CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2

THE EARTHLY ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

The previous chapter showed how the Church ultimately originated in heaven when the Lord Jesus Christ was seated on the “high ground” at the Father’s right hand. Between His first and second advents, He guides history to progressively complete the final judgment/salvation work of God. Christ has become the great “divider” of mankind and the conqueror of the principalities and powers. And the Church is centrally involved in this process.

When in His humanity Jesus Christ was given the supreme rank over all angels and men, He immediately took steps to begin the Church on earth. While both the Father and Son in heaven were thus ready to begin the Church, further work was needed. The unanswered question of the disciples in Acts 1:6 had to be answered. What about the coming of the Kingdom promised in the OT now that the nation Israel had rejected Christ? What about the role of Israel in this new situation? How long would the inter-advent age last? To deal with these questions and to found the new body of believers, the Father and Son “sent” the Holy Spirit to planet earth on a unique mission.

The Holy Spirit began this mission on a special day in the divinely-designed calendar of Israel, the day of Pentecost. Just as the advent of the Son was a complicated event involving many OT prophecies, a divided reception among the Jews, and a “stretching out” of history into a new age, so the advent of the Third Person of the Trinity similarly became a complicated event. This chapter will trace the Spirit’s Pentecostal work and show how the Church began amidst a time of tumult in Israel. We will follow the same method we used in the previous section regarding the ascension and session of Christ. First, we shall study what actually happened on the day of Pentecost over against what many think happened. Then, we’ll look at how that event was interpreted by the early church. Various unscriptural interpretations of this event will be answered. Finally, we’ll look at some doctrinal consequences that follow from this miraculous historic happening. To prepare for this study, please read Acts 1-3.

THE DAY OF PENTECOST: HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS

The advent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was no less of a historical event than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Like the Lord’s ascension and session, however, it could only partially be

observed in its total workings. Certain physical phenomena were observed but what happened spiritually had to be interpreted by the early Christians through the grid of the OT scriptures and subsequent revelation to the Church in the NT scriptures. Let’s look first at what happened and then at when it happened.

WHAT WAS OBSERVED AT PENTECOST? The narrative in Acts 2:1-13 describes the miraculous happening on the day of Pentecost, but it must be understood in the context of prior events going all the way back to John the Baptist at the beginning of the gospels.

The Gospel Background. The Lord had commanded the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they received the baptism of the Spirit promised by John the Baptist (Acts 1:4-5). As the author of Acts, Luke also chronicled the ministry of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-22. In that passage Luke records the announcement of the Messianic coming which we studied in Part V of this series. Clearly, John the Baptist repeatedly cited OT passages that spoke of the Kingdom of God that was prophesied throughout the history of Israel (see previous Parts in this series). Part of his message concerned three baptisms—a water baptism of repentance which he administered, a Spirit baptism administered by the Messiah, and a Fire baptism also administered by the Messiah (Lk. 3:16).

John acted as the “king-making” prophets had in the OT in that he was called to authenticate and anoint the king that God was raising up for the nation. Included in this preparation for the Messianic king he was also to prepare the nation to receive Him. Since the Kingdom of God would admit only saved individuals, it was necessary that the people be challenged to believe on the Messiah. Those who did would constitute what OT prophecies referred to as the faithful “remnant.” There had to be a “judgment” upon the nation to separate believers and unbelievers. The believers were asked to submit to a water baptism which usually was a practice the Jews used to admit Gentiles into their communities. In other words, the faithful remnant underwent a cleansing ceremony that identified publicly the need for forgiveness of sin prior to entrance into the Kingdom.

It is very important to recognize John’s activity as a key marker, historically, of the imminent coming of the long-awaited Kingdom. Jesus said that if Israel had accepted Him, John would have been the prophesied Elijah who was to come just prior to the great judgments of the Kingdom on earth (Matt. 11:14-15; cf. Mal. 3:1; 4:5). John the Baptist was given further revelation (Lk. 3:2) concerning the Messiah’s work in installing the Kingdom. He would administer two baptisms: one of the Spirit and one of

fire. These baptisms—which could only be done by the Messiah Himself, not a prophet like John—refer, respectively, to the saved and the lost under the metaphor of the wheat and the chaff (Lk. 3:17). At harvest time, farmers would separate the wheat from the chaff by pitching the mixture into the air to have the wind blow away the lighter chaff while the heavier wheat fell back to the ground. In similar fashion, only the unsaved will be removed from the earth prior to the installation of the Kingdom so that it begins with only the saved.

This gospel background provides the meaning behind Jesus’ words in Acts 1:4-5. Note that Jesus mentions only the baptism of the Spirit because He addresses only those who have already believed. During his earthly ministry he had given further revelation concerning this coming of the Spirit (e.g., the Upper Room Discourse in John 14-16). Jesus revealed that after His ascension and session, He would petition the Father to send the Spirit to the disciples, a petition that the Father certainly would grant in recognition of His authority (John 14:16; 16:7).

The Lord’s Further Revelation. The disciples’ reaction in Acts 1:6 clearly shows that they immediately identified the Spirit baptism with the Kingdom yet to come. Jesus’ response is very important and forms the core of the book of Acts. He loosens the association of the Spirit baptism with the Kingdom by insisting that the Spirit baptism would come shortly whereas the time when the Kingdom would come was not necessarily so imminent (Acts 1:7-8). Here is another instance of the same phenomenon we have noted repeatedly in this series. God’s plan for history includes “surprises” which generally consist in fulfillment delays. In Eden Eve assumed that the Promised One would come as one of her immediate children. In Daniel’s day, it was assumed the captivity of 70 years would be followed immediately by a total restoration of Israel and advent of the Kingdom. So now with the rejection of Christ by the nation Israel we observe the “surprise effect” of an inter-advent age.

