of the Spirit into the life of a Christian.
This became possible only because of Pentecost. The promise of Acts 2:38, with its
wide inclusion of all whom the Lord will call (v. 39), stands at the beginning
of Luke’s story of the church and he means us to carry that understanding all
the way through in our reading. This is
an outworking of the identification of Pentecost as a judgment, and is another
course marker by which a truly Biblical interpreter will navigate.
Fifth, regarding the
catch-word “gift”, it is not easy to tell when Luke uses this word to refer to the
Holy Spirit, or to abilities (like tongues). We may receive the Spirit or the abilities,
each may be considered a “gift” (and Luke uses only one word for gift: “dwrean”). The apparent confusion and ambiguity probably
come about because Luke sees tongues as a “sign” of the Spirit. To see tongue-speaking is to see the
Spirit. They are linked
gifts. Here is an example: “And they of the circumcision that
believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and
magnify God” (Acts 10:45-46).
Which “gift” is meant—the Spirit himself, tongues, or both? And we have noted that while the “gift” of
the Spirit comes at baptism, the “gift” of tongues came before, during, or
quite later than baptism. We are able to
undo much of the confusion when we understand that the Gift and the gifts are
not simultaneous and when we grasp the strategies used by the Spirit in these
different timings.
Finally,
this reading seems to be missing the real reason why Luke links “BIG EVENT”
with “small events”. The church was growing around a small group
of Jewish apostles of Jesus. The growing
nucleus, at first, was entirely Jewish.
It could ONLY have been the Spirit of God that made brother and sister
of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles! The
Spirit used tongues strategically to usher evangelistic growth across barriers
that, on the human level, seemed impossible to breach. Luke used vivid catch-words to link ALL
Christians—of whatever stripe, nation, language, or ethnicity—to the
foundational event experienced by the apostles:
Pentecost.
Was
Luke an irresponsible writer?
Luke may have been so strong
and vivid, in making this connection, that he opened his story to potential
misreading. I do not believe that Luke
is a careless writer. I simply
believe he was avoiding an even greater misreading: one that parted—rather than joined—Jews and non-Jews
in the church. He had to write
strongly to avoid any impression that Jews were the “real” Christians, and the
Gentiles so only in some secondary sense. Or, that fellowship should be segregated into
Jewish churches and Gentile churches (really resulting in at least two
churches, instead of one). How different
church history might have been had Luke toned it down! And really, he had no other means to avoid
the confusion between the alternate readings of his book that we have been
discussing. He was making a point,
and it is our responsibility as readers to allow him to make it, while
following the other interpretive clues that he has left us to protect us
against any misreading.
No, the experiences of
the converts were undeniable links, through the Holy Spirit, to the apostolic
experience of Pentecost. The Spirit had been outpoured, and was
available in baptism—to all who believed (God made no distinction). Given this profound sharing, how could those
involved begin to look at each other (any longer) as less than equals in
Christ, fit for brotherhood and family unity?
The apostles were marked out as God’s authoritative spokesmen, but they
were brothers even with Samaritans and Gentiles.
I have a suspicion
that we modern readers tend to misread Luke at this point, because we are
incapable of experiencing the breathtaking wonder of mixed fellowship. It may be because our experience of
fellowship is homogenous: everyone in
the local church shares our ethnic, national, and socio-economic markers. You may even have sought the comfort
of a church that spares you the “discomfort” of diversity. Or, you may be onboard with the modern
cultural celebrations of diversity, and may simply take such distinctions for
granted. The Bible does not celebrate
diversity for its own sake, with its natural tendency to produce class
distinctions and rivalry, competition rather than bonds of unity. Either way, we modern readers may be left out
in the cold even when a mighty workman of words, such as Luke (or Paul), sets
before our eyes the most spectacular achievement of the Holy Spirit. We read of this, yawn, and turn the page.
The Spirit calls us to
the celebration of diversity that is unified in Christ! Few opportunities in life allow the
celebration of unity in diversity. It is
easier to join a “gang” of people just like us.
When these opportunities are found, they can be life-changing. The early American experience of immigration
led to the minting of coins that proclaimed, “E pluribus unum”—meaning “one
out of many.” The value of shared
citizenship led a diversity of new arrivals to set aside their distinctive
identities as a secondary matter. One
was now an American, and not just a “hyphenated American”—Italian-American,
Hispanic-American, etc. Similar
experiences are possible when people of different backgrounds join together on
a sports team, in the military, or in a corporation. They have to work together in a way that
admits diversity, but that allows them to function as a unity.
