Bible Commentaries
Acts 2

Verses 1-36

III

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND CHAPTER OF ACTS,

AND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 2:1-36.

This discussion is but an introduction to a long exposition, or rather a series of discussions of Acts 2, with its correlative passage in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Without a clear understanding of it no man can establish a claim to be a theologian. From its typical and prophetic roots in the Old Testament, a retrospective view from it illumines the Gospels, of which it is a climax; and a prospective view from it illumines the mission of the churches, inspired letters which complete the Canon, and which define the scope, doctrine, discipline, and cooperation of the churches, and prophetically outlines their future. It is the fulfillment of many promises. These promises are not only distinct promises, but are promises with distinct meaning. It is the beginning of a new dispensation. That is to say, it is the beginning of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit and the churches, until Christ comes to final judgment. And this involves many distinct promises, for example, in John’s famous chapters (John 14-17), it fulfils the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to abide with the church as Christ’s alter ego, or the other Paraclete. Then, many times is the promise that Christ will baptize in the Holy Spirit. These promises are quite distinct in meaning. The coming of the Holy Spirit to abide with the churches, and the promise to baptize in the Holy Spirit are distinct things. Moreover, in the promise: "He will baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire," the baptism in fire "is distinct in meaning from the baptism in the Holy Spirit." Then again, the coming of the Holy Spirit as an abiding Paraclete, is not the same as the anointing of the most holy (Daniel 9:24, last clause), though both are here fulfilled and related to each other.

We must not mix the thought of the coming and abiding of the Holy Spirit with the churches till Jesus comes with that accrediting’ of the church whose miraculous varieties of attestation will soon pass away with their passing need, for after "tongues have ceased" the Spirit will still remain, infilling with spiritual power, leading, teaching, and guiding the churches so that the people of God shall not be orphans. Indeed, there are so many distinct things taught in Acts 2 that an understanding of it calls for a conception of the meaning of very many scriptures.

I name now certain scriptures of both Testaments that bear upon the proper interpretation of Acts 2. The confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). Three Old Testament types: First, the cloud filling the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-38). Second, the cloud filling the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 8:10-11). Third, the cloud filling Ezekiel’s ideal temple after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed (Ezekiel 43:1-6). Then, as has been already suggested, we must understand the last clause of Daniel 9:24, anointing the most holy and the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.

The New Testament promise is expressed in Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 16:17-18; John 1:33; John 7:37-39; Acts 1:8. The following New Testament scriptures show the fulfillment of this promise: Acts 2:1-6; Acts 8:14-16; Acts 9:17, connected with 1 Corinthians 14:18; Acts 10:44-46; Acts 19:1-6; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. These scriptures show what occurred, to wit: Acts 2:1-6 shows that the Jews received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-16 shows that the Samaritans received it. Acts 9:17 with 1 Corinthians 14:18 shows that Paul received it. Acts 10:44-46 shows that the Romans at Caesarea received it. Acts 19:1-6 shows that the disciples at Ephesus received it. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 shows that the Greeks at Corinth received it. The explanation of these several occurrences is given in the following scriptures: Acts 2:13-36; Acts 8:18-20; Acts 11:15-18, together with Acts 15:7-9, and 1 Corinthians 12-14. The most important of all by way of explanation are these three chapters of I Corinthians. I would not trust any man to expound Acts 2 who did not understand these three chapters in Corinthians.

A study of these passages of scripture shows that the disintegration of one people, as one nation, by a confusion of tongues at Babel, was reversed by the gift of tongues; and as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, signifying that when the human race, because it was of one lip, one word, one speech, was united against God, he divided them into different nations by confusing their tongues, and multiplying their languages, the object of the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was in part to restore the unity of the long-severed fragments of the human race into one family of God. The gift of tongues is to indicate how this unity is to be brought about.

As it was evident that the house built by Moses, his tabernacle, even though completed as a structure, was an empty house until the cloud filled it, showing that God himself was to be the occupant, and as the Temple of Solomon, though thoroughly completed, was to be the house of God after the use of the tabernacle as a portable house was no longer necessary, yet remained empty until the cloud filled it, and as this was equally true of the vision temple of Ezekiel, all of these by the infilling cloud symbolizing the presence of God as an inhabitant of these several houses, show that when Jesus built the antitype of these houses, which was the church, as an institution, it was essential that the new house should receive a heavenly occupant, or as Daniel puts it, there must be an anointing of a most holy place. Therefore, the church which Jesus had established was, on this day of Pentecost, infilled by what the cloud prefigured – that is to say, the coming of the Holy Spirit. I stress the Daniel prophecy which says: "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon the Holy City, to finish transgressions, and to make an end of gin-offering, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy [place]." These events and the Hebrew use of the words "most holy" forbid any reference to Christ himself in this anointing. It is after the Messiah is cut off that the most holy place is to be anointed. To restate the whole thought: The tabernacle was the house that Moses built, and when complete was filled with a cloud signifying the typical presence of God. It was succeeded by the Temple of Solomon, to which, when complete, the cloud was transferred, and which was filled with the glory of God. When that Temple was destroyed, Ezekiel, in exile) sees a vision temple in which at a certain juncture a cloud came and filled it. Matthew shows that when Christ died the veil of the Temple, that is, Zerubbabel’s Temple, enlarged by Herod, was rent in twain, and when that veil was rent in twain from top to bottom, it signified that the old Temple was made empty forever. Yet, God must not be without a temple. So after the death of Christ had made reconciliation for sin the true temple, the church, the truly holy place, was anointed by the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Let us look again at the New Testament promise concerning what was fulfilled in Acts 2. John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize you in water, but there cometh One after me who is to be preferred before me. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." The additional words, "and in fire," will be explained later. He afterward points to Jesus and says, "This is he who is to baptize in the Holy Spirit." We have already seen that in Acts I, just before he ascended into heaven, Jesus said, "Ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence." It was only ten days, and in John 7 on the last great day of the feast, Jesus said, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall outflow the rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." Then in the four chapters of John, from which I gave you references, Jesus says, "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away the Comforter [or Paraclete, or Advocate, or Helper] will not come unto you." Then he mentions the several things the Spirit will do when he comes, and not all the same things. That was the promise of the Father. If we look at the story as given in Acts 2:1-4, we see that three things occur: First, something audible: "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting." Second, what was visible: "And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them." Third, a result: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

This evidently occurred in the upper chamber, where they had celebrated the Lord’s Supper, and where our Lord had appeared unto them after his resurrection several times. The sound which was heard was audible, not alone to them. It was so heard over all the city that a great multitude came together – that multitude being largely composed of the Jews of the dispersion from various parts of the world. And they were confounded, amazed, at hearing each one of those, upon whom appeared the semblance of a flaming tongue, so speaking that each man heard what was said in his own language in which he was born. The sound must have been terrific, for it not only filled the house, but the city. It was like the rushing of a cyclone, the sweeping down of a tremendous current of wind. The people were able to locate the sound, and came rushing to the place where it was echoing. Everybody could bear witness to this because it was audible and so loud. Then, there was an appeal to sight.

There appeared unto the 120 – "tongues distributing themselves, tongues like as of fire," that is, they saw a luminous appearance of tongues, just as we have seen a lambent flame act that way. So these luminous tongues distributed themselves and sat upon the head of each member of the 120, including the twelve apostles, those women, the mother of Jesus, and others, and the brothers of Jesus. This luminous phenomenon has often been seen in an electric storm, when the electricity would fasten itself upon some object, like the point of a spear, or the top of a mast, and play about like a tongue of fire. It is especially so seen on ships at sea. Virgil alludes to it, saying that when he saw in a storm that one of these lambent tongues rested upon the head of young Iulus, the sailors took it as an omen that he was favored of the gods. Anyhow, that is what was visible. The results to the 120 are thus expressed: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." These are the things told in the first four verses of this chapter, as to what they heard, what they saw, and the double result: First, filled with the Spirit; second, all of them speaking with tongues.

Later we will take up the question, "What is meant by speaking with tongues?" This result took place in Jerusalem, the holy city, in Samaria, in Caesarea, in Damascus, and in Corinth, so that the Jews, the Samaritans, the Romans, the Orientals at Ephesus, and the Greeks at Corinth, all were baptized in the Holy Spirit. There are some differences in the details as to the results in these various places. The record says, "Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them." It gives no details of how it was manifested at this place. It must have been manifested some way, because Simon Magus was so much impressed by it that he thought that if he could obtain the power of imparting such a gift he could bring much money. Of the case at Caesarea the record says, "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," that is to say, the baptism in the Holy Spirit was not to be limited to Jerusalem. The Samaritans, the kinspeople of the Jews, received it. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, received it at Damascus, and the Romans at Caesarea received it.

The record in the case at Ephesus is this: "It came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given." Whereupon Paul explained John’s preaching and baptism, and then baptized these disciples. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Spirit came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied." Here is a diversity. It is stated as plainly as elsewhere that the baptism in the Spirit was to be received only by Christians. But heretofore its only manifestation was the speaking with tongues. Here prophesying is added.

We now take the remarkable case at Corinth as described by Paul in the first letter to that church, beginning with 1 Corinthians 12:4: "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." So far we have only found the diversity of tongues and prophesying. "To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues." Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 14:26 he adds: "What is it then, brethren? When you come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation." He is speaking wholly of these miraculous gifts. The most remarkable thing about Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 12 is that the baptism in the Spirit was diverse in its results in different cases. One man was truly baptized in the Spirit who could only speak with tongues, but another man was also baptized in the Holy Spirit who could work miracles, while, as it was foretold in the last of Mark’s Gospel, others could, with impunity, drink a deadly poison or be harmlessly bitten by venomous reptiles. And that passage in Mark says, "These signs shall follow them that believe."

Consider further the explanations of the several instances of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:13; Acts 2:30-37 the recipients of the baptism in the Holy Spirit appeared to be very highly stimulated in some way, so that the outsiders looking on them said, "These men must be drunken with new wine." But Peter’s explanation, while admitting the stimulus and the intoxication, shows it to be a spiritual intoxication to which a reference is made in one of Paul’s letters: "Be not drunk with wine wherein is riot, but be ye intoxicated with the Holy Spirit."

That the case at Caesarea was a real baptism in the Holy Spirit appears in Peter’s explanation in Acts 11, where he says, "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 in 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 the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." That is to say, if this baptism of the Spirit could come only to those who believe, in harmony with Paul’s question at Ephesus, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" and the Caesareans had received the Holy Spirit, it followed that God had antecedently granted unto them repentance unto life.

It is evident, from an examination of the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the miraculous manifestations of the reception of this baptism, that it was no ordinary work of the Holy Spirit, such as conviction, repentance, faith, which had been occurring from the days of Abel. It was yet a thing of promise when Jesus ascended into heaven. In no way, then, could the baptism in the Spirit be counted as regeneration. In regeneration the Holy Spirit is the agent, a sinner is the subject and the purpose is to make him a Christian; but here Jesus is the agent, the subject is a Christian, and the purpose is to increase his efficiency as a Christian man – to accredit him. It is evident that in Acts 2 the members of the church, converted people, received this baptism, but after Peter’s preaching, outsiders were converted. None of them that day was baptized in the Spirit. They were baptized in water. There was a promise, however, to them and to their children limited by "those whom God should call," that they should receive this baptism of the Spirit, or this gift of the Spirit, if God called them to it, and that in making the call there would be no distinction as to age or sex.

To contrast the baptism of the Spirit and regeneration more particularly let us consider two passages in John. In John 4:10-15 Jesus speaks of the water of life as a benefit to the recipient. He says to the woman, "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee, give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." She says, "Thou hast nothing to draw with. How are you going to get the water?" To this Jesus replied: "Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst. But the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life." That is certainly conversion, and the Joy of it. Whoever is converted has in himself and for himself a spring – an unfailing spring of life. But in John 7:37-38, where the reference is clear to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he said: "If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall outflow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit which they that believed on him would receive." Here is again a river of water, but it is not for the benefit of the person. It is beneficial only when it outflows to other people, and it is expressly declared to be that outgoing power from a converted man which follows the reception of the Holy Spirit that is given.

Again, regeneration, or conversion, is of grace in all of its exercises – contrition, repentance, faith. But the baptism of the Spirit is a gift, and in I Corinthians 13 Paul sharply contrasts the difference between a gift and a grace. He says, "Whether there be tongues they shall cease, whether there be prophecies they shall fail; but now abideth faith, hope, love – these three, and the greatest of these is love." This is often manifest in preaching. A man may have a preaching gift; he may be apt to teach, but he may be devoid of Christian graces; if so devoid, yet be truly a regenerate man. The references that have been cited show that no man could receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until after he was converted. Paul asks, "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" Se also writes to the Galatians) "Received ye the Holy Spirit by works of law, or through the gift of faith?" Showing that they had to have faith before receiving the miraculous gift of the Spirit. In every age of the world, through all of its preceding dispensations, the plan of salvation was one; that is, by regeneration on its divine side and by contrition, repentance, and faith on its human side.