By the time of the Lord’s ascension and session the disciples knew a lot more about the details of the Kingdom than any OT saint. They now knew who the Messiah was. They knew that the two Messianic roles—the Suffering Servant and the glorious Son of Man—were going to be fulfilled in one Person, not two. They also knew of His rejection by the nation and that this rejection had to be dealt with prior to the Kingdom being restored to Israel. In addition to these Kingdom details, they also were aware of Jesus’ detailed briefings on the coming of the Holy Spirit to them. They thus faced Pentecost with many pieces of the puzzle in hand that had been

unavailable to OT saints, but they also were not able to “put them together” into a coherent picture.

Happenings on Pentecost Morning. Three miracles are reported in the Acts 2 narrative. First, there was a noise similar to that of a hurricane or tornado. It sounded like it was coming from above, from heaven. The amplitude was so great that it dominated the whole structure where the disciples, probably many dozens, were seated (Acts 2:2). The second miracle consisted of a strange visible phenomenon that resembled the brilliance and movement of fire, glowing “pieces” shaped like human tongues that split apart. Each of the “pieces” came to rest on a disciple so that everyone in the place had a piece come upon him (2:3). The third miracle was an instantly received capability in each disciple to speak a language foreign to that disciple (2:4).

The third miracle of language was observed by two groups of people, each with a differing interpretation. One group consisted of Jews from throughout the Diaspora attending Pentecost festivities in Jerusalem—Jews from many different cultures and speaking many different home dialects (2:5-8). At least 12 different cultural regions are mentioned (2:9-11). Initially attracted by the noise of many languages being spoken by the disciples, these visiting Jews quickly discovered that the disciples were speaking in all their native dialects. And the content of the conversation was apparently centered upon the recent works of Jesus Christ. They were amazed, mystified, and wholly focused upon what was happening. A second group distinct from the visiting Jews, apparently native Palestinian Jews, did not understand the foreign languages. They interpreted what they were hearing as drunken mumbling (2:13).

These three miraculous happenings on Pentecost had to be explained in the context of what the disciples knew from Jesus’ previous ministry and from the OT Kingdom revelation. Peter does just that in his first major address of the Church age. Before studying his explanation, however, we must note something about the day of Pentecost.

WHAT WAS SPECIAL ABOUT PENTECOST. What is not well known is the significance of the day of Pentecost in Israel’s calendar. Christian teachers unfamiliar with the OT hastily conclude from an isolated observation of Acts 1:4 that the Holy Spirit came only because the disciples “tarried”. The application is often made that we believers in the inter-advent age should similarly “tarry” in order to receive the Spirit. Did this event occur on the particular day of Pentecost, then, merely as an accident of the disciples’ waiting, or did it happen on Pentecost because of a deeper design?

Israel’s Calendar. God’s chosen nation had a unique calendar system. The calendar is given in the following OT passages: Exodus 12:1-30; Leviticus 16:1-34; 23:1-44; Numbers 28:16-29:40; and Deuteronomy 16:1-17. In the Spring portion of the annual calendar four events occurred: (1) Passover; (2) Feast of Unleavened Bread (7 days); (3) Firstfruits; and (4) Pentecost. In the Fall portion, three events occurred: (1) Trumpets; (2) Day of Atonement; and (3) Tabernacles (7 days). What do these events signify?[1]

Unlike pagan calendar systems, Israel’s calendar was God-ordained and prophetic. Each feast commemorated aspects of God’s plan with Israel (not the Church) that set it apart from the rest of the nations. The Passover looked at Israel’s unique origin, its redemption by blood during the Exodus judgment/salvation in Egypt. Recall in our discussion in Part III of this series, Chapter 3, that Israel’s origin was supernatural: it wasn’t caused by human political maneuvering nor revolutionary war; it was a supernatural happening that merited an everlasting remembrance. The seven day feast of Unleavened Bread stressed the break in culture between Egypt and Israel, reminding man that just as there was no continuity in leaven from Egypt to the new land, there was to be no continuity of religion from Egypt to Israel. Israel was a divinely-designed counter-culture to the paganized Noahic civilization. The day of Firstfruits commemorated the first harvest of the first Spring crop, a barley sheaf. It testified to God’s power to continue producing the same kind of crop all the way until the Spring harvest was finished. It denied all pagan fertility beliefs by attributing crop production to Yahweh rather than deified “Nature.” Pentecost came seven weeks and a day or 50 days after Firstfruits, and closed the Spring series of calendar events. Because Pentecost itself is often called “first fruits” like the day of Firstfruits proper, these two holidays must be carefully distinguished. Whereas on Firstfruits proper a raw unprocessed sheaf of barley was used, on Pentecost a baked loaf was used. Pentecost thus looked at the Spring harvest as actually realized and laid up for use. It reminded Israel to be thankful to the God of creation for His supply (cf. Paul’s comment to pagans in Acts 14:17).

The Fall cycle of three events also had significance. The Feast of Trumpets featured the blowing of rams’ horns which reminded Israel in the Fall of the two following events on her calendar. The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) included prayer and sacrifice which pictured national repentance and confession, a spiritual preparation for what was to follow. Unlike pagan holidays that celebrate the works of man, it focused upon the sinfulness of man in need of atonement. On the Feast of Tabernacles the nation celebrated the end of the autumn harvest by living for a week in specially-prepared shelters or “tabernacles.” This last event looked to Yahweh as Israel’s final Provider and Protector Who would one day bring the nation into His rest. It therefore contrasted with pagan fertility celebrations that inevitably viewed history as cyclical, going nowhere. Such was Israel’s ancient supernaturally-designed calendar.

The importance Israel attached to this calendar, and to the three major feasts in particular, is shown in the OT record of the Golden Era of Solomon. Solomon specifically directed that each of the three feasts---Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles be celebrated (II Chron. 8:13).