So, we may put the matter
quite simply: Luke did not write to
offer us each our own outpouring(s) of God’s Spirit. He wrote to unify us when each has that
Spirit in the habitation of each heart.
The
case of Cornelius
Luke is so taken by the
capture of the first Gentile into Christian fellowship that he tells the tale
of his conversion three times:
·
The first telling
comes in Acts 10. Peter is given
a vision to guide him to accept “unclean” Gentiles, and the Spirit connects the
evangelist with his converts. He arrives
and preaches the gospel of Jesus. The climax
of the story is told this way:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy
Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.
And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came
with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the
Holy Spirit. For they heard them
speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then
answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be
baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? (10:44-47).
·
The second telling comes
when Peter is “called on the carpet” to explain to the “mother church” in
Jerusalem how he could be so audacious as to share what is holy with the
Gentiles. He starts with his vision and
tells the tale, and describes the crucial moment this way:
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit
fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how
he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy
Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as
he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I,
that I could withstand God? (11:15-17).
·
The third telling
comes at the “Jerusalem conference” which is the major discussion of what the
church is to do with Gentiles in view of the issue of circumcision. Peter sees significance in his experience
with Cornelius:
And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them
witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he
made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith (15:8-9).
The event of Cornelius
is the “little event” par
excellence. We can
see Luke’s telling of the story “lighting up” both with catch-words and with
repetition. So much did he want to unify
Jew and Gentile—in Christ, in Spirit, in God—that he drapes the story of the
first Gentile conversion in expressions that were first employed at
Pentecost. He blurs the distinction
between the “gift” (that is the Spirit) and the “gift” (by which the Spirit
made apostle and convert speak in tongues).
But Luke does not set forth two outpourings (even though reading this
way seems to make sense). There
was only one outpouring. It fell on
Pentecost, and it was so comprehensive that Peter saw that “perfect tense”
experience reaching forward to take in Cornelius just as it had the apostles.
Notice that Luke draws-in the
events of Samaria (Acts 8) and the events drawing-in the Ephesian
disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19) in ways that employ the same
strategy of writing. Catch-words
light up like candles in the dark.
These two episodes are not played up with a three-fold repetition like
Cornelius, however, because their significance pales next to the capture of the
first Gentile convert. Luke will make
sure the reader sees Samaritans and off-track disciples of the Baptist as
“insiders” to the Christian community, but these are smaller, less significant
jumps than is Cornelius.
It might be well to
conclude with another reflection on Pentecostalism and J. W. McGarvey. Each represents a similar misreading of Luke. They are similar because they are so
bedazzled by the overwhelming, personal, supernatural experience of tongues
that they miss the role of Pentecost as a judgment. However, McGarvey works to isolate “baptism
in the Holy Spirit” to only two outpourings:
Pentecost and Cornelius. He
employs the “all flesh” of Joel’s prophecy to include a single Jewish event and
a single Gentile event. He thus thinks
to have set a safeguard against Pentecostalism, which may look for additional
outpourings (including gifts of tongues for modern Christians). However, if I were to play “Pentecostal
advocate”, I might ask how he can exclude Samaria and Ephesus as additional
outpourings, given Luke’s use of catchwords?
It seems to me that McGarvey and the Pentecostals are locked into an
unresolvable conflict in the choice, between only two outpourings, and the
choice that allows more. While those
following McGarvey may find some security against rampant claims to supernatural
experience, I can also understand why his Pentecostal opponents may find his
interpretation less than conclusive.
It is a far more satisfying
of an interpretation to begin surefootedly by accepting Pentecost as a judgment
dividing all of humanity. That judgment
fell when the Spirit was outpoured in a non-repeatable event. It happened once; and we need not look for
another. That single outpouring provides
the supply that ever fills the experience of baptism in conversion—Samaritan,
Gentile, or otherwise. Even if invisible
to the human eye, it is a sure guarantee for every believer of the gospel of
Christ Jesus. The Spirit made this
promise “visible”, on occasion, by gifting certain unlikely converts with the
same gift enjoyed by the apostles on Pentecost:
tongues. The result is that the
very bodies of Christians become vessels in which the Spirit of God dwells,
individually and communally. And, this
presence of the Spirit, in them, makes His absence within non-Christians a more
glaring omission. These are the two
sides of the judgment that fell, just once, on Pentecost.
I hope this explanation
helpfully shows why Luke wrote as he did, explains why he may be easily
misread, and offers a better alternative.