Paul in 1 Corinthians gives an additional thought. He says, "Ye were all baptized in the one Spirit unto one body." He is not here discussing water baptism at all. He says, "Ye were all baptized in one Spirit," and the object of the baptism in the Spirit was unto the church, or the one body. It is, perhaps, well to make clear just here another distinction. I once asked a man if be had been baptized. His reply was, "I have been baptized in the Spirit," implying that water baptism amounted to nothing, but the true baptism was the baptism in the Spirit. I tried to show him that in water baptism a man is the administrator, and in the Spirit baptism Jesus is the administrator; that Jesus personally never did baptize in water. Pointing to him John said, "He is the One that shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit."

In water baptism the element is water: "I, indeed, baptize you in water." The element in the Spirit baptism is the Spirit: "He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit," making a distinction in element as well as in administrator. There is no distinction in the subject of the two baptisms. Only a Christian should be baptized in water, and only a Christian could be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but the design of the two baptisms was very unlike. The object of the water baptism is to make a public confession of faith in the Messiah; as it were, to put on the uniform of the Lord, or to show forth in a figure the resurrection of Christ, and to accept the pledge of our own resurrection. But the design of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is thus expressed: "Ye shall receive power when the Spirit is come upon you," as it is expressed in John 7:38: "Out from you shall flow rivers of water."

QUESTIONS

1. What the importance of Acts 2?

2. What its relation to certain promises, what the promises, and what distinction in their meaning emphasized?

3. What Old Testament scripture and incident bearing upon the interpretation of Acts 2?

4. What two Old Testament prophecies of this coming of the Spirit?

5. What three Old Testament types, of which the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is the antitype?

6. In what New Testament scriptures is the promise of the baptism in the Spirit expressed?

7. What New Testament scriptures show the fulfillment of this promise?

8. What occurred in each instance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

9. What scriptures give the explanation of what occurred in these several instances, and which is the most important explanation of all?

10. A study of these scriptures shows what?

11. What the similarity between the tabernacle, the Temple, the vision temple of Ezekiel, and the house which Jesus built?

12. What the prophecy of this in Daniel, and to what does "most holy" in Daniel refer?

13. Now restate the whole thought.

14. What was the promise of the Father as stated by John the Baptist, by Jesus, in John 7:37-39, John 14-16, and Acts 1:5?

15. What three things occurred on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:1-4?

16. Where did these things occur, and what the effect on the city?

17. Describe what they saw when they came together.

18. What natural phenomenon described by the author to which this appearance is likened? Give special instance.

19. What the double result of this baptism in the Spirit?

20. What nationalities are represented among those who received this baptism in the Spirit, and what the significance of it?

21. What the differences in the details as to the results in these several instances?

22. What the record of the case at Ephesus, and what diversity here?

23. What the diversities of gifts at Corinth, and what the results in some instances as foretold in the last of Mark’s Gospel?

24. In what was the stimulation in the case of this baptism of the Spirit like intoxication, what Peter’s explanation of it, and what reference to this similarity in one of Paul’s letters?

25. What the proof that the case at Caesarea was a real baptism in the Holy Spirit, and how does this prove that only Christians received the baptism of the Spirit?

26. How do you prove that this baptism of the Spirit was not an ordinary work of the Spirit, such as conviction, repentance, and faith?

27. What the difference between the baptism in the Spirit and regeneration, as to the agent, the subject and the purpose?

28. What limitation as to the ones who should receive this baptism of the Spirit?

29. Show the contrast between regeneration and the baptism in the Spirit from two passages in John.

30. What other distinction between regeneration and the baptism in the Spirit?

31. Prove from the scripture that only Christians could receive the baptism in the Spirit.

32. What was the object of this baptism in the Spirit?

Verses 1-47

IV

PENTECOST AND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 2:1-47.

Considering baptism in the Spirit as one of the things that occurred on the day of Pentecost, let us restate the difference between it and water baptism in these distinct particulars: administrator, element, subject, design, form, duration, objective, establishing the last particular, i.e., the objective, by bringing out clearly the New Testament usage of the verb, baptizo, and the noun, baptisma, followed by the preposition, eis.

It is important to note the distinction between baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit: (1) As to the administrator: In water baptism the administrator is a man in the flesh; in the Spirit baptism the administrator is Jesus in glory. (2) As to the element: In the one, water is the element, and in the other, the Holy Spirit is the element: "I indeed baptize you in water . . . he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit." (3) The distinction as to the subject: In both cases the subject is a Christian; it is, or ought to be, a Christian who is baptized in water, and it is a Christian who is baptized in the Holy Spirit. (4) As to the design: In the one the design is to declare or symbolize what has been done; and in the other the design is to confer efficiency for what is to be done. The design will be brought out more clearly later. (5) What is the distinction in form? Water baptism is uniform – always the same thing. The Spirit baptism is diverse in form, or manifestation. A man may be really baptized in the Spirit, and another man baptized in the Spirit, and they both may not have the same thing, being thus diverse in form. (6) What is the distinction in duration? Water baptism in the one form continues until our Lord’s second advent. The chief event of the day of Pentecost, i.e., the coming of the Holy Spirit, was once for all, as the coming of our Lord in the flesh was once for all. The baptism in the Spirit, after it had come in its diverse accrediting form, was transitory, ceasing with the sufficient attestation. (7) The distinction in the objective is even more important. It is made clear by the New Testament usage of the verb, baptizo, or its noun, baptisma, followed by the preposition, eis. Eis in connection with this verb, or its noun, means in or into, when the reference is to the element, as in Mark 1:9: "Was baptized of John eis (in or into) the river Jordan." But with these references to the element ]ust now we have nothing to do. We consider the usage when the reference is not to the element, but only to the object or objective.

In these cases eis does not mean because of, as some zealous Baptist would render Acts 2:38, nor in order to, as some Campbellites would render it, but unto, somewhat like with reference to. For example: (1) Baptism in water is unto repentance, eis metanoian (Matthew 3:11); (2) unto remission of sins, eis aphesin . . . hamartion (Acts 2:38). Here the first example (Matthew 3:11), "unto repentance," enables us to avoid a mistake in interpreting the second one (Acts 2:38), "unto remission of sins."

The text of Matthew 3:11 absolutely forbids "in order to" aa a translation of this preposition, because John is there insisting on repentance of the subjects before he would baptize them. He refuses to baptize the Pharisees until they bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Therefore baptism unto repentance is not "in order to." It would destroy the whole sense of the context, and equally so when we come to consider Acts 2:38. It does not mean "in order to" there. Brother E. Y. Mullins has a way of making it mean "in order to" there, by bringing out a kind of a split result, which I think is unjustifiable by the laws of language. (3) Unto a death: "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized eis ton thanaton autou – i.e., into his death" (Romans 6:3). Here the closest meaning seems to be with reference to. It certainly could not mean in order to there; that when we are baptized, we are baptized "in order to" his death; it could not mean that. (4) Unto his death also explains another instance immediately preceding, i. e., "unto Christ," eis Christon lesoun (Romans 6:3), that is, baptism into Christ means baptism into his death: "All we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death." The latter passage is epexegetical of the former.

Again we find an example in Galatians 3:27: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ," that is, as a uniform. (5) With a side of the objective in water baptism: "Into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," eis to onoma (Matthew 28:19). But baptism in the Spirit has an objective different from any of these. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, Paul has discussed baptism in the Spirit and compared it with other things. And in chapter 12 he uses this language: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, eis hen soma (1 Corinthians 12:13). Then in explanation of the one body he continues: "God bath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues." These gifts conferred in the baptism in the Spirit were "unto" one body – the church.

The difference in objective, then, between the two baptisms is evident: The baptism in water may be "unto repentance," "unto remission of sins," "unto Christ’s death," "unto the triune name." The baptism in the Spirit is "unto the church." As no other objective, its object was to empower the church, to dower the church, to accredit the church. The baptism in water has no such object.

As the church was established by our Lord in his lifetime, and commissioned by him, it was God’s building; it was the true temple. But in his absence, after his ascension and until the Spirit came, as a temple it had no shekinah; as a house it had no occupant; as an ecclesia it had no attestation. We thus see how the baptism in the Spirit was "unto" the church.

1. If the baptism in the Spirit is eis the church, what is the real significance of this great transaction, as foreshadowed in the tabernacle of Moses, the Temple of Solomon, the vision temple of Ezekiel, and the prophecy of Daniel 9:24, recognizing that the baptism of the Spirit is unto the church? The significance of the great transaction described in Acts 2:2-4, and explained in Acts 2:16-18, is intensified by its evident fulfilling of certain foreshadowings in the Old Testament. For example: The cloud filling the tabernacle, which was the house that Moses built, when it was completed. In Exodus 40:33-35 we have a clear account of this; that when this house of God, this tabernacle was completed, no part was left out, not a mere particle of the material of which it was to be constructed, but when that material was put together so that it formed a house; when Moses had thus finished this house of God, the cloud which symbolized the glorious presence of Jehovah, came down and filled it, so that it was occupied by a symbol of Jehovah’s presence.

2. The cloud filled the Temple, which was the house that Solomon built, when it was completed. We have the record of it in I Kings 7:51-8:11. David gathered this material, and received from God the architectural plan of it; then Solomon, with every piece of material prepared beforehand, put it together; and that day when it was finished the Inhabitant came down – a cloud representing the glorious presence of Jehovah, and filled that house.

3. The cloud of the glory of Jehovah filled the vision temple of Ezekiel, when it was seen as completed. We have in the latter chapters of Ezekiel a description of the ideal temple, and that record goes on to show that when it was completed (Ezekiel 43:1-4) the glory – the cloud of glory – of the presence of Jehovah came and filled this temple. It was the anointing of a new temple, or most holy place) after the Messiah, by his vicarious, expiatory death, had made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24).

Let us note again the order of events: "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, (1) to finish transgression, (2) and to make an end of sins, (3) and to make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) and to bring everlasting righteousness, (5) and to seal up vision and prophecy, (6) and to anoint the most holy [place]."

It is important to observe that the tabernacle as a typical, but transitory house of God, was occupied by the symbol of the glorious presence of Jehovah, but when the people were settled in the land, filling all the borders promised to Abraham (Gen. 15) and there was peace through all the borders, then there was no more need for the portable house of wandering and war; so the cloud symbol of the glorious presence was transferred to the fixed habitation built by Solomon, restored by Zerubbabel, and still more restored by Herod – it makes no difference. Just so, when a fixed typical house had served its purpose, its veil was rent in twain from top to bottom, when Messiah died, and though it survived as a shell until destroyed by Titus, it was empty – an empty, uninhabited house, because the new house, built by our Lord himself – his temple, his church, was, on this famous Pentecost, filled by the glorious presence of Jehovah in the coming of the Holy Spirit; and so, according to Daniel, there was the "anointing of the Most Holy."

You need not be disturbed because commentators unwisely interpret this last clause of Daniel 9:24 as referring to the anointing of a person, even our Lord himself. Three insuperable obstacles stand in the way of their interpretation: (a) The Hebrew usage demands that the "most holy" of Daniel 9:24 be considered as a place, or rather a house, and not a person. (b) The orderly sequence of events in this verse places the anointing of the most holy as the last of the great series, and after reconciliation has been made for iniquity, (c) Our Lord’s own anointing took place at his baptism, the beginning and not the end of his public career, according to prophecy (Isaiah 11:1-5) and to fact (Matthew 3:16; Luke 4:18-21; John 6:27). Even when Jesus spoke about the anointing in the address that he made at Nazareth, he quoted Isaiah, and he claimed that he had that anointing of the Spirit testified to by Isaiah, and that it was fulfilled that day as he spoke.

It is quite important also to note that as in Ezekiel’s vision the river of life outflowed from the sanctuary (Ezek. 47), after the cloud of glory filled it (Ezekiel 43:1-4), so, as has been stated, according to John the outflowing rivers of living water from the believers was to be after the coming of the Spirit (John 7:37-39): "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they which believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." The waters of the sanctuary came trickling down, then they became a streamlet, next as it were ankle-deep, later, up to the knees, then waist-deep, until they became a river big enough to swim in, wherever it went conferring life and fertility to the land. John 7 shows the growth and depth of the stream from the sanctuary, and this passage should be compared with every passage in Ezekiel; then can be seen what occurred on the day of Pentecost – an infilling of the house that Jesus built, which is clearly foreshown in Ezekiel and clearly fulfilled in John 7.

It is further to be noted that as the cloud filled the portable house of Moses, which served only during the period of wandering and war, then was succeeded by Solomon’s cloud-filled and fixed habitation in time of peace, so the new house, the "time church" of our Lord, the Spirit-occupied house, on this famous Pentecost, for the war and moving period, itself will be succeeded in the eternal peace period by the church in glory, as an everlasting habitation of God (Rev. 21). These are not mere annals; they are more than incidental correspondents. If ever on this earth in the library of sixty-six books of the Bible there was an articulate system of truth conjoined: coupled, capable, adaptable, without marring the symmetry of the whole, it is this truth.

So when you go to interpret this book your interpretation must fit all round. Thus would "the fathers" – don’t mean patriarchs, but our Baptist fathers – make this statement: "The interpretation of one passage must be in accord with one canon (or rule) of faith."