Historical Fulfillment. It is a peculiar fact of history that the Spring part of Israel’s calendar, but not the Fall part, has been “fulfilled” by NT events. Exactly on the day of Passover Christ died—not before or after (see Part V of this series, Chapter 4, for a discussion of the date of the crucifixion). In fact Jesus Himself spoke of his coming death as His “exodus” (Luke 9:31). Hulbert comments upon the parallels between the original Exodus of Israel from Egypt and its potential exodus from Satan by the death of Christ.

“The ultimate purpose of what took place on the night of that 14^th of Nisan was a release from the sovereignty of Satan. Just as the exercise of faith was necessary to obey God’s command to apply the blood that night, so faith in the means of appropriating deliverance from Satan’s hold in all the ages.”[2]

This series has repeatedly pointed out the parallelism between God’s judgment/salvation in the Exodus event and the judgment/salvation centering upon the death of Christ (note the language in John 1:29; I Cor. 5:7). Now we see both events happened on literally the same calendar day, testifying to the One Who controls history! We must also mention, however, that the nation Israel does not now enjoy the saving benefits of Christ’s atonement due to unbelief (Rom. 11:7-12) although it could (and eventually will) if (when) it repents and believes in the dying Messiah (Rom. 11:22-29).

The next event, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, was “fulfilled” in the provision Christ made for independence from the world, the flesh, and the devil. He provided a new life utterly separate from that of unredeemed Adam. Paul uses the unleavened bread as a type of this new life in I Corinthians 5:6-8. This provision of a new life, like that of Christ’s death, is not Israel’s today as a nation because of its rejection of the Messiah. Nevertheless, it is available to Israel theoretically if it would “repent. . .and turn again. . .so there might come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19).

The third Spring event was the day of Firstfruits. Significantly, Christ rose from the dead as the first fruits of the resurrection on exactly this day (cf. Lev. 23:11; John 20:1; I Cor. 15:20). Just as the barley sheaf had reminded Israel of God’s ability to complete the Spring harvest, so the resurrection of Christ “gave personal assurance that every believer in that nation would be raised from the dead”[3] just as Daniel 12:1-3 prophesied (see Part V, Chapter 5, of this series). As in the case of the day of Passover, so in the case of the day of First Fruits: the special calendar days seem to be “markers” on which Christ executes a fulfillment of the plan of salvation.

The final Spring event, of course, was Pentecost. Exactly on this day the Holy Spirit came down to earth (Acts 2:1). Did this advent of the Holy Spirit “fulfill” the picture of the feast of Pentecost? Hulbert suggests that just as the baked bread pictured the Spring harvest that organically united the grain which had started becoming available on the previous day of Firstfruits into an eatable form (bread) for practical use, so the advent of the Holy Spirit made practical the resurrection life of Christ.[4] Israel could have nationally enjoyed Christ’s resurrection power if it had accepted Him as the Messiah. Pentecost, Hulbert says, marked the giving of all spiritual provisions to live the life of the Kingdom under the New Covenant—if the King were accepted.

What of the Fall calendar cycle involving the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles? The NT writers report no events that fit these special days. This fact has already been noted in the Appendix of Part IV of this series. The Spring cycle has been “fulfilled”; the Fall cycle has not. The implication of Scripture is that the Fall calendar, too, will one day be “fulfilled”. Some future event will answer to the Feast of Trumpets. On some future Day of Atonement Israel may nationally confess its sin and recognize that Jesus, after all, really was the Messiah (cf. Isa. 53). During some future Feast of Tabernacles, Israel may enter its promised rest as the millennium finally begins.

Table Four pictures the calendar and its NT “fulfillments”. Compare Table Four with Figure One of the previous chapter. A parallel emerges between Christ’s career and Israel’s calendar. The Spirit’s arrival on the day of Pentecost appears to have provided Israel with every spiritual blessing

the nation would need for Kingdom living. Standing in the way was Israel’s national rejection of Christ that is addressed by Peter in Acts 2 and 3. The background of Israel’s calendar provides valuable insight into the significance of what happened on the particular day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1.

Calendar Event	Picture Given	Historical “fulfillment”
Passover	Judgment/Salvation exodus from Egypt via the judgments and the blood on the doors	Christ’s Judgment/Salvation exodus from Satan’s dominion via the Cross
Unleavened Bread	No continuity between the pagan culture of Egypt and Israel	No continuity between the old life in Adam and the new life in Christ
Firstfruits	Assurance of a future, full harvest by the first barley crop.	Assurance of a future, full resurrection by Christ’s resurrection.
Pentecost	Harvest realized and laid up for use.	Christ’s resurrection power ready for national use by the Coming of the Spirit
Trumpets	Reminder of the following two events	None yet
Day of Atonement	National repentance and confession	None yet
Feast of Tabernacles	Enjoyment of God’s finished harvest	None yet

Table 4.—Israel’s supernaturally-designed calendar as an outline of history.

So far we have studied the historical observations of Pentecost happenings in Acts 2:1-13. We have also looked at the special significance of this day in Israel’s calendar. Now we are ready to examine the interpretation of these happenings given in the NT.

THE DAY OF PENTECOST: THE NT INTERPRETATION

It will be convenient to study the NT interpretation by looking at two apparently different streams of thought put forward by Peter and by Luke/Paul. Peter’s interpretation of the event occurred within minutes and is recorded for us in Acts 2:14-36. It primarily concerns the nation Israel. On the other hand, Luke portrays a longer historical perspective spanning the years described in his book of Acts from Pentecost to the imprisonment of Paul in Rome. As the close traveling companion of Paul, Luke undoubtedly reflects Paul’s view of the origin of the Church and the gradual realization of its existence as an entity separate from the nation Israel.