We will not carry forward this line of thought, answering again in enlarged form and in distinct particulars, the following questions: What the clear distinction between the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent or attending baptism in the Spirit that day? What and why the baptism in the Spirit, its extent as to persons or classes, and its duration? What the distinction between the ordinary graces of the Spirit, both before and after Pentecost, and the extraordinary gifts of the baptism in the Spirit? These are very important questions, and we will take them up in order:

1. The coming of the Holy Spirit on this Pentecost, and the baptism of the 120 in the Spirit after he arrived, are two distinct things which must not be confounded. The baptism was only one of the many results of his coming, or rather fulfils only one of the many purposes of his coming. For example: Acts 2:2-4 is one result. In the same chapter are many, but one will suffice here: "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting among them, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

That is one of the results of the Spirit’s coming that day. After Peter had preached, we read (Acts 2:37) : "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?"

Notice it was a different crowd – a sinner crowd – and that sinner crowd was not baptized in the Spirit. This is another result of the Spirit’s coming that day. Acts 2:2-4 is one result, i.e., this baptism of which the 120 are the subjects, fulfilling the promises of Acts 1:8, first clause, and last clause of Mark 1:8. Whereas Acts 2:37 expresses another, but quite distinct result, fulfilling John 16:8-11, in which sinners are convicted of sin: "And he, when he is come, he will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged."

The Holy Spirit came on this Pentecost as the other Paraclete, the only Vicar or Vice-Regent of our Lord, to remain on earth, while our Saviour remains in heaven. He is our earth Advocate (Romans 8:26-27) only so long as Jesus is our heaven Advocate (Romans 8:34, last clause; Hebrews 7:25; 1 John 2:1). When the Lord comes again, the Vice-Regent will cease to be vicar, just as the vice-president presides only in the absence of the president, and does not act when he is present. Some people want an earthly vicar, and call him "Pope." The Holy Spirit is the only vicar, who mediately continues the immediate teaching begun by our Lord (John 14:26; Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:17; Revelation 2:29; Revelation 3:6; Revelation 3:13; Revelation 3:22). When Jesus was here, he did the teaching directly; since he went to heaven, he still does the teaching, but he does it mediately, through the Holy Spirit. Hence the statement of our Lord, "He will teach you all things, . . . and guide you unto all truth," and the statement in Acts 1:1-2: "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen."

Thus he came to be the great witness to our Lord. He came to reveal the Lord in us, as the Lord came to reveal the Father to us.

These multiform purposes of the Spirit’s coming, in all which he is the agent, are not to be confounded with the baptism in the Spirit, in which our Lord is the agent.

2. The baptism in the Spirit, then, is that miraculous submersion of certain early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit, which accredited the church established by our Lord, as a new and divine institution, superseding the narrower Jewish institution, by its inclusion of all people into the family of God. In order to accredit this, power was manifested in the miraculous gifts enumerated in Acts 2; Acts 8; Acts 10; Acts 19; 1 Corinthians 12. To this end, understand that the baptism in the Spirit is the submersion of certain Christians into the power of the Spirit in order to accredit a new institution, distinct from the Jewish institution, in itself to include all peoples, and not just one people, and for spiritual reasons, not fleshly reasons. To this end this power came first on Jews (Acts 2) then on Samaritans (Acts 9), then on Romans (Acts 10), then on Greeks (Acts 19; 1 Cor. 12). The accrediting was just as much needed to Peter as it was needed to the heathen. He was mighty hard to convince that this new institution was meant for all people. Jesus gave him some keys, one to open the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles, and he was very prompt in opening the Jew door on this day, but that other key lingered, and its door remained closed, until he was on a certain housetop. The key had rusted, but then came that vision of an ark, in which Peter learned that God, who had cleansed the Gentiles, was no respecter of per- sons and that the door of faith had to be opened to the Gentiles also. That accrediting was very hard for the church to receive. When called to account for the baptism of Cornelius, a marvelous baptism, Peter said: "Who was I, that I could withstand God?" Why, there was this same gift that they received on the day of Pentecost, and there it was on this Gentile, Cornelius, and he was speaking with tongues. "Who was I, that I could withstand God?" Then when Philip went to Samaria, as soon as the church at Jerusalem heard that he was over there baptizing Samaritans, they sent a delegation to look into the case, for they had no dealings with the Samaritans. But when the Spirit came in the same way on these Samaritans, they spake with tongues. You will notice the enlargement all the time – from Jews to Samaritans, to Romans, to Greeks. We are getting at the purpose of this accrediting. I put my definition more clearly on the baptism in the Spirit than heretofore, as a new institution, superseding the old, and gathering all peoples into one family of God.

What was the result of that sort of attestation? Paul says (and I am sure he thoroughly understood it), in that circular letter to the Ephesians, including besides that Greek city, other cities in the Lycus valley (Ephesians 2:11-22): "Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel) and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace [i.e. he makes peace between us and another party that we have been at war with], who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two, one new man, so making peace."

What a light that throws on the death of Christ on the cross, to which he refers I And therefore, as contained in a letter to the Colossians, where the peculiar Jewish ordinances are referred to, he says, "Nailing it to the cross . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, . . ." Let no man therefore judge you, "for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father." There we have the Trinity. Then the result: "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit." "In whom each several building [the church at Ephesus, at Laodicea, at Smyrna, at Antioch, at Jerusalem], fitly framed [Jews and Gentiles] together." I am sure that the accrediting on that day, is of the greatest importance to the whole universe, in having convinced Peter, even, that this was a new institution; that it was not to be a Jewish institution, and that it was to supersede the old institution.

3. As this baptism was merely to attest, to accredit the church, it was not necessarily something to be continued permanently, but to cease when the attestation was sufficient. This very transitory nature was one of the things contrasted with the graces of the Spirit, in 1 Corinthians 13:8: "Whether there be tongues, they shall cease, etc."

QUESTIONS

1. What is the distinction between baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit as to the administrator?

2. What is the distinction as to the element?

3. What is the distinction as to the subject?

4. What is the distinction as to design?

5. What is the distinction as to form?

6. What is the distinction as to duration?

7. What is the distinction as to the objective? Illustrate by the use of baptize and baptisma, followed by eis.

8. Restate the real significance of this great transaction on the day of Pentecost, as foreshadowed in the tabernacle of Moses, the Temple of Solomon, the vision temple of Ezekiel, and the prophecy of Daniel 9:24.

9. Does the "most holy" of Daniel 9:24 refer to a person or to a place, and what the argument?

10. What is the constructive argument based on Ezekiel 43:1-4; Ezekiel 47:1-2; John 7:37-39?

11. What is the relation of tabernacle, Temple, and church, and what the bearing of this fact on correct interpretation?

12. What is the clear distinction between the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent or attending baptism in the Spirit that day?

13. What and why the baptism of the Spirit, what its extent as to persons or classes, and what its duration?

14. How was the accrediting by the baptism in the Holy Spirit received by the church and the proof?

15. What is the distinction between the ordinary graces of the Spirit, both before and after Pentecost, and the extraordinary gifts of the baptism in the Spirit?

V

PENTECOST AND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT (Continued)

Acts 2:1-47.

Was the baptism in the Spirit the same as the baptism in fire? The form of my answer to that is in Matthew 3:11-12: "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." I will now explain the additional words, "in fire," and answer the question, Is the "in fire" fulfilled in Acts 2:3: "And there appeared unto them tongues, parting asunder [or distributing themselves], like as of fire"?

About the fairest, most trustworthy, most thoroughly critical explanation given by expositors is to be found in Dr. Broadus’ great Commentary on Matthew, to which you are referred. My own statement of the case, pro and con, is this:

1. One side (but a view that I am going to controvert) is this: The baptism in the Spirit and fire is one baptism, indicated by the absence of the preposition before "fire."

2. The "in fire" is epexegetical of "in the Holy Spirit," merely expanding the thought, as in John 3:5: "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, . . ."

(3) John the Baptist appears to have had in mind Malachi 3:1-3, particularly: "He is like a refiner’s fire . . . and he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver." Therefore, the baptism in the Spirit and fire is a purification, a sanctification.

(4) The one pronoun, "you" – "He will baptize you" – shows that the same persons baptized in the Spirit were baptized in fire.

(5) Hence in the fulfilment we find "tongues of fire," the visible expression of the baptism of the Spirit. This is one side, and very fairly given, and just as strong as one who holds that view can state it.

1. The other side: It is admitted that the absence of the preposition before "fire" is strong presumptive evidence of the unity of the baptism in the Spirit and fire; but it is not conclusive evidence, and cannot be pleaded against a context strongly the other way, as many examples of usage clearly show. The context of the passage quoted as analogous (John 3:5): "Except one be born of water and the Spirit" very strongly supports the unity of the birth, and that John 3:5 is epexegetical of "born from above" (John 3:3). But the context of Matthew 3:11-12 and of Luke 3:16 is overwhelmingly the other way. Let us examine Matthew 3:10-12, noting the fire in each case: "And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshingfloor; and he will gather up his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." The ax hews down, and the trees that bring not forth good fruit, the fire burns; in Matthew 3:12 the fan winnows the chaff from the wheat, and the fire burns the chaff. In both these verses are two classes with different destinies. The good trees are not cut down and burned; the wheat is not burned with the chaff, but gathered into the garner. The "you" whom John addresses are two classes – not one – represented by good and bad trees, and by wheat and chaff. How then can we make the "fire" in the intervening verse sanctifying and not punitive – consuming? Some of the "you" Jesus will baptize in the Spirit, but others of the "you" he will baptize in fire, just as he discriminates between the destiny of good trees and bad trees, and of wheat and chaff. This view is confirmed by the significant fact that in every case where the baptism "in fire" occurs, the context shows it to be punitive, and a consuming fire. The context of Matthew 3:11 has been given; see also the context of Luke 3:16-17, where also the fire is given. You will find that some punitive character is placed upon it. Then if you will note the absence of such context in Mark 1:8, you will observe that there is also an absence of the fire. Mark say "I baptize you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:5 says, "Ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit," and does not mention fire; and where it does not mention fire it does not mention the punitive character.

2. The citation from Malachi, presented for the first side of this argument, is unfortunate for those who cite it, since the context there supports a contrary view. Malachi 4 is the context of the third. Let us examine Malachi 4:1-3, and note the punitive office of the fire, and the class to which it is applied: "For behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings [beams]; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves in the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make [do this], saith Jehovah of hosts."

That chapter closes by referring to John the Baptist; that Elijah was to come; Jesus says that John the Baptist was meant by Elijah in that prophecy. If John the Baptist, as is claimed, and as I grant, had in mind what Malachi says, then he had in mind two very distinct classes of people. Upon one class the sun of righteousness was to arise, with healing in its beams. The other class was to be burned up, and be ashes under the feet of that first class.

A refiner’s fire is not intended to make the gold or silver better metal; it does not change the intrinsic value of the gold or of the silver a particle. But the object of the refiner’s fire is to eliminate and destroy that which is not gold and silver, but which is mixed up with it. To separate and consume the dross is the object of the refiner’s fire. Therefore, no sanctifying power is referred to here; for if it be claimed that Malachi 3:4 presents two comings of the Lord, far apart, it is granted. But Joel’s prophecy, which Peter quotes as explanatory of the baptism in the Spirit, does this same thing (Acts 2:17-18), referring to Christ’s coming in the Holy Spirit, while Acts 2:19-20, also quoted from Joel, seem rather to refer to Messiah’s final advent for judgment, as can easily be seen by the parallel passage in Matthew 24:29-30, and by comparing these phenomena with Matthew 25:41-46, the end of the discussion. There it is clear that the baptism in fire means "Depart from me, . . . into everlasting fire . . . And these shall go away into eternal punishment."

3. The contention that "tongues of fire" in Acts 2:3 fulfils the "fire" of Matthew 3:11 is both untenable and inexcusable, for the viewpoint of either of the theories here contrasted. Therefore, no "tongues of fire" are in Acts 2:3. There appeared unto them tongues which parted asunder, or distributed themselves, "like as of fire." This reference is not even to the color of the tongues seen, but to the method of parting or distributing among them. Parting among them like as of fire. Fire, when it is a great flame, parts asunder, separating in tongue-shaped flames. Whenever we see a great fire we see these tongues. There parted unto them tongues, whether black, white or red, the record does not say, but it does say that they parted asunder, just as a fire will part asunder, into several flames that are in the shape of tongues. The point of likeness, therefore, is not in the color of what they say, but in the method of its distribution; and "like as" never expresses identity. That is my point of view of the subject, and it can readily be seen that it is not untenable, because there was no fire. Something did occur which finds a likeness in fire.

I will now suppose that I am on the other side, and I will show that it is untenable and inexcusable; that this is not intended to fulfill the other; these tongues did not sanctify those who possessed them. Says Paul, "Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving," therefore they accredit. These tongues did not make the people any better, but they did accredit the people who spoke them to the unbelieving crowd that stood around. "For a sign," not to the believer, but to the unbeliever. Again Paul says, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal." Once more he says, "Love never faileth: but whether there be tongues [and he is discussing this baptism in Spirit altogether], they shall cease. . . . But now abideth faith, hope, love"; the things that benefit one are the graces of the Holy Spirit, and they stay in the world and in the church. They will be here when Jesus comes, but that tongue business ceases. Why? Because it is not the purpose of the sign to be continuous. Just as soon as it serves its purpose, it is valueless. It has exhausted the purpose of it having been brought into being.

A sign is not to sanctify the one who exhibits it, but to accredit him.

God gave Moses signs to show unto Pharaoh – not signs to himself; he had signs for him. The object of these signs to Pharaoh was not to make Moses better, but to accredit him before Pharaoh as a messenger from God.