PETER’S INTERPRETATION. In Acts 2:14-36 Peter addresses Jewish observers of the Pentecost happenings. Whereas Peter and his companions had experienced a tempest-like noise, strange fire-like tongue-shaped glowing masses, and the ability to speak in foreign languages, the Jewish observers had experienced only one of these three miracles: the supernaturally-enabled foreign language speaking. They had seen nothing else--no geophysical or astronomical phenomena. Nevertheless, Peter cites an OT prophecy of the coming Kingdom of God that includes many elements, including geophysical and astronomical phenomena (Joel 2:28-32).

Clearly, Peter saw the Pentecost event as something prophetically anticipated in connection with the coming Kingdom. Is he saying that the speaking in foreign languages wholly fulfills Joel’s Kingdom prophecy? Or is his argument more oblique, more about the King than about the Kingdom? Let’s follow his line of reasoning. He first cites Joel 2:28-29 and inserts a comment at the end of Acts 2:18 “and they shall prophesy” which is not in the Joel text. This comment shows that Peter is emphasizing the aspect of new revelation coming through ordinary “lay” Jews. Not only has the silence of God since the close of the OT canon been interrupted, but the new revelation is now occurring with multiple Jews instead of with one or two special prophets as in ancient Israel. The citation in Acts 2:17-18 emphasizes the “pouring out” of the Spirit of the Lord, a phrase that refers to a teaching or revealing ministry.[5] Joel foresaw this phenomenon as something that would occur just prior to the coming judgment of God and establishment of the long-awaited Kingdom.

Peter then cites the rest of the Joel passage (2:30-32) that speaks of “wonders” and “signs” which would also precede the coming Kingdom. The problem here is that whereas the wonders and signs prophesied by Joel are geophysical and astronomical, few if any such wonders and signs had occurred in that period of NT history.[6] Peter’s meaning, however, is shown by his remarks in Acts 2:22 where the terms, “wonders” and “signs” refer to the miracles Jesus did during His life on earth only a few of which might qualify as geophysical in nature (e.g., Matt. 8:23-27). As it unfolds, Peter’s argument links ever more explicitly both the pouring out of the Spirit and the miraculous signs to the King Himself, Jesus Christ. Before we mistakenly conclude that Peter is claiming that all of the Joel prophecy has been fulfilled on Pentecost, we must follow the flow of his preaching.

From verse 23 to verse 32 Peter meets the Jewish disbelief that a dead man could be the Messiah who brings in the Kingdom. He utilizes Psalm 16:8-11 to show that David as an OT prophet (verse 30) foresaw that the Messiah could not die and fulfill the Davidic Covenant (see Part III of this series). The resurrection, Peter insists, is implicit in the Davidic vision of Messiah. Following closely upon the resurrection, of course, is the ascension and session, and Peter finally centers his preaching on this last event in Jesus’ journey.

In verses 33-35 Peter cites the ascension and session as the explanation for the pouring out of the Spirit. Pentecost’s miraculous languages are empirical evidence that Jesus had arrived at the Throne of God and accomplished what He had promised earlier, viz., He would “ask of the Father” and “send the Spirit” (John 7:39; 14:26; 16:7). In other words, Peter’s emphasis throughout this address is to show forth the Messiahship of Jesus Christ and the need for Jews to believe on Him.

What, then, is Peter’s interpretation of Pentecost? What is the rationale of his preaching? The logic seems to be anchored in a set of prophetic assertions:

· the OT foretold a new work of the Holy Spirit prior to the Kingdom which included new revelation coming through many different Jews and miraculous disturbances in the natural environment;

· the OT foretold that the Davidic Messiah would not succumb to death;

· Jesus foretold His ascent into heaven and dispatching of the Spirit to earth.

The logic then refers to actual historical events:

· Jesus performed miracles that disturbed some parts of man’s natural environment (in most cases the natural environment of his body);

· new revelation was given through miraculous language on Pentecost.

The logic finally deduces that Jesus Christ is the King of the Coming Kingdom because:

· as ascended and seated Messiah He now stands in the role of Yahweh in sending the Holy Spirit to the believing Jews;

· as incarnate God He performed miracles of enough magnitude to qualify as the One Who will one day perform the specifically prophesied miracles in the Joel passage which bring in the pre-Kingdom judgments.

The bottom line of Peter’s interpretation of Pentecost is that Jesus Christ is now in the role prophesied of Yahweh with respect to the OT Kingdom promises. He sends the Spirit. He does miracles. So Israel must deal with Jesus Christ in order to enter the Kingdom they longed so for. Note verses 37-40.

Shortly after Pentecost Peter gave another address in which he again made the point that Israel would have to submit to Jesus Christ in order to receive the “times of refreshing”, i.e., the Kingdom rest (cf. Acts 3:12-26, especially verse 19). As Alva McClain pointed out years ago, this era of history in and shortly after the day of Pentecost was characterized by continued Jewish anticipation of an imminent Kingdom.[7]

“[Peter’s] hearers could have drawn only one conclusion, namely, that the restoration of the long-awaited Kingdom to Israel was still a possibility in their own generation.

That the Jewish converts did so conclude seems to be indicated by their immediate course of conduct. First, there is absolutely no record of any break with the Jewish Temple worship, but on the contrary they continued daily with one accord ‘in the temple’ (Acts 2:46) where, according to Old Testament prophecy, all worship would be centered in the future Kingdom (Isa. 56:7).”[8]

In fact, Peter in Acts 3 appears to be offering the Kingdom to Israel once again after the first offer of John the Baptist and Jesus. That the OT Kingdom would be offered twice is revealed in the parable of Matthew 22:1-7. Two calls are sent out by the king for a marriage feast for his son. The second call announced that the dinner is “prepared” and “all things are ready”. This latter terminology, according to McClain, is:

“certainly a reference to our Lord’s finished work of redemption at Calvary. Such a call could not have gone out until after the Resurrection. But again the call is rejected, this time by actions which help identify it in Biblical history: some Jews would turn away with contemptuous indifference, according to the parable, while others would mistreat and kill the messengers (vs 6). This points to the post-Pentecostal offer, as described in the Book of Acts, when the officials of Israel did exactly that. During the gospel period not an official disciple of Christ was killed by the Jews, but during the period of Acts the terrible persecution and killing of the messengers began. There is no third call for this generation of Israel, but judgment falls: the King sends forth his armies, destroys the murderers, and burns their city—a parabolic prediction of the awful destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (vs 7).[9]

Peter’s interpretation of Pentecost is that the OT Kingdom is still a hypothetical option for Israel if the nation would whole-heartedly trust in Jesus as their Messiah. The Church is not in view. The equal footing of

Jew and Gentile isn’t seen. The believers’ union with Christ, their constituting of the new Temple of God, and the new life outside of the Mosaic Law have not yet been realized.