What then is meant by "baptism in fire"? Hell! It means everlasting punishment in hell. (See in my first book of sermons the subject thus treated.)

Would you, then, in this way, pray to be baptized in the Spirit and in fire? I would not. I have often heard it: "Come now, O Lord, and baptize us in the Spirit and in fire." The reason I would not pray for both of them is that they do not harmonize; the two things do not go together. If I were going to pray for the one, I certainly would not pray for the other. I would not pray for the baptism in the Spirit, because that was a credential, and its day has passed. (Credentials are not continuous.) I would not pray for the baptism in fire, because I do not want to go where it takes place. But I am quite sure that many people pray that, with a meaning they have put on those words; and I do know that God oftentimes answers their prayer, not according to what they say, because they miscall it, but according to what they mean. And I doubt not that people often pray for things they do not name rightly, and the Lord hears and answers according to the intent.

That brings us to another important question: Were there any influences of the Spirit communicated at Pentecost which may now be received? Unquestionably. I have already called attention to the distinction between the fullness of the meaning of the coming of the Spirit, and the narrowness of the meaning of the baptism in the Spirit. The very thing those people prayed for may be involved in the coming of the Spirit. The Spirit came occupying and infilling the church, and he came to stay until Christ’s final advent. And if he stays, he stays for that purpose; and I have a right to pray for all things which he came to give, except that of accrediting, as the early church was. Take, for example, what Paul prays for in the letter to the Ephesians. He prays the two biggest prayers that I have ever read or heard (Ephesians 1:15-21): "For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which ye show toward all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling; what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." These are all mighty spiritual gifts.

Take his next prayer (Ephesians 3:14-19): "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God." That is a titanic prayer. Paul prays that for the church at Ephesus. So the importance of this question: Were there any influences of the Spirit communicated at Pentecost that may now be received?

The next question: Was the gift of tongues a power to speak in other languages, or a mere ecstasy, unintelligible to other people, and that the man himself oftentimes did not understand? On that point we find the commentators parting asunder like the forks of a road. Conybeare and Howson, m their Life and Epistles of Paul, when they come to discuss the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians claim that it was not a gift to speak in different languages.

Now, was it the power to speak in other languages? Certainly it was, or I have to take back what I said about Pentecost reversing the incident at Babel. Let the record answer whether this was a mere ecstasy, or actual power to speak in different languages: "Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:5).

That does not describe mere ecstasy, but the power to speak in the different languages; and the record goes on to specify the nations from which they came: "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and Proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God." While they were all Jews, yet Jews of the dispersion, who had ceased speaking the Hebrew tongue, they spoke the languages of the country where they lived, and what amazed them – the thing that startled them – was to see these ignorant Galileans, having a corrupted dialect of Aramaic, speaking better than they could these words in their own languages, to which they were born. Is have more respect for Conybeare and Howson’s commentary than for many others, but I have not a bit of respect for their position on this subject. We will now show the likeness between the subjects of these influences and drunken men, quoting Paul. When the Spirit came that day to fill the church as an abiding presence, the subjects of these influences of the Spirit were swept off their feet. It was like the communication of the divine afflatus, which showed in their eyes, in their courage, in their mountain high, star-high faith. It showed that they were in a measure possessed – so much so, that outsiders who did not believe in religion, said, "These men are drunken; that is the way a drunken man does." There is a likeness. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians says, "Be not intoxicated with wine, wherein is excess, but be intoxicated with the Spirit." It is an intoxication in each case, a mighty stimulation. In one case it is a good Spirit, and in the other, a very bad spirit; in the one a Spirit of love, in the other a spirit of woe, as a man standing on a whiskey barrel, once said, "There are spirits above, and spirits below [pointing to the barrel]; spirits of love, and spirits of woe." Each one is a mighty stimulation. One stimulates the soul; the other dethrones the reasoning power. And yet there are certain resemblances. I have heard this called drunkenness by infidels who came to a big meeting, who were rapt, even when gazing in their faces; as these sighed, others were sobbing, or weeping, or shouting the power of the truth. "Why," the infidels would say, "these people here are crazy; they are possessed; they act like drunken people."

What did this marvelous coming of the Spirit demonstrate? I give an illustration to lead up to the answer: A husband and father loves his family in the old world. They are in privation. The father comes to the new world. He says, "If I get there and prosper, I will send you back something that will make it certain to you that I have arrived and have prospered." Months pass away. At last, that wife and those lonely children get a letter, and in it is a check on a London bank for ten thousand pounds. What did that check demonstrate? "That the man had gotten there, and that he had prospered. Jesus says, "It is expedient for you that I go away. You think I am leaving you orphans; but I am not leaving you orphans. If Is go not away, the Paraclete, the Comforter, will not come to you. Is go to my Father, and Is will send him to you. Now you wait and see." They waited ten days; they prayed. And on the fiftieth day from his expiatory death the demonstration came that Jesus was in heaven; that he did get there, and was exalted to the throne of God, and he is there living as King and Priest, the whole universe subject to him. It was a demonstration of the exaltation of Jesus Christ to the right hand of the Father.

Is will explain the typical signification of Pentecost, the 3,000: The Jews had three national feasts. Every Jew was expected to attend these three feasts. One of them was the Feast of Pentecost, the one following the Passover, and separated from Feast of the Passover by fifty days. On the fiftieth day from the time the paschal lamb was slain, which of course would be in April, was the time of the firstfruits of harvest, and at that feast, they offered unto God the firstfruits of the incoming harvest, which was to be a pledge of the greatness of the harvest, of which this was only an "earnest," or foretaste. Therefore, if on this Pentecost, the firstfruits amounted to 3,000 souls, "oh, what shall the harvest – the final harvest – be?" That day, what shall the harvest be – that day – when in the fulness of time, out of every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred, a multitude that no man can number, will constitute the redeemed of the Lord? The spiritual significance of Pentecost was these 3,000 – that is, the lifting up of the sheaf of the first fruit offered unto God.

QUESTIONS

1. Was the baptism in Spirit the same as baptism in fire, and what the scripture proof?

2. Is this additional phrase, "in fire," fulfilled in Acts 2:3, and what the explanation of "in fire," pro and con?

3. Is it right to pray for the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and why?

4. Would you pray for the baptism in fire, and why?

5. Were there any influences of the Spirit communicated at Pentecost which may now be received? If so, what?

6. Was the gift of tongues a power to speak in other languages, or a mere ecstasy, unintelligible to other people, and that the man himself oftentimes did not understand?

7. What the similarity between the subjects of these influences of the Spirit and drunken men?

8. What admonition of Paul relative to these effects?

9. What the "drunken man’s" couplet?

10. What did this marvelous coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost demonstrate? Illustrate.

11. What the typical signification of Pentecost?

VI

PENTECOST AND THE KINGDOM

Acts 2:1-47.

Let us consider the kingdom of heaven in its relation to this Pentecost. When I was a young preacher I was challenged to debate with a Campbellite. Young preachers debate oftener than the old ones. One of the topics for discussion was, "Resolved, that the kingdom of heaven was set up on the day of Pentecost, and not before." He affirmed; I denied. When I came to reply to his first speech I asked him these questions:

"What did Christ give to Peter?"

He said, "The keys of the kingdom."

"How many keys?"

"Two; one for the Jews, and one for the Gentiles."

"When did Peter use the key that opened the door to the Jews?"

"On this Pentecost."

"When Peter opened that door of the kingdom on that day, did he open it from the inside or from the outside? If from the outside, when did he get in, and how?"

He was so confused that he did not answer.

There is not a word said in this chapter about setting up a kingdom – not a syllable. It is forced in there. The laws of the kingdom had been established; the subjects of the kingdom were there; the executive body of the kingdom had been established; the house was complete. The King had gone up to be crowned, but the kingdom was there.

Was the church instituted, established, or organized on this Pentecost? There is not a syllable on that in Acts 2.

Christ instituted the church. He established it in the days of his flesh. The church was this day accredited – received its credentials.

It was a house complete, but empty. It then received its Inhabitant, but the church was not instituted, nor established, nor organized on this Pentecost.

Now let us go through this chapter, and simply look at some things in several verses, calling for explanation.

We will first locate the countries of the people mentioned in Acts 2:9-11, taking the names where the peoples are expressed, and then where the countries are named: "Parthians and Medes and Elamites – Cretans and Arabians." Take your map and locate Parthia, and Media where the Medes came from, and Elam where the Elamites came from. They come in their order. Parthia is the highest up, next Media, and then Elam. Look northeast of the Euphrates. Follow that and commence high up on the map to get Parthia, then drop down to Media, and lower still for Elam. The Cretans were the inhabitants of the island of Crete in the Mediterranean, and the Arabians inhabited Arabia. Luke mentions "Dwellers of Mesopotamia" – people living between the Tigris and the Euphrates, between the rivers, or in the midst of the rivers, as the word signifies. Judea you know. The following are in Asia Minor: Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia; those are the Asia-Minor provinces, Asia there meaning not the Continental, but Proconsular Asia. Egypt is in the northern part of Africa, around the’ Nile. Parts of Libya about Cyrene, also in the northern part of Africa. Vast multitudes of Jews were carried there, strangers of Rome; the site of Rome is in Italy.

All these came from these countries, and were Jews or proselytes, one or the other, but all of them, except those living in Judea, were Jews of the dispersion, or Hellenistic Jews. The great majority could not speak a word of Hebrew. They spoke the tongues of the countries where they lived.

Now here is a question on Acts 2:20: The Sun shall be turned into darkness, And the Moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.

What is that great and notable day of the Lord? Notice that the prophet in his prophecy has what is called a perspective ; he glances at a mountain range, peak upon peak, and the highest peak is the less distinct; and to the eye in this perspective the whole range looks like one mountain, but when he goes there he finds – that it is a mountain back of a mountain. Joel sees two mountain peaks in his prophecy. One is the coming of the Spirit, which is here described, and the other is the final advent of our Lord. In Matthew 24 we have this same description, applying to the final advent of our Lord.

Let us expound Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay." I call attention first to the reading of the Revised Version, the latter part of the verse: "you have taken and by the hands of lawless men [or men without the law did crucify." Notice there is a change in thought, and the Revised Version is more accurate than the Authorized Version which reads "by wicked hands have slain." But it is not on account of that difference in rendering that I call attention to Acts 2:23. Here we have presented three things: (1) The determinate counsel of God, his purpose, and (2) the foreknowledge of God, and (3) the crucifixion of Christ by men, where another purpose comes in, the man-purpose. The man purpose is to crucify Christ. Here is a good purpose: That Christ should die for man; God’s motive is good, looking to salvation. Man’s motive is bad, wicked, looking to murder. Notice that this purpose of God, and this foreknowledge of God are before the world began – before there was any matter or universe, or any part of the whole earth. In particular before man was made there was a purpose of God in Christ, and in Christ’s death. That foreknowledge of God was before the creation.

God’s purpose and his foreordination and man’s agency go right along without any conflict, and if you can get the fact in your mind that it does, you need not bother about the philosophy of the explanation.

We are conscious every day that there is a will above our will, that has to do with carrying out our will and sometimes not according to our will. Everybody knows both those things, and it is not worth while to argue about the philosophical reconciliation.

Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31 needs some notice. Acts 2:27: "Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption." Verse 31: "He, foreseeing this, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." Note:

1. The distinction here between the soul and the body. When I was a soldier and not a Christian, I heard a Restorationist preach about the soul. His theory was that man has no soul in our sense of the word soul – no more than a brute, but that a converted man has thepneuma or spirit, and that is immortal. He said, "As for my soul, it can go to hell whenever it wants to." Then he further said, "The word translated soul in the Bible means so many things that it does not mean anything. For example, it means, for one thing, a smelling bottle." Then he said, "Does anybody want to ask a question?" "Yes," I said, "I’ll ask you one. It is the law of language, that when you put the meaning of a word in the place of the word, that it makes sense. Now, what sort of sense does this make: ’Why art thou cast down, O my smelling bottle? Why art thou disquieted within me, O my smelling bottle? Thou wilt not leave my smelling bottle in hell. What would it profit a man to gain the whole world and ’lose his own smelling bottle?’ " I did not tell him that somebody else used that before I did, but it had a practical effect on that audience.

2. The other distinction between soul and body is, "Because a man goeth to his everlasting home, and the mourners go about the streets; before the silver cord is loosed, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, and the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it." Never be beguiled on two points: (a) that there is no distinction between soul and body; (b) never waste time on trichotomy; that is, that there are three parts of the man, the soma, body, the psuche, soul, and pneuma, spirit. Spirit and soul are used interchangeably, and to fix up a double man is sufficient. It is an easy matter to explain how pneuma would be used in one instance and psuche, or soul, in another. We have not, however, got to the main point in my mentioning this: How could both of these, the "not abandoning the soul unto hell," and the "not suffering the body to see corruption," be expounded in the resurrection of the body? The answer is that when Christ’s body was raised, and glorified, then the soul of Christ came back to it, and both can be expressed by the resurrection of the body. But the distinction is there, which leads us to the next thought: "Thou wilt not abandon my soul unto hell." What does that mean? I am going to discuss it in two meanings and let you take your choice. Take the Greek, Hades, follow strict grammatical thought, and see when he says, "Thou wilt not abandon my soul unto Hades," that it would be equivalent to, "Thou wilt not allow my soul to remain disembodied, houseless." Hades, the state as well as the place of the soul, is bodiless. "Thou wilt not let my soul remain a part, just a part of man, the spiritual part disembodied; nor wilt thou suffer my body, the other part to become corrupt." The resurrection will come to prevent the corruption, and reunite the soul and body, and thus fulfill both the thoughts.

All that sounds plausible, but I am going to advance an idea on which I do not speak dogmatically, but put a slight interrogation point after it myself. The old creed says, "I believe that Christ died and was buried and descended into hell." On that they built this theory – that the soul of Christ, after his body died, went into the spirit world, not only, as they advocate it, into paradise or purgatory. As the Catholics say, he went to bring out the old saints, and when there, another expounder of the passage in Peter says, to preach to the souls of the antedeluvians, and bring salvation to them in hell. But I don’t believe he went there after he died, and you cannot take the document and support the idea that Christ’s soul went to hell after he died. You cannot take their papers and make them agree on any point, first as to whether he went before the resurrection, or after the resurrection.

It is unquestionable that Christ’s soul entered hell while he was on the cross: "The pangs of hell got hold upon me." He died the spiritual death, which is absence from God, when he said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And the devil and the demons were around him; the thirst of hell was upon him.

But, "Thou wilt not abandon my soul unto hell." He was there, but not to stay. He came out of that to say to the Father, "Receive my spirit." He was no longer forsaken of the Father. That is when I think Christ descended into hell. I am sure that he went, neither in soul, nor in body, after death, because his soul went to heaven, for he had particular business up there, which had to be attended to. He had to go there at once to offer the blood of the atonement as the High Priest, and when he came back to his body, I am sure his soul did not go down there; it went up when he died. So his descent into hell, if you locate it anywhere, you have to locate it in the three hours’ darkness, when he was God-forsaken and in the power of Satan.

We will take up Acts 2:28: "Thou hast made known unto me the ways of life." There are two ways – the way of the soul, and the way of the body. Christ makes known what becomes of the soul on the dissolution of the body. Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, abolished death and brought life and immortality, life to the soul and immortality to the body. These are the ways of life. If we take what Christ did on the cross away a valley impenetrable drops down into the future as to the soul Where does it go?

"If a man die, where is he?" Christ showed us. "If a man die, shall he live again?" Christ says, as to the body, that he makes known the ways of life for both. I will illustrate in this way: Some inland travelers in Africa reported a huge river on the western coast – the Niger. But sailors said that there was no such river running into the ocean, and that these travelers had lied. Dr. Lardman determined to solve the question by experiment. He went inland until he saw this river, and it was a big one. He went in a boat, and never left that boat until he came out into the sea, and he noticed that before it got to the sea it divided into many mouths, not one of them large. Thus, by an actual experiment, Dr. Lardman brought to light the existence of the Niger. So Jesus Christ comes down to earth, enters into the stream of human life, soul and body. His separated soul does not remain disembodied. His body does not remain in the earth, the grave of the body, and he comes back. He is the one traveler that has returned from that bourne. He comes back, and flashes a light on the question: Where is the soul of the dead man, and what is it doing? What shall become of the body of the dead man, and when? This is what is meant by making known to us the ways of life.

Acts 2:34 says, "For David ascended not into the heavens." I heard a Baptist preacher once allege that there was no forgiveness of sins to the Old Testament saint, nor reception of the Old Testament saint into heaven until after Christ’s death and resurrection – that the soul stopped in some half-way house. I could cite scripture for half an hour to annihilate that position. This means here, that David in his body is not ascended into heaven. He is discussing the resurrection of Christ, and it cannot refer to David, that his body never saw corruption. He hasn’t ascended into heaven. Why? His grave is here.

In Acts 2:36, "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." Here are two thoughts. Many others will occur to you, but two are all I will bring out now. "This Jesus whom ye crucified."

In preaching the Convention sermon before a Southern Baptist Convention, several years ago, a Baptist preacher said, "As to Christ’s resurrection body, we do not know what became of it. It was assumed merely for purposes of identification. It is not important that we know."

I stick that phrase, "this Jesus," right through his position. "This Jesus whom ye crucified," that same Jesus who was recognized, and that same Jesus who ascended into heaven, and that same Jesus who is made both Lord and Christ. It is very important for us to know what will become of our bodies.

You take the keystone out of the arch, when directly or indirectly you deny the propitiatory efficacy of the cross, and the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection of Christ is the demonstration of the other; it is the sign – "Lord and Christ." And here we have the thought of "Christ, the Anointed One" separated from "Lord." And yet it is true that the King is anointed as well as the Priest. You keep the King and Priest distinct in your mind, but the person is the same, in Christ. He is a King who is a Priest, and a Priest that is a King. The offices of Christ are those of the Anointed One. He was anointed to be our Prophet, Priest, King, Judge) and Sacrifice. All these are distinct, and would come under the term, "Christ," just as the English word corresponds to the Greek, Christos, and to the Hebrew, "Messiah."

I now expound Acts 2:37, and compare it with Acts 5:33 and Acts 7:54. Here is something a little peculiar: "Now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart." Somebody once asked to show how repentance comes, and what brings it about. It is evident here that this pricking of the heart – this conviction – brought about contrition. Conviction is God’s side. God convicts a man, and he becomes contrite. Without conviction there is no contrition. Godly sorrow leads to repentance. Not that their hearts were pricked. Peter says, "Repent." I have called attention to that pricking in the heart, and ask you to compare it with the word in Acts 5:33, where Peter is talking again: "When they heard that they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay him." Notice that in Acts 2:37, when they were pricked in the heart, they said, "Men and brethren what shall we do?" In Acts 5:33 they were cut to the heart and sought to slay Peter. Now turn to Acts 7:54, and this time is it Stephen speaking, preaching substantially the same sermon that Peter preached on both of these occasions: "When they heard those things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and they were pricked in their heart, eventuating in salvation. In Acts 5 he preached the same sermon and they were cut to the heart, and sought to slay him, Stephen preached his sermon, embodying the same facts, and they were cut to the heart and gnashed on him with their teeth. The word in Acts 2 in Greek is not the same word used in the other two places. In Acts 2:37 it is katenugesan; in Acts Acts 5:33 and Acts 7:54 the word is dieprionto, to saw through; middle voice, to be vehemently enraged. However, I do not set much store by the fact that the words are different. I merely call attention to the fact. I make no capital out of the distinction. But there must be something important in the meaning of a word, and that word, "cut," expressed by dieprionto, is a word of importance. It might appear that one of these led to salvation, but the other to murder, but I do not think so. What I call attention to is this: You often Hear the question: Can a man resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit? Stephen says, "You do always resist the Holy Spirit," and in Acts 7:51, right before this. Is it possible that a convicted man can be lost? I think millions of them are in hell now. But you ask, "Can the contrite man be lost?" I say that the contrite man cannot be lost. Whenever the conviction by the Holy Spirit eventuates in contrition, or godly sorrow, that man will be saved; but if the conviction does not eventuate in godly sorrow, it is turned into a murderous direction as in these two cases. It does not result in salvation. A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin unless the Holy Spirit has been enlightening him. That is the unpardonable sin – the presumptuous sin – the sin that hath never forgiveness. It is a sin not against daylight or intellectual light, but a sin against spiritual light.

So that you may, without going into a refined theological discussion, by taking a common sense view and keeping with the scriptures, see that the same preacher, Peter, preaching the same thing each time, and another preacher like him preaching the same thing, the Holy Spirit of God being present each time, had different effects on the hearers. Here are the facts: "Pricked in the heart," . . . "cut to the heart," and also a twofold result. In one case, conviction becomes contrition, or godly sorrow, and they repent, believe, and are saved. In the other cases the conviction was not sufficient to produce contrition. They know that Jesus is the Christ. In Acts 5, 7 they know that he not only is the Christ, but also the Spirit bears witness to the word of Stephen and Peter.

I once heard a preacher rebuke some young people for laughing in church, stating that they might commit the sin against the Holy Spirit. I think his remark was very much uncalled for. Here is the condition when one may commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, not when he does a thing thoughtlessly, but when he is in a great revival of religion, when the power of God is following him, when the place is awful on account of his presence, when sinners are overwhelmingly convinced, and he then and there rejects Christ, saying, "No" – when he does not trust him, but goes off and gets drunk, etc. There is the danger. Such are sinning against the spiritual light, just as these men mentioned in Acts 7 were.

Consider now Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." Here I call your attention to the fact that the word, "repent," is in the plural: "Repent ye," a strong imperative; and then there is a mild imperative, simply "let every one of you be baptized," that is, every one of you who has repented. So that the first question that comes up is: Does the remission of sins connect with both of these words? Is it "repent ye" – eis aphesin hamartion – or "repent and be baptized" – eis aphesin hamartion?" Does it connect with just one of these imperatives, and if so, which one, and what is the meaning? I will give some interpretations, some of which I do not think worth a snap of the finger:

1. Luke 24 says, "Repentance and remission of sins shall be preached." That shows the relations between repentance and remission of sins. It is said that John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance "eis aphesin hamartion – repentance unto the remission of sins."

2. Here is the strong imperative, "repent," and then follows a subsidiary thought: "Let every one of you be baptized." Take the main sentence: "Repent ye" – eis aphesin hamartion, i.e., repent ye . . . unto remission of sins," and that would mean just the same as Peter used the word in Acts 3 where he says, "Repent ye . . . that your sins may be blotted out," using hopos, the remission of sins connecting with the first, and making the word a strong imperative, the other being subsidiary, and intended to imply that repentance has been accomplished, as: "Go make disciples, baptizing them." Make disciples first, then baptize the disciples. Now they say that this means, "Repent ye unto the remission of sins, and let every one of you be baptized," i.e., every one who has repented and received remission of sins, that one is to be baptized. Dr. Hackett says that this one is not right, and that the remission of sins connects both words. I am not discussing this as a Greek expert just now. I am showing the way to interpret, viz.: that there is a harmony between every passage in the Bible as to repentance and remission of sins.

3. Some take this position: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins," connecting the remission of sins with Christ, the Anointed One, that when one believes in Christ it is unto the remission of sins, and he cites the passage in Acts 10:43, where Peter says, "To him gave all the prophets witness that whosoever believeth on him, through his name shall receive remission of sins," or be baptized in his name unto the remission of sins."

4. Brother E. Y. Mullins explains it this way, that eis here means in order to, i.e., repent and be baptized in order to the remission of sins that you receive through repentance and faith in Christ, and in order to symbolic remission of sins that you receive in baptism." That is what he told the Campbellite convention, and he sent it to me and asked me what I thought of it. I told him I did not like that split result, making the word mean double. Using the same word in the same connection with two different meanings violates the laws of language. Is have now given a list of interpretations.

Let us connect remission of sins with the verb, baptistheta, to be baptized, eis aphesin hamartion. How shall we interpret it? I interpret it just exactly as I do a passage in Matthew.

QUESTIONS

1. Was the kingdom of heaven set up on the day of Pentecost, and why?

2. Give the controversy of the author on this point.

3. Was the church instituted, established, or organized on the day of Pentecost, and if not, what was done to it?

4. Locate on a map the countries of the peoples mentioned in Acts 2:9-11.

5. What is the great and notable day of the Lord mentioned in Acts 2:20, and what is meant by the perspective of prophecy?

6. What the difference between the revised version and the authorized version of Acts 2:2-37.

7. What three things are presented in this verse, and what is their application?

8. On Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31 what two distinctions between soul and body, what the position of the Restorationists on this point, and what the author’s experience with, one of them?

9. What is trichotomy, and is there any scripture for it?

10. What the first theory of interpretation of the expression., "Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades," given by the author?

11. What the teaching of the old creed?

12. What false doctrine founded on a misinterpretation of this and other scriptures?

13. What the author’s position and argument on this question?

14. What the meaning of Acts 2:28, "Thou hast made known unto me the ways of life"? Illustrate.

15. What is the meaning of Acts 2:34, "For David ascended not into the heavens"?

16. What author’s position with reference to the "half-way house" theory?

17. What two thoughts brought out on Acts 2:36, and what the importance of each?

18. Expound Acts 2:37, and compare it with Acts 5:33 and Acts 7:54.

19. Can a man resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit and be lost? If so, can a contrite man be lost, and what the relation and the difference between conviction and contrition?

20. Under what conditions may one sin against the Holy Spirit, and what is the unpardonable sin?

21. As an introduction to Acts 2:38, what is the first thing about it to which the author calls attention, and what the first theory of interpretation given?

22. What the second theory, and the argument?

23. What the third theory, and its argument?

24. What is Dr. Mullins’ theory, and what the objection to it?

25. Does the author connect the remission of sins with the verb "repent," or with "be baptized," or with both?

Verse 38

VII

THE THEORY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Acts 2:38.

We now come to an important subject growing out of Acts 2:38 to which I devote two whole chapters because (1) the two opposing theories of interpretation to this and other passages, supposed to be kindred, have divided the Christian world since the second century, resulting in modern times in the formation of the distinct domination, the "Campbellites," and (2) the consequences are that one of these two theories has changed the plan of salvation, necessitated a new system of theology, introduced new ordinances, changed the subjects of church membership, prepared the way for a new church polity, and for a union of church and state. That being the case, and as that battle has been going on from the second century till this day, it justifies these two whole chapters being devoted to the subject.