LUKE’S (PAUL’S) INTERPRETATION. As the author of Luke and Acts, Dr. Luke reflects Paul’s thinking as his traveling companion. He wrote after many years of observing what happened after Pentecost. Unlike Peter’s first few sermons, Luke’s account benefits from seeing the overall trend in God’s working. He reports on Peter’s own enlarging view about the work of the Holy Spirit. Luke can, therefore, put Pentecost in a larger perspective. Likewise Paul reflects further revelation given in the years following Pentecost. Let’s observe how these two authorities interpret the day of Pentecost.

Subsequent “Mini-Pentecosts”. Luke reports three events that occurred after Pentecost but which showed certain parallels with that event. In Acts 8 after the martyrdom of Stephen (in which Paul as Saul was involved), a deacon colleague of Stephan, Philip, left Jerusalem and headed into Samaria with the gospel. After many Samaritans believed, the apostles came from Jerusalem to pray that these new believers would “receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15). Luke reports that as the apostles laid their hands on the Samaritan believers the Holy Spirit came upon them, presumably in some form physically recognizable as at Pentecost.

A second such event occurs in Acts 10. In this case Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit in a clear analog to Pentecost: they speak in foreign languages. Peter spots the similarity. He identifies the phenomenon as that of Pentecost (10:47). Luke makes the connection very obvious by noting that God had to prepare Peter beforehand so that he would be open to the possibility that non-Jews who were viewed as “far” from God would receive the Holy Spirit.

Finally, a third “mini-Pentecost” occurs in Acts 19:1-7. This third event is striking in that Luke isn’t with Paul at this time. Thus Luke’s narrative depends completely upon Paul’s report. And Paul’s report uses the vocabulary of the previous events, showing that terms like “receive the Holy Spirit”, “languages”, and “prophesying” are used in exactly the same way by Luke and Paul. The implication is, therefore, that the vocabulary of Acts and Paul’s epistles regarding Pentecostal phenomena share identical meanings—a very important point in NT interpretation as we shall see below. Moreover, in this third event the disciples of John the Baptist are integrated into the Church, showing that the Church age believers are different than OT saints. These disciples were Jews that lived outside of Israel—Jews of the Diaspora.

If we take Luke’s account of these three “mini-Pentecosts”, we detect a pattern to the work of God during those years given in Table Five. The

The Text	The Event	The Implication
Acts 8:1-25	Samaritans receive the HS	Witnessing spreads to Samaria
Acts 10:1-48	Gentiles receive the HS	Witnessing spreads to Gentiles
Acts 19:1-7	John’s disciples receive the HS	Witnessing spreads to OT saints of the Diaspora

Table 5. The pattern of post-Pentecost “mini-Pentecosts” showing fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of Acts 1:8.

pattern fits precisely the prophecy of Jesus in Acts 1:8! In that prophetic dialog Jesus carefully distinguished the restoration of the kingdom from the work of the Holy Spirit Whom He would send once ascended and seated at the Father’s right hand (Acts 1:6-8). The witness to the gospel would spread outward from Jerusalem not because the early Christians were so zealous of missionary work but because God decreed it would happen. Careful attention to the text of Acts shows that in most cases the spread of the gospel was forced upon the Church by adverse circumstances and overt persecution rather than being the result of deliberate missionary planning. Luke’s literary work of Acts, then, records God’s faithfulness in doing specific things which He had promised just as the OT historical narratives had done centuries before.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. As we learned above, John the Baptist in introducing Jesus as the Messianic King to Israel prophesied that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit. John sharply distinguished this Spirit baptism from water baptism (Luke 3:16). It was something new that would happen to those who welcomed Messiah in preparation for His kingdom. Jesus continued the revelation about Spirit baptism in Acts 1:5, prophesying that it would happen on Pentecost.

The word “baptize” carries the meaning of “identification” and can refer to a wide variety of events, some wet but most dry. Spirit baptism is obviously dry. What particular meaning does “baptism” have when used in the phrase “baptism of the Holy Spirit”? On the day of Pentecost and immediately thereafter Peter grasped that it meant a new work of the Spirit that could usher in the long-awaited Kingdom of God.

Paul and Luke, however, became aware that it meant something more than that. They understood it to refer to creation of something entirely unforeseen in the OT. They could see this new thing only after Peter’s challenge to Israel to accept the Messiah was completely and clearly

rejected by the nation’s leadership. Whatever Spirit baptism was, it wasn’t to be thwarted by man. Further information was revealed to Paul on the Damascus road by Christ Himself when He said that to persecute believers after Pentecost was to persecute Him (Acts 9:4). By now it had become obvious that post-Pentecostal believers were somehow united with the ascended Christ in heaven. This new thing had a heavenly origin (see title of the previous chapter). It also had an earthly origin at Pentecost after the Session of Christ. It was something never before seen, never prophesied in the OT, and not recognized until some time after Pentecost.