The first theory mentioned above, is expressed in the following propositions: (1) The plan of salvation by grace has ever been, is now, and will ever be, just one plan in its essential requirements of man. (2) These requirements are all spiritual. (3) They are the new birth, repentance toward God, and faith toward (in) the Messiah. (4) The great model of the faith which brings salvation is the faith of Abraham, prior to his subjection to any external ordinance. (5) Salvation before ordinances. (6) Blood before the laver. That is the first theory.

The opposite theory is: (1) Salvation by ordinances. (2) Baptismal regeneration. (3) Baptismal remission (4) Baptism, like repentance and faith, a condition of the new birth, salvation and remission of sins.

The entire New Testament usage of the verb, baptize, and its noun when followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative for its object must be considered, in order to correctly interpret Acts 2:38. The New Testament usage of the verb, baptize and its noun, when followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative as its object, is more important than classic usage. When you write down all such New Testament passages, in their order, and look at them carefully, each in its context, then we must render that preposition, eis, by an English word or phrase that will meet the requirements of every context. When you write down sentences in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation, that have the verb, baptizo, or its noun) followed by the preposition, eis, and that followed by the accusative for its object, look at those in their respective groups, then stop and rub out that preposition, eis, in every case, and substitute its meaning in an English word or phrase, you must see that it would give a rendering in English that would fit everything. The meaning of a word when substituted for that word, will make sense. That is a fine text which takes the entire New Testament usage. Take an English-Greek Concordance – it will save much trouble – and make out a list of passages, commencing with Matthew 3:11: "I baptize you in water unto repentance." The verb, baptize, is there, the preposition, eis, and metanoian in the accusative, which is the object of the preposition. Go thus through the whole New Testament and note every passage. Each passage, however, must have baptize), or its noun, followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative as the object.

As we go through the New Testament in this manner we find a circle of scriptures used to support the theory that water baptism, like repentance and faith, is a term, or condition, of salvation. Here are those passages on which the people rely who hold that baptism is in order to remission of sins: The passages in which the verb, baptize, or its noun, is employed, followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative as it object; they select only three. They select as their first group the following:

1. Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-4; Galatians 3:27. They take the passages only of "baptized eis" with the accusative. One of them is, "baptized eis remission of sins"; another is, "baptized eis Christ"; and the other, "baptized eis his death." These passages form their first group. The grammatical construction is the same in every case, and they say, "You Baptists have no plan of induction." If we ask them how they get into the remission of sins, they say, "We are baptized into it." If we ask, "How do you get into Christ?" they answer, "We are baptized into Christ." If we ask, "How do you get into the death of Christ?" they say, "We are baptized into the death of Christ." They also say, "We know how to get in, but you have no method of induction." When I come to these passages I will tell you what to say to them. One scripture will answer: "By faith we enter into this grace wherein we stand." That is our method of induction.

2. Their second group is that which connects baptism with the washing away of sin, without the preposition, eis. "And now why tarriest thou? – arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). This is the only passage in this group.

3. The third group consists of those passages which connect baptism with salvation, Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism doth also now save us."

4. The fourth group is that which seems to connect baptism with regeneration, consisting of, "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:25). "According to his mercy he hath saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

When you can correctly interpret these four groups of scriptures you have the heart and the body, the center and the circumference, the substance and the shadow of it all. This is the second theory, and it thus makes salvation to come through ritualism – through ordinances.

The real substance of this contention is this: (1) It is a salvation by ritual. (2) It is a sacerdotal salvation, since it requires the presence, the office and performance of another party, the administrator of the ordinances, and thereby securing our salvation, making you responsible) when your salvation is dependent upon somebody else, and on what somebody else does. That is what we call "sacerdotal" – sacer, & Latin word for priest – a priestly salvation.

(3) This requires competent authority to pronounce on the fitness of the "sacer" (priest) or administrator, and thus makes it an endless question with any man as to whether he is saved until he can prove that the one that baptized him is a qualified administrator, and thereby contradicting the statement of Paul, that God made salvation by faith, i.e., Is may repent and believe by myself, just thinking about the Bible, or reasoning about it.

(4) Now this other thing: the theory is that, like repentance and faith, it is a term of salvation, but this is unlike repentance and faith, in that they are personal, and this other is not personal; it is still more unlike repentance and faith in this, that the scriptures expressly say, "Except you repent, you shall perish," and, "He that believeth not is condemned." Nowhere in the Bible do we find an expression of that kind about baptism.

The greatest modern advocate of their theory is Alexander Campbell, and a short history of his contention is this: He came over from Scotland and settled in Virginia. He had a certain quasi connection with a Baptist church. Anyhow, he was present at Baptist associations, and named his first paper The Christian Baptist. But he says, "When I began my debate on the act of baptism with McCall, who was a Presbyterian, while studying for that debate I found out that baptism, unless it was intended to secure the remission of sins, was as empty as a blasted nut."

That was the germ of the idea in his mind, according to his own statement, hence Mr. Campbell, from that time on, began to publish things that the Baptists did not believe, and soon he brought out a new paper, which he called the Milllennial Harbinger. In other words, he considered himself to be the harbinger, the forerunner, the "John the Baptist" of the millennium; and that it was this new theory of his that was bringing about the millennium. In that Millennial Harbinger was an "Extra" on the remission of sins. It was a little too long to go into his little paper. In this Extra, which was the first general and formal announcement of his proposition, he took the position of baptismal regeneration, baptismal remission, or baptismal salvation – that wherever you find "purifying" or "sanctifying" it means baptism. In other words, he made it mean the whole thing.

When he brought out that extra the "fur began to fly." All over the land the Baptists rose up and said, "This man does not belong to us," and their leaders began to reply to his extra, among whom were the celebrated Andrew Broadus, the elder J. B. Jeter, both of Virginia; also Carr, pastor of one of the great Richmond churches. Whereupon everybody knew there would be a war at the next meeting of that association. The association met and a committee was appointed to consider the state of the churches. That committee, of which Carr was chairman, found that the churches were being wrecked by a new doctrine, set forth in the extra of the Millennial Harbinger. So the committee recommended that the churches withdraw fellowship from the preachers who advocated that doctrine, and from the members who accepted it. The churches acted instantly, all over Virginia. And since they drew that line of cleavage, Campbellism has no longer hurt the Baptists. This heresy passed into Kentucky. There it divided the associations and the churches. Wherever it went a fire arose. Where there are two horses going in opposite directions, no man had better try to ride both at the same time. Where two are not agreed they ought not to try to walk together. Then Mr. Campbell organized his own denomination. In the meantime, he held debates with quite a number of people on the subject.

His two great lines of argument were as follows: He relied most upon the grammatical construction, i.e., Metanoesate, kai baptistheto hekastos human en to onomati lesou Christou eis aphesin ton hamartion humon, kai lempsesthe ten dorean tou hagiou pneumatos. He said that the grammatical construction placed aphesin hamartion, remission of sins, as the object to be secured by the baptistheto, and be attempted to prove his points by the citation of many scholars who admitted his grammatical constructions. His second argument was that from the second century down to the present time, great multitudes of Christians had held to that, and the majority of those who claimed to be Christians, which would include all the Romanists, all the Greek Catholic churches, and a number of others. Those are the main lines of his argument.

A kindred theory, similarly based, which he combated to the very last, stands or falls with the theory, viz.: the proposition that the Lord’s Supper at the hands of the priest, after it has been converted into the very body and blood of Christ, is essential to salvation. The advocates of this theory would say, on grammatical construction, Jesus said, "This [holding up the bread, after they had blessed it] is my body broken for you," and then [holding up the cup]: "This cup is my blood, shed for the remission of sins," and then they would quote a passage in another part of John: "Except a man eat this flesh and drink this blood he has no life in him." So they made much of grammatical construction, and also of historical argument. They made out a stronger case for their part of the theory than Campbell did for his) and on precisely the same line of argument. I have always contended that the Campbellites must abandon their theory, or accept this one as here stated.

If it is true that there is no -way to get into Christ except through baptism, then there is no way to get Christ into us except through the Lord’s Supper.

The induction must be both ways: "I in you and you in me." There is no shadow of a doubt that the two are like two pillars which support an arch. The arch is one, and the pillars are the two supporters of the arch.

The antecedent arguments opposing both Campbell’s theory and the kindred Romanist theory, similarly based, are as follows:

(1) The plan of salvation from the book of Genesis to Revelation is one plan. Whatever has been essential as a requirement is always essential, just as much so in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, and yet baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not parts of the Old Testament. And all must admit that some Old Testament people were saved. If so, according to their theory, they were saved by compliance with terms that we do not have to observe, and we are saved by compliance with terms that they did not have to observe; therefore, the plan was changed in the essential terms of salvation.

(2) But the model case of Abraham, the model case of salvation by faith as in Abraham) utterly nullifies any change in the plan: "Abraham believed Jehovah, and it was imputed to him for righteousness," or justification, and Paul says, "This was written not for Abraham’s sake alone, but for our sake." When we believe in Christ it is imputed unto us for righteousness, and we must follow in the steps of our father, Abraham, showing that the plan of salvation was the same.

(3) Another antecedent, argument is the testimony of the prophets. Peter said to Cornelius, "To him [that is, to Jesus] bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins." Here is remission of sins conditioned upon faith, and all the prophets bore witness to the fact that a man who believed on him received the remission of sins, and there was no baptism at the time that the prophets bore that testimony.

(4) Acts 16:30 is the only place in the Bible where the express question is put, "What must I do to be saved?" and the express answer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

(5) In many instances in the life of Christ he said to men and women, "Thy faith hath saved thee," and that where there was no baptism at all.

(6) A certain passage in Hebrews goes to the heart of the matter. Talking about the ritual of the Old Testament it says, "It was not possible that the blood of bullocks and of goats could take away sin." Why?

Because there was no intrinsic merit in the blood of bulls and goats. Apply that principle: It is not possible that baptism in water shall take away sin. There is no intrinsic merit in it.

"The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." The Old Testament ritual did not do it, and the New Testament ritual does not do it.

(7) If we make some external act to be performed by another party essential to our salvation, then the promise of salvation can never be made sure to us, and yet the scriptures teach that God made salvation by faith that it might be made sure.

That penitent thief, for instance, was up there dying, hanging on his cross. Suppose baptism is an essential condition to salvation; he is lost, for he could not come down. But Jesus looked at him who had complied with no ritual, and said, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise."

I discuss this subject at length because I want to solemnly impress upon the mind the way these two theories fight, have been fighting, and will continue to fight until the end of the world.

(8) I will assume a perpendicular line as upon a blackboard. Write on one side of it, "Lovers of God," and on the other side, "Haters of God." On one side are believers; on the other side, unbelievers. Now, from which of these two sides will you take the subjects for baptism – people who love God, and believe in Jesus Christ, or haters of God and unbelievers? A follower of Campbell will say, "Take lovers of God and believers in Jesus Christ." Then I say, "Whosoever loveth is born of God," and "we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," and "He that believeth has been born of God." They may wrestle with that perpendicular line as much as they please – they can never break it.

(9) Paul says, "I thank God I baptized none of you; God sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel."

If baptism were one of the terms of salvation, Paul was thanking God that he had refused to perform one of the things essential to salvation.

Does he not make a distinction there between the essence of the gospel that saves, and baptism? No man can deny it if he carefully studies the passage.

(10) The repeated declarations in the Bible, e.g., take this one: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life," and "he that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but hath everlasting life." So the scriptures might be multiplied, but Is must stop here.

We have for the next chapter the interpretation of the four groups of scriptures which are very necessary to the under-standing of the things that oppose one of these theories, as follows: The first group, Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-4; Galatians 3:27; the second group (just one), Acts 22:16; the third group, Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; the fourth group, John 3:5; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5.

Is have now led up to the exegesis of these four groups. Is want to settle some things while Is am on this. Is would go to the end of the earth to oppose any man who says that he is necessary to my salvation by making any rite or ceremony a term of salvation.

Is would never go and look for the remissions of sins in a pool of water.

QUESTIONS

1. What justifies two whole chapters devoted to Acts 2:38?

2. What the propositions of the first theory?

3. What the propositions of the second theory?

4. What particular usage must be considered, that we may correctly interpret Acts 2:38?

5. What the method pursued in the investigation of this truth?

6. What the first group of New Testament scriptures used to support the theory that water baptism, like repentance and faith, is a term, or condition of salvation, and what the distinguishing characteristic of this group?

7. From these scriptures, what their method of induction, and what the opposite theory of induction?

8. What the second group, and its distinguishing characteristic?

9. What the third group, and its characteristic?

10. What the fourth group, and its characteristic?

11. What the real substance of this contention?

12. What the meaning of "sacerdotal"?

13. Who the great modern advocate of this theory, and what is a short history of the contention?

14. What were his two lines of argument?

15. What kindred theory, similarly based, which he combated to the very last, stands or falls with this theory?

16. What antecedent argument opposes Campbell’s theory, and the kindred Romanist theory, based on the unity of the plan of salvation?

17. What one based on the model case of Abraham?

18. What one based on the testimony of the prophets?

19. What one based on the plain question and answer?

20. What one based on the teaching of Christ?

21. What one based on a passage in Hebrews?

22. What one based upon the promise of a sure salvation to them that believe?

23. What one based on the illustration of the dividing line?

24. What one based on Paul’s statement that he did not baptize certain people?

25. What one based on the repeated declaration in the Bible?

VIII

THE THEORY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION (Concluded)

Acts 2:38.