In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul reveals that Spirit baptism enters one into the Body of Christ, the Universal Church. Christ in heaven is the Head but only the Head. He must be “completed” by acquiring a Body. Now the mystery of the OT prophecies that we studied in the previous chapters (Dan. 7; Pss. 2 and 110) becomes clearer. These OT texts looked forward to the Son of God / Son of Man / Messiah as being officially accepted by God yet not ready to reign (note Figure 1). We mentioned that in Daniel 7 the Son of Man figure represents not only the king of the fifth kingdom but also the people of that kingdom. Paul adds to the OT revelation by noting that the ascended Christ has begun to build His body.

This new thing, the Church, is to Christ what David’s mighty men were to him (see II Sam. 22). In both instances the king has been officially anointed by God’s prophet (David by Samuel, Jesus by John) yet must bide his time waiting for the status quo to change (the dynasty of Saul to exit, Satan’s rulership to end). In both instances the king attracts defectors from the other side (David attracts Jews defecting from Saul, Jesus calls believers to defect from the god of this world).

Spirit baptism unites believers retroactively with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:1-7; Col. 2:11-12). It totally “transfers” in some way believers from the status of being in Adam amidst a cursed world to the status of Christ amidst a perfect heavenly environment. These truths we will develop later. Here it is appropriate only to mention them as later revelation of what the Holy Spirit began on the fateful day of Pentecost. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit marks His Advent as Indweller of every believer.

Languages, Prophesying, and Miracles. Another line of revelation developed by Luke and Paul concerns the unique phenomena that accompanied this coming of the Holy Spirit--miraculous speaking in languages unknown to the speaker, revelation of things present and future unknowable to ordinary human beings, and amazing works of bodily healing.

These phenomena were signs to authenticate the new message about Jesus that would penetrate all of human civilization (note Mark 16:17-18).

Miraculous language-speaking authenticated the universal nature of the gospel and assured that human linguistic diversity brought on by Babel in Genesis 11 would be no barrier. If speaking in foreign languages could successfully publish the gospel, writing in languages other than Hebrew and Greek could, too. Unlike the Koran and Book of Mormon the New Testament puts no premium on its “original language.” It belongs to all people groups everywhere regardless of their language. Its inerrancy is not abrogated by translations of its text (see Part IV, Chapter 5 for discussion of this textual issue).

Prophesying authenticated the continuity of the NT with the OT that had been a product of Moses and subsequent prophets after him. There was the same supernatural revelation behind both of them and therefore the same infallible authority. The message of the gospel was shown to be the direct product of the Holy Spirit (cf. II Pet. 1:19-21). Healing miracles authenticated the authority of the risen, ascended Christ over man’s natural environment. Christ is dramatically shown by these events truly to have authority over heaven and earth (cf. Matt. 28:18).

These supernatural abilities, however, were never universally present in every believer. Only some believers exercised them, notably the apostles and those closest to them. They continued for a time in Church history as part of the set of spiritual gifts given to the Church. In Paul’s discussion of I Corinthians he clearly declares that the Spirit distributes individual gifts as He wills and no gift is universally shared (I Cor. 12).

Not only were these particular authenticating gifts not universally shared with every believer in the NT era, they have not been shared across the centuries of Church history. Mark 16:19-20 points out that these miraculous capabilities began only after Jesus sat down at the Father’s right hand and had apparently ceased by the time he wrote this text (past tense verb “confirmed” in 16:20). The author of Hebrews also reports their cessation in Hebrews 2:4. Toward the end of his ministry Paul had apparently lost the apostolic capacity to heal (cf. Acts 19:11-12 with Phil. 2:27; I Tim. 5:23). In fact, Paul taught that these particular authenticating gifts would eventually cease (I Cor. 13:8-10). They would cease when their role became unnecessary, which happened when the NT had been written at the end of the first century.

Protestants have generally been “cessationists” on this matter because these gifts, including that of apostle and prophet, were part of the necessary foundation gifts of the Church (Eph. 2:20). Once that foundation had been laid, they were no longer necessary. The completed canon of Scripture once completed is left as the sole authority in history for the Church (sola scriptura). Over against this cessationist position is that of certain cults such as the Mormons and of the Roman Catholic Church, both of which insist upon a continuing apostolic-like authority and periodic post-NT revelation. Although they generally adhere to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, Pentecostals also open the door to post-NT revelation by their insistence upon the continuation of the authenticating sign gifts.[10]

Fulfillment of the OT Covenants. It is remarkable that Luke and Paul throughout all their writings in the NT never state that the OT covenants—Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian (Land), Davidic, or New—have been fulfilled. While these writers admit certain benefits flowing to the Church from these covenants, such benefits come indirectly through union with Jesus Christ, not through the Church replacing the original covenant addressee, the nation of Israel.

The Abrahamic Covenant had promised a land, seed, and world-wide blessing to Abraham and his family. The subsequent biblical covenants with Israel amplified these three promises. The so-called “land” or “Palestinian” covenant (Deut. 30) revealed further details of the land promise to Israel. That unconditional covenant is not fulfilled by the Church. The seed promise is elaborated in the Davidic Covenant (II Sam. 7; Ps. 89), and Jesus Christ is revealed as the One Who will eventually reign on David’s earthly throne in Jerusalem. Until He does so, however, that covenant is not fulfilled.

The New Covenant (Jer. 31:27-37; Ezk. 34:25-30; 36:22-38) is presented in the NT in a manner similar to that of the Davidic Covenant. Jesus Christ is revealed as the One Who establishes the covenant by accomplishing the founding sacrifice (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25). Yet Israel nationally does not receive 100% regeneration, a complete regathering to the land, nor world-wide dominance. Until those conditions occur historically, the New Covenant cannot be said to be fulfilled. Some Protestant theologians, because of their commitment to Covenant Theology (see Appendix A), insist that the New Testament, while not explicitly saying that this covenant has been fulfilled, certainly implies it. Dispensational theologian Renald Showers replies:

“Many Covenant Theologians claim that the New Covenant is being fulfilled totally in the Church today. According to this view, the literal nation of Israel forfeited any relationship to the New Covenant because of its unbelief and rebellion against God. The Church in the present age has replaced Israel in that relationship. Thus, the promises of the New Covenant which were presented in the Old Testament are to be fulfilled in a spiritualized Israel (Church) now. They are not to be fulfilled in the literal nation of Israel in the future. . . .