The last chapter was devoted to the great principles which interpret Acts 2:38, and I would have you bear in mind everything that was said in that chapter. The object of the present discussion is to give a brief exegesis of the circle of scriptures cited. I showed that four classes of scriptures were generally cited in favor of the Campbellite position, i.e., that Acts 2:38 should be interpreted to mean that baptism is "in order to" remission of sins; that these cases are where the verb, baptize, or its noun, is followed by the preposition, eis, and the accusative case, of which the most notable is Acts 2:38. There we have the verb, baptistheto, let him be baptized, and the preposition, eis, with the accusative case, aphesin hamartion, the remission of sins.

Words in all languages may have, and do have: (1) the common, ordinary meaning; (2) a frequent meaning, different from the ordinary; (3) a rare meaning, different from both the others. Just so this Greek preposition, eis, in the New Testament with the accusative case, commonly means, in order to; frequently it means with reference to, or in token of, or concerning and it rarely means because of.

There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things. You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning.

I will illustrate these principles in reverse order:

(1) The ritualistic Jews, holding to the letter of the law of sacrifices and strict grammatical construction, insisted that their compliance with the law of appointed sacrifices did secure to them the actual remission of sins, and hence there was no necessity for a new covenant, with a nobler Sacrifice. But Paul, in the letter to the Hebrews, shows that it was impossible for the blood of bullocks and goats to really take away sin. They had not the intrinsic merit. It was incongruous, contrary to the nature of things, that the blood of a soulless brute should expiate the sins of a man. Just so when the Romanist quotes Christ’s words: "This cup of the covenant which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins" claims a literal, ordinary meaning for the word, eis, according to strict grammatical construction, we reply: It is impossible for grape juice to take away sins.

(2) To illustrate the power of the general context in determining the meaning of a word in a specific case, we say, scripture must interpret scripture. The trend of the Bible must govern a literal, grammatical construction of a single passage. The passage must harmonize with clear, abundant passages elsewhere. If the book teaches in a thousand passages that only the blood of Christ, apprehended by faith, can take away sin, we are not warranted in attributing to an external rite the same power, merely on the ground or literal, grammatical construction in a few passages. These few detached passages concerning external rites must be interpreted in harmony with the spiritual trend of the entire revelation. That is an unquestioned principle of interpretation.

(3) To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples: Matthew 12:41: "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah." Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so, they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to them after they repented – not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning – because of. They repented because of, eis, the preaching of Jonah. But they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case.

(4) We will now consider a frequent meaning of eis, also determined by local context, in the following still more pertinent passage, for in it we have the verb, baptize, as well as the preposition, eis (Matthew 3:11): "I indeed baptize you in water eis repentance." All the context shows that John required repentance, and even its fruits, as a condition precedent to baptism. It would be foolish to render it, "I baptize you in order to repentance." Here the preposition has not its ordinary meaning, in order to, nor its rare meaning, because of, but its frequent meaning, with reference to – a repentance that they had exercised. "Is baptize you with reference to that exercising of it," is what John means. Or, as Tyndale, in his version (it was a very fine version for his time) says, "I baptize you in token of repentance." That makes fine sense.

Matthew 3:11 has a bearing on Acts 2:38. It is the first New Testament use of the verb, baptizo, followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative case, and is the key passage for unlocking the meaning of Acts 2:38. They stand or fall together, so exact is the parallel. That they do stand or fall together is evident from their exact parallelism. A further evidence that they stand or fall together is found in the fact that both Mark and Luke tie them together: Mark 1:4: "John preached the baptism of repentance" – eis aphesis hamartion; Luke 3:3: "He came preaching the baptism of repentance" – eis aphesin hamartion. Here are two gospels, then, that tie those passages together. And right after them is used Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" – eis phesin hamartion. If we then translate Matthew 3:11, "I baptize you with reference to repentance," and "John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance with reference to the remission of sins," why not here go right on and say, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ with reference to the remission of sins?" Remember that in every case we render the preposition in all these conjoined cases (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38) by "unto" in the frequent sense of with reference to. Now that will fit the local context, and it will fit the general context.

To find another instance of eis is nearer to Acts 2:38 we have only to glance back to Acts 2:25, another unmistakable instance of eis in the sense of concerning, and not in order to. Note that it is in the same speech: "For David saith eis (concerning] him," speaking of Christ. What is to hinder us, then, from taking Acts 2:25, where the eis means concerning, or with reference to, and putting that meaning of it in Acts 2:38?

The classics abound with this sense of the preposition, eis. Dr. Broadus quotes three: (1) From Aristophanes: "To jeer at a man eis his rags," i. e., with reference to his rags. Now we would not jeer at a man in order to his rags. (2) From Xenophon: "To reproach eisfriendship." We do not reproach a man because of his friendship, and certainly not in order to his friendship. (3) From Plato: "To differ from one eis virtue." We do not differ from a man in order to virtue.

We may apply the ad hominern argument to our Campbellite brethren. They evade the many cases of remission through faith and without baptism, in the life of our Lord, by saying, "The law of pardon was not given till Pentecost." How, then, do they dispose of Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, paralleling remission under the preaching of John the Baptist with the preaching of Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2:38? John baptized eis aphesin hamartion, exactly paralleling what Peter did in Acts 2:38. Then, briefly, the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38 is this: Repent ye – plural, and a strong imperative – "and let every one of you who has repented be baptized" – a mild imperative – "in the name of Jesus Christ eis aphesin hamartion" – with reference to remission of sins.

I am willing to risk my scholarship on that. One thing I am sure of is that however much a man may rely on the technical, grammatical construction, his common sense is constantly pushing him off that platform when it leaves him to the idea that he cannot obtain remission of sins from God unless he submits to an external rite. All the world revolts at that, and so does the teaching of the Bible.

The second group of scriptures is where baptism is connected with the washing away of sins, without the preposition, eis, in it. There is only one passage of that kind (Acts 22:16): "Arise [Ananias said to Paul], and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." The points here are: (1) Paul is commanded to wash away his sins; (2) to wash them away in being baptized. Two simple questions will unveil the meaning: (a) Can a man himself really wash away his sins? (b) Can water on the outside really wash away sins on the inside? The two are answered by the scripture: "God alone can forgive sins," and when we come to the real remission it must come from God. Again: "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." Therefore, it is evident that when Paul was commanded to wash away his sins – Paul himself, not God, was commanded to wash them away – that it is not a real washing away of sins that is meant, because that contradicts the other scripture, that God alone can take away sin. And when it says that he was commanded to wash away his sins in baptism, it is evident that it is not a real cleansing from sin that is contemplated, for the scriptures so abundantly teach that the blood of Jesus Christ alone really cleanses from sin. Then what does it mean? That Paul in baptism might symbolically wash away his sins. What God himself accomplished through the sacrifice of his Son, Paul might show forth in a symbolic cleansing, just as what Christ’s blood accomplishes in the remission of sins, the wine of the Lord’s Supper may symbolically accomplish. As there must first be a substance to cast a shadow, so the symbolic cleansing is just like taking the Lord’s Supper, if we are not really saved.

So baptism is unmeaning without a prior and real remission of sin. Being really saved, we may picture symbolically that salvation in a memorial. Otherwise it would be like Bunker Hill Monument without a previous battle to commemorate.

Peter expressly declares that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh, using the term "filth" in the sense of spiritual defilement (not dirt on the body), and using the word "flesh" in its common meaning of the carnal nature (not the physical man). I think Peter in that little parenthesis, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," was inspired of God to put in a precaution against attributing to baptism real cleansing of the defilement of sin. He foresaw the coming of the Campbellites, and put in a word against them.

The third group of scriptures is apparently connected with regeneration: (a) "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). (b) "According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). (c) "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:25).

These three passages constitute the third group of scriptures. For a full explanation of John 3:5, see author’s first volume of sermons, page 181, on, The Human Side of Regeneration. The following is a quotation from it: He must be "born of water and Spirit." There is just one birth, "born of water and Spirit"; and it means exactly what "born again" means; and it means exactly what "born of the Spirit" means; and it means exactly what "born of God" means; just that and no more. Then, if it means just that, why put it in this form: "born of water and Spirit’’? I will tell you why. In the new birth there are at least two distinct ideas: (1) cleansing; (2) renewing. If you took only the idea of cleansing and left out the renewing, cleansing would not do any good. The sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mire because she is a sow. If you do not change her nature, then you do no good to cleanse her, but if you change the nature and do not cleanse, then you have left purity imprisoned in filth. So there are two ideas always, at least two, in the new birth: (1) cleansing; (2) renewing.

For explanation of Titus 3:5 see the same volume, page 183: "For we ourselves also were sometime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Notice how overwhelmingly conclusive and how comprehensive is this scripture: (1) We were every way evil and lost till the love of God to man appeared in our Saviour. (2) It appeared not by our works of righteousness. And baptism is a work of righteousness (Matthew 3:15). (3) But it appeared in the shedding on us abundantly the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ. This is the new birth. (4) But this new birth consists of two things: (a) The washing of regeneration, i.e., the cleansing from sin secured by the Spirit’s application of Christ’s blood, in other words, "born of water." (b) The renewing of the Holy Spirit i.e., the giving of a new heart, which is "born of Spirit."

From the same work, page 187, is also taken this extract on Ephesians 5:25: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he alight sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," Therefore "born of water," which means the "washing of regeneration," which means "the sprinkling of our hearts from an evil conscience," which brings justification, which is apprehended by faith, must be such a "washing of water" as comes "by the word," because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and, therefore, the sanitizer of babes who finds literal water-baptism in Ezekiel’s "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," exchange the blood of Jesus, and an essential part of the "new birth" for water, and very little of that. And the immersionist who finds literal water-baptism in John’s "born of water," makes the same exchange, only getting a little more of the water. But even this compensation is lost in a birth for a burial. His more water has drowned him.

The fourth group of scriptures consists of two: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16), and "which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (1 Peter 3:21-22).

The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark’s Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of Mark 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God’s Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it.

And there is only this one passage in the whole Bible upon which you can plausibly build a baptismal salvation argument (Mark 16:16).

It is very easy to answer all those other passages; it is not go easy to answer this one. But let us suppose that it really belongs to God’s Word. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." I would construe it just exactly as I construe the passage, "He that endureth unto the end shall be saved." "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"; that is true. He that endures to the end and is baptized shall be saved; that is true also. But when the negative is stated, it does not say, "He that believeth not and is not baptized shall not be saved, or shall be condemned." When you put it negatively it has no reference to baptism. It does not say, "He that is not baptized shall not be saved." It does not make any difference how many things one may put in – believe, be baptized, keep the law, go to church – with salvation, it does not affect salvation. If the first one was to secure salvation, it will be true if you put all of them in. That will not take away from the truth. He that believeth hath everlasting life; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Some would make it read: "He that believeth and is baptized and goes to church every Sunday, etc., etc. etc., hath everlasting life." You can put in as many as you please and they all follow from the first one. But to put it negatively, you could not say, "He that does not go to church every Sunday will be lost." And in negation it does not say, "He that believeth not and is not baptized" – it stops at the believer. This is the explanation of this passage, assuming it to be a part of the Bible.

Is once had a controversy with a Methodist brother on falling from grace. I was stating the fact that if you have your name in the Lamb’s book of life God will in no wise blot it out – that it stuck. He said, "I can disprove that." I said, "Where is the passage?" He said, "Over there where Jesus is talking about those who have their names in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 3:5)." I said, "That does not say what he will do; it says that he will not blot the name out." So when you come to prove a thing you must not rely upon an implication. You must bring up a clear-cut statement of God’s Word. If that text had said, "He that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned," I would not know what to do with it. Bear these in mind then: (1) It is a very doubtful text. (2) Saving faith is faith that is fruitful (fruit-bearing). (3) It does not mean that baptism is a condition of entrance into a saved state, by what follows – "He that believeth not shall be condemned," like "except ye repent, ye shall perish."

On 1 Peter 3:21 I make this point on the picture of baptism: "Baptism doth now save us." Baptism doth now save us in a figure; baptism doth now save us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. That is the figure, but baptism does not put away the impurity of the carnal nature – does not put away the filth of the flesh. These are the four points: (1) Baptism saves us in a figure. (2) That figure is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. (3) Paul says, "You have been planted in the likeness of his death, so ye shall be in the likeness of his resurrection." Wherever you see a baptism you see a burial and a resurrection. This is not a real salvation, but a pictorial one – a figure of salvation, and baptism does save us that way, and nobody will deny it. (4) The injury of a good conscience toward God. And the force of this last is: (a) The conscience is bad before it is cleansed, (b) How made good? Hebrew 9:14: "By the blood of Christ." (c) The place of a good conscience – 1 Timothy 1:5 explains.

This, my last general remark, is on the evil consequences of this doctrine. In the history of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, baptismal salvation, or baptismal remission, the consequences have been fearfully evil. By its fruits ye shall know it. What has been its fruit in history?