By contrast, Dispensational Theologians claim that since God promised to establish the New Covenant with the literal people of Israel (Jer. 31:31), since God intended the New Covenant to be unconditional in nature. . .and since God declared that He would fulfill the promises of the New Covenant with Israel, not because the nation would deserve it, but because of its disobedience (Ezk. 36:21-36), then the literal nation of Israel has not forfeited its relationship to the New Covenant because of its unbelief and rebellion against God.”[11]

The interpretation of Pentecost by Luke/Paul enlarges the earlier interpretation by Peter. Luke/Paul see Pentecost as marking a major change in God’s historical dealing with mankind. Whereas Peter correctly notes that Israel had a second chance to receive its Messiah and the promised Kingdom, Luke/Paul describe how a new movement of God appeared after the nation again rejected the invitation. The book of Acts “transitions” from an age of dealing with Israel under the OT covenants to a new age of dealing with something called the Church whose blessings come from those covenants through the rejected Messiah. Figure Two pictures this transition.

Figure Two. Diagram of the transition in Acts from an Israel-centered program to a Church-centered program.

DOCTRINAL CONSEQUENCES OF PENTECOST: THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

If the birth and subsequent career of the Lord Jesus Christ heightened biblical revelation of the Trinity, the advent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was an equally major addition. Never before in history was the Third Person of the Trinity revealed more clearly. In Part V of this series, Appendix A, we studied the doctrine of the Trinity. There were five propositions that expressed biblical revelation. Let’s review them:

God is Absolutely One: He cannot be divided into parts based upon some prior categories or qualities. He is fully each of His attributes.

God is Absolutely Three: God has an aggregative nature that is eternally threefold, which is itself the archetypical source of logic and number.

God’s Threeness Refers to Modes of Being, Not Just Roles: The so-called “economic trinity” derives from a fundamental “ontological trinity”.

The Subordination Within the Trinity Does Not Refer to Essence: There is a relationship among the three Persons of subordination from the Father through the “begotten” Son to the “proceeding” Spirit.

With Respect to the Salvation of Man the Triunity is Perceived With Both Threeness and Oneness: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have distinct roles in man’s salvation, yet at the same time we worship the One God.

Although no illustration comprehensively grasps the incomprehensible nature of God, there appear to be finite replicas within creation. Previously, we noted how the essential structures of the universe—things like space, matter-energy, time—have an inherent threeness that coexists with oneness (length-width-height, energy-motion-differentiated motion or phenomena, past-present-future). Another finite replica has recently been noted by Vern Poythress.

Poythress explores the nature of human communication. He writes:

“We are familiar with instances of human communication. One person speaks to another, in order to produce some effect. By calling the Second Person of the Trinity ‘the Word’, John 1:1 invites us to understand the Second Person of the Trinity by analogy with human utterance. The Second Person of the Trinity is the Word spoken by a Person. Clearly, the speaker is preeminently the Father. To who is this Word spoken and with what effect? John 1:1 does not say explicitly. But since the speaking takes place from all eternity (John 1:1a), it is not merely a matter of God speaking to human beings or speaking to some other created thing or even to the created world as a whole. In the beginning was God alone. Hence, we infer that God speaks to himself and finds satisfaction in himself.”[12]

Poythress further notes that:

“in the realm of [redemption], the Spirit of God is operative. . .is instrumental in the impact of the word on our hearts: he writes the word on our hearts. To engage in all these operations, the Spirit must himself understand the purpose of God. And so we find places in the Bible that represent the Spirit not only as active and initiating, but as receptive of the truth of God. . .(John 16:13. . .I Cor. 2:10).[13]

In this survey of the person and work of the Holy Spirit we first must view what is revealed about His Person in the Trinity. Then we will move on to some of His work that is unique to the Church age.

THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY. That the Holy Spirit is as much a “Person” of the Trinity as the Father and Son are, is a truth that has been denied repeatedly since Pentecost. Appendix A of Part V lists the various heretical perversions of the Trinity, all of which denied or are still denying His Personality. Perversion of the Trinity and denial of the Personality of the Holy Spirit can occur not only through outright apostasy but also through friendly negligence. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, put the matter well:

“For want of extended and constructive teaching with respect to the Holy Spirit, the Christian church is, for the most part, in the same position as the twelve disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul found at Ephesus. Their statement—sincere and free from pretense—was, ‘We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost’ (Acts 19:1). . . .Almost every error or disproportionate emphasis upon some aspect of doctrine on the part of a few is caused by the neglect of that truth on the part of the many. The Pentecostal errors with their misuse of Biblical terms and their assumptions would never have developed to any extent had the full and right doctrine of the Holy Spirit been taught generally in its right proportions.”[14]

To do justice, therefore, to the NT revelation of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, we’ll examine His “Procession” jn the Trinity and the revelation of His Person as distinct from the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit “Proceeds” from the Father and the Son. Just as the Son is said to be “eternally begotten” of the Father, the Holy Spirit is said to “eternally proceed” from both the Father and the Son. The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is called the Filoque in

Church history.[15] It arose in the Western part of Europe (Spain) in the 6^th century after a long battle with the heresy of Arianism. Arianism, of course, was a subordinationist heresy that upheld the deity of the Father but made the Son and the Spirit of sub-divine natures. Arius “distinguished the one eternal God from the Son wo was generated by the Father and who had a beginning. He also believed that the Holy Spirit was the first thing created by the Son.”[16] Since the Son was not true deity in this heresy, He could not be the One on the same plain as the Father and as the Sender of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Spirit was said by the subordinationists as proceeding from only the Father but not the Son.

To guard against the subordinationist heresies, the Western Church added the Filoque to the Nicean Creed which had been written many years previously. The Eastern Church (Orthodox) resented this addition that was made without calling for a conference of both Western and Eastern churches. Left outside of the vigorous rejection of Arianism in the West, the eastern Orthodox churches did not sharpen their understanding of the Trinity and eventually fell into serious error that led historically to political tyranny in Russia and eastern Europe. How this happened is a fascinating illustration of the importance of Bible doctrine in the great affairs of mankind.

With a weak and undeveloped concept of the Trinity, the Orthodox churches sought a unifying principle in the Father alone rather than in all three persons of the Trinity. Rushdoony comments:

“Because of subordinationism, the development of the state was furthered in the East. . . .

Subordinationism gave primacy to nature, and hence to the natural ability of man. As a result, man becomes in effect his own savior, and grace is cooperating grace, but not prevenient. If the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father, then the Holy Ghost, in a system which accords primacy to nature, becomes absorbed into nature. . . .

The state is man’s true order, and the church is the concentrated area in which the social process of deification occurs. . . .The kenotic Christ of Eastern [Orthodox] thought abandons His deity in the world.”[17]

In other words denial of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son shows that the Son is not “God enough” to send the Spirit, i.e., the Son is no longer the God-Man of the New Testament. And this weak Christ view led historically to acceptance of tyrannical political powers by eastern European culture. To this day, for example, the Russian people who grew up in a culture saturated with Orthodox theology (the Russian Orthodox church is the only “true” church in their eyes) simply cannot find the strength to stand up to political abuse and tyranny.

In the West, however, the vigorous debates with heretics produced a deep searching of Scripture and a powerful articulation of the Trinity. The Son was seen as co-equal with the Father and therefore equally involved in sending the Holy Spirit. The Trinity as the One and the Many, the Unified and the Diversified, gave the West a model of human society in which unifying authority could co-exist with diversified authority. The state, the church, the family, and other diversified authorities could all function inside their respective “spheres” without each one trying to wholly dominate the others. Rushdoony points out that in the West the strong and balanced view of the Trinity led to a series of developments politically and religiously that were responsible for constitutionalism and liberty.[18]

The Holy Spirit is a Full-Fledged Member of the Trinity. He is both a Person and God. First, He is revealed to be as much of a “person” as the Father and the Son. He has intellect (Rom. 8:27; I Cor. 2:10-11) that teaches men (I Cor. 2:13); sensibility toward other persons (Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:29); and a will of His own (I Cor. 12:11). He commands people (Acts 8:29; 13:2), guides them (Rom. 8:14), argues for the truth with them (John 16:7-8; Rom. 8:14), and is sometimes lied to (Acts 5:3). And He prays (Rom. 8:26).

Some have tried to deny His personality and turn Him into a mere “influence.” They cite the neuter gender of the Greek noun for spirit (pneuma). They fail to recognize that although the noun is neuter, when it is used by NT authors for the Holy Spirit it sometimes is accompanied by pronouns in the masculine gender (e.g., John 15:26; 16:7-8,13-14; Eph. 1:14). This violation of Greek grammar clearly shows deliberate intent by NT authors to assert the true personality of the Spirit over against the notion that “it” is a vague “influence.”

That the Holy Spirit is a true Person as much as the Father and Son are, is vital to the Christian life. As we shall note below, He indwells each believer during the Church age moment by moment here on earth, watching our every thought, word, and deed! We either offend Him or please Him as the “on-scene” Director of our lives. The doctrine of His personhood, therefore, is not a trivial matter for academic theologians! It puts us on the front lines of our relationship with God Himself.

The Holy Spirit is God Himself. The Bible consistently ascribes to the Holy Spirit work that only God Himself can do. He did the creating work in Genesis 1 and the providential sustaining of creation thereafter (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; 27:3; Ps. 33:6; 104:30). He created the Scripture (II Pet. 1:21). He caused the Incarnation in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:35). He fulfills the same role of Comforter that Jesus did prior to His death (John 14:16). In the New Testament He “replaces” Yahweh in OT citations (Acts 28:25 cf. Isa. 6:1-13; Heb. 10:15-17 cf. Jer. 31:31-34).

One of the most glaring NT passages that points to His deity is Matthew 28:19. Here in the very center of the Great Commission is the Three-fold Name of God that includes the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit has divine attributes. He is omniscient (I Cor. 2:11-12), omnipresent (Ps. 139:7), omnipotent (Job 33:4), and holy (Luke 11:13).

THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Since we are discussing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in connection with Pentecost, we need to focus on His work from Pentecost to the present day, i.e, His work in the present dispensation of the Church. One way to focus is to contrast His present work with His work prior to Pentecost. Jesus distinguished His pre-Pentecost work from His post-Pentecost work in John 14:17. Prior to Pentecost, Jesus said, the Holy Spirit was “with” the disciples. After Pentecost He would be “in” them. There is a dispensational shift in His work.

Prior to Pentecost, the Holy Spirit sustained the universe (Ps. 104:29-30), generated the Old Testament (II Pet. 1:21), and restrained sin (Gen. 6:3). He had a special role in the growth of Israel. He worked to empower Joseph as ruler in Egypt (Gen. 41:38) and Joshua as a key leader of the new nation (Num. 27:18). He gave special “natural” skills to workers on the Tabernacle (Exod. 31:3). He directed in a special way later leaders of Israel such as the judges, prophets, and kings (Jud. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; I Sam. 10:9-10; 16:13; cf. I Pet. 1:11).

Great as this work was, however, it was limited compared to the prophesied work associated with the New Covenant (cf. Isa. 59:21; Ezk. 39:29). It was limited to only certain Jews, not all, as the New Covenant promises point out. The Holy Spirit did not permanently abide with any of the OT saints: He could withdraw at any time (I Sam. 16:14; Ps. 51:11).