(1) The first fruit was that as soon as Christians, after the apostles, reached a conclusion from these scriptures that I have been expounding that sins were really remitted in baptism, and that baptism is never to be repeated, they instantly began to postpone baptism, so as to include, when they were baptized, just as many of their sins as possible. From the time of Augustine and Tertullian it was very manifest. Tertullian said, "Why hurry baptism? All the sins you commit up to that time are washed away. Then put it off as long as possible." That is consequence number one.

(2) If baptism means the absolution, or remission of sins, "Why not," said the mother, "baptize my baby?" And just as sure as the sun shines in the heavens this doctrine of baptismal remission forced "infant baptism." There never would have been any but for that. And the testimony of history is as clear as a sunbeam as to the relation between these two things – that infant baptism is the product of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. That is the second fruit – a fruit that is not good, either.

(3) "Since I may baptize my baby, in order to save it, why not sprinkle it? Why need I dip the little fellow? Why not simplify the ordinance, and just sprinkle a few drops of water on it?" And it is certain that that is the doctrine which changed the act of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. It is certainly true. Dr. Burleson was once telling a Campbellite friend of ours, Dr. Carrington of Austin – we both thought a great deal of him – that if there were no infant baptism in the world today, that which he (the Campbellite friend) was preaching would bring it about. "Oh, no," he said, "that could not do it." Yet it happened with this very Brother Carrington that he was sent for by a family, and the mother said, "Brother Carrington, my preacher is gone; you are a preacher, not of my faith, it is true, but you are a preacher, and here’s my baby about to die; I believe it is lost if it is not baptized, and I ask you to baptize the baby" – and Dr. Carrington, the Campbellite preacher, sprinkled that baby I That is a fact of Texas history. I do not like that fruit.

(4) The next fruit is sacerdotal salvation – a salvation at the hand of a priest, or some other human being. That is not good, either.

Another fruit is that if you baptize all the babies, and keep up baptizing all the babies, then you banish believer’s baptism out of the world.

There would be none at all. You go to a country where this "sacramental" ordinance by baptism has prevailed, and where it has necessitated infant baptism, and where it has necessitated this change in the form of baptism, there is no one in the whole nation to be found, since being administered to infants as they come into the world, not a man could be found who could pass to maturity to be baptized on a profession of his faith, and he is taught to believe that it is all right. They say, "We cannot repeat the baptism." So if these false teachings are accredited there is utterly no use for these scriptures: "Believe and be baptized; repent and be baptized; they that believed his word were baptized, etc."

(5) The next fruit is this: If there is no salvation without baptism, suppose I had a brother, a cousin, or an aunt who died, and was not saved, then I would say, "Why not let us have a baptism for the dead?" And it brought that in just as certain as there is anything in the world; for those who died without having been baptized, and hence, according to that doctrine, were not saved, and therefore there arose a baptism from the dead.

Take again this fact: It reverses the gospel. Instead of repent, believe and be baptized, they put it: Believe, repent and be baptized.

(7) And it certainly also brings a union of church and state, as sure as the world stands. This is the fruit of the doctrine in history.

QUESTIONS

1. Give a brief statement, in review, of the discussion of Acts 2:38 thus far.

2. What three meanings may a word in any language have?

3. Apply this principle to the Greek preposition, eis.

4. What three principles of interpretation enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and to render this word according to the frequent or rare meaning?

5. Illustrate the principle of "the nature or congruity of things."

6. Illustrate the principle of "the bearing of the general context."

7. Illustrate the principle of "the bearing of the local context."

8. What the bearing of Matthew 3:11 on Acts 2:38?

9. What further evidence that they stand or fall together?

10. What other instance of eis nearer to Acts 2:38?

11. What the classic usage of eis? Give examples.

12. What argument may be applied to the Campbellites? Explain fully.

13. Then, briefly, what is the meaning of Acts 2:38?

14. What constitutes the second group of scriptures, and what the explanation?

15. In the light of this explain 1 Peter 3:21.

16. What the third group of scriptures?

17. Explain John 3:5.

18. Explain Titus 3:5.

19. Explain Ephesians 5:25.

20. What the fourth group of scriptures?

21. Explain Mark 16:16.

22. What the picture of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, and what the points contained therein?

23. What are the evil consequences of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration?

IX

THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT –

THE HABIT OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Acts 2:39-3:1

So now we take up Acts 2:39-3:1 for exposition. The closing part of Acts 2:38 says, "And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," and Acts 2:39, “For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him." I take that last clause of Acts 2:38 – "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" – because of its connection with the succeeding verse; and so the question arises – what is meant by the gift of the Holy Spirit? Does it mean the ordinary graces of the Spirit, such as men received before Pentecost, and are receiving now, and have been receiving through all the history of the world, i.e., the convicting power of the Spirit, repenting power of the Spirit, and believing power of the Spirit? No, it does not mean that. The promise refers to the prophecy of Joel: "It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh," and then this baptism in the Spirit is described. Peter says to the convicted men of Israel: "You have witnessed our reception of the baptism of the Spirit; you have seen its effect on us. Now, if you will repent and believe, and be baptized, ye shall receive that gift." He goes on to say, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and unto all that are afar off," limited by just so many as God shall call to receive it.

Joel says, "I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh," i.e., all kinds of people – old men, young men, maidens, – the promise is unto you, fathers, and unto you, children of the fathers, and unto you that come from a great distance, afar off, whether of the dispersion of the Jews, or of the Gentiles. The "afar off" refers to all of those. "After your conversion, these signs shall follow them that believe" – that which comes after the baptism in the Holy Spirit. You who then will repent, who will believe, you shall receive the same thing that you wonder at in these. In Acts 2 Peter says, "Who was I, that I could withstand God?" And seeing that these Gentiles received the same gift which they had at the beginning, while he was talking to Cornelius and his household, the Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household, and he began to speak with tongues. Peter says, "It was the same gift that came to us on Pentecost." So in Acts 19, when Paul asked certain disciples he found there, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" he is asking if, upon their part, they have been baptized in the Spirit. That is what he means exactly. That being the meaning of the word "gift" in the passage, "ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," because it was promised to them and to their children, and to just as many as God should call.

It means that the number of people to receive this baptismal power of the Spirit was limited to just as many as the Lord our God should call to receive it.

He could limit it to some Jews on the day of Pentecost, to some Gentiles afterward, as in the case of Cornelius; to some at Corinth, to some at Ephesus, and long enough to fully accredit the church before his call on that was brought to a stop – just as many as he would call.

Is now expound Acts 2:42, particularly giving the four services that constituted the habit of the early church. The King James Version says, "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." From that translation we get the idea that to continue steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine is to remain firm in the faith. That is not at all the thought of the original, however. They were constant in attending upon the following things: The teaching of the apostles, the breaking of bread, fellowship, and prayers. They were constantly attending or they were constant in attending upon the teaching of the apostles, who kept on with their teaching. It is the object of that verse to express a habit of the early church – a habit of continual attention to the following things: (1) Public worship; (2) the contribution worship (for that is what fellowship here means) ; (3) the Lord’s Supper worship; (4) the prayer meeting worship.

Let us put that into a little plainer English. If God converts my soul and I believe in Jesus my Saviour, the habit of my life must be along the line of that faith; and inasmuch as God has appointed the public services of his church, I will be constant in my attendance upon those services. I won’t stay away half the Sundays. If public worship is appointed by the congregation for every Sunday, then unless providentially hindered, I will be there at those services. Then in order to carry on the kingdom of God, if contribution services are appointed, I won’t skip those on the days appointed, whatever they may be, few or many; if observing the Lord’s Supper, I won’t stay from that. The meetings appointed for prayer, I will attend. That is the true sense of the Greek. It is one of the finest themes upon which any preacher can preach. Here were 3,000 people happily converted. They were brought into a new covenant, and these young converts were constantly attending all the public teaching of the apostles.

This is the literal Greek: "And they were stedfastly continuing on the teaching of the apostles"; "and they were stedfastly continuing koinonia," which has several meanings. Of course it expresses the idea of participation, and hence we sometimes use it in the sense of fellowship; they were constantly attending upon the "contributions."

The necessity for those constant contributions is seen from the context. The record says twice, epi to auto – all who believed were epi to auto, i.e., together; they were at the same place, and there were thousands of them there. There people were in a great revival meeting. The meetings were held every day. Some came from a distance, and there were necessary expenses involved in keeping that great crowd of people epi to auto – at the same place; and therefore there had to be a distribution of rations. They had to be fed, just as when we hold a big meeting – a camp meeting – and the people gather to stay through the meeting. From twenty to thirty miles around they came epi to auto, "together," or "at the same place." One brother says, "I will furnish so and so," so many hogs, for instance; another so many beeves, and another so much money, as in this case in Acts where the contributions were necessary. They had all things common.

They took those funds for the support of that meeting into a common fund, under the conditions of that great gathering, and they were held together at one place, just as we get a large sum of money, etc., for the camp meetings of today, barrels of ice water with cups, thus having meals all together. A long table is spread, and everything cooked is placed upon it. We have often seen that kind of a thing – great crowds of people coming together, having their meals, not separately, but "together." And in order that this big crowd be held together, some man was so full of the Spirit of God that he said, "To the end that this meeting may go on, I will bring all I have here and put it in the general fund." Later on we strike the account of that man doing it. But I am trying to show the force of epi to auto, together, or at the same place. It is a question of that pronoun reference, as to what "at the same place" means. That would put them together; therefore the word "together" should be translated, "that place," because they were at the same place. Therefore they were together. Many times in the New Testament the word which is translated fellowship evidently means contribution. I have not space to recite all the passages. We come to a number of them in the New Testament.

It was a great task to care for such a vast congregation, even for one day. The believers numbered 3,000, and a little later 5,000, not counting the women and children. Later still, it included a very great number, such as Greeks, and still later, when the disciples were multiplying and kept multiplying, there arose a complaint concerning the distribution of the provision for that great camp meeting, because some did not get enough, and did not get anything to eat. I have seen at camp meetings the bread or beef give out, and some of the crowd could not get to the table before it gave out.

This situation in the early church led to the appointment of deacons. The apostles said, "It is not reason that we should quit our preaching, our ministry, of the word, and go around and see that these people are fed, – that this great volume of food is equally distributed. It is all here common. You must appoint somebody to take charge of this. We cannot stop to serve tables. We have to attend to the preaching and prayer meetings – to the ministry of the word and of prayer. That is our special charge, so you bring business men here who can attend to that."

It was characteristic of those young converts, who were coming by the thousands, to continually attend all the public services – the preaching services, the contribution services for the support of the meeting, the services for observing the Lord’s Supper, and the prayer meeting services.

We used to have a big horn, a conch shell, a trumpet or a triangle, anything that would give a loud sound, at our big meetings, to announce the services as commencing. They would have a sunrise prayer meeting, a nine o’clock prayer service, a ten o’clock song service, an eleven o’clock preaching service, and then an afternoon service.

Next, in order that these young people and all new converts who were being brought into the church might be introduced to the ordinances of God, they would have the Lord’s Supper. Note that it is said of these converts that they formed four habits: Constant attendance on the preaching service, on the contribution service, the observance of the Lord’s Supper, and on the prayer service. And when you get a church to do that you have a power.

I preached on that text at a great meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. The most distinguished Baptists in the United States, and the most learned theological seminary professors, the presidents and professors of literary institutions, the great evangelists and missionaries, at home and abroad, some of them white-headed, just ready to go away to God, were present. I presented these four points as the points of power in the church: Constant attendance on these four services – that if a man wouldn’t dodge the preaching, nor the giving, nor the prayer meeting, nor the observance of the Lord’s Supper, he would not be very apt to backslide, but would keep in line. But if he was willing to attend the prayer service, and shut his eyes when the contribution plate was passed around, singing, "Fly abroad, thou mighty gospel," and yet put in nothing to make its wings flap, he convicted himself. He was leaving out one of God’s appointed methods of worship. Now we are enabled to interpret the next thing.

"And all who believed were epi to auto, ’at the same place,’ ’together’; epi to auto – kai eichon hapanta koina, and had all things common." This passage of scripture has given rise to the doctrine called "the community of goods." There are men now who say, "Let every one of us, whether rich or poor, put into a common pile everything we have, and then each one take out enough to sustain him every day." That is the key passage of the Scholastics. But is it the intent of this passage (Acts 2:44) to teach what is commonly understood as "community of goods," i.e., if one has $10,000 worth of property, another $5,000, and another $2,000, does this passage require you to lump in your money and to ride out even?

It does not, and here is the proof. I am going to show that there is no law here establishing what is understood as a community of goods. In order to do that I will turn a little forward, where the same matter comes up again. In Acts 4:34 we have this account: "For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostle’s feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need. And Joseph, a Levite, having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?" This shows that his private ownership had not departed from him. It was not the object of the scriptures concerning this great lesson to teach that private ownership was done away with at all. It was a voluntary thing, done under the impulse of the great meeting that was going on to take care of all those people, to keep them together, epi to auto – at the same place. A man did not have to sell his property; he was not obliged to do it; but if he felt prompted to do it, in order that the meeting would not stop, he was not afraid to do it. But if he sold his land the money was still his; there was no law that required him to bring it all. But Ananias and Sapphira claimed that they had put it all in, but they had kept back part, telling a lie about it to God, or to the Holy Spirit, as if he did not know. They wanted to have the reputation that Joseph had, who sold all he had and brought the whole of it and put it into the fund. So they sold a piece of land, conspired together to fool Peter and to fool God – that they would go and say that they had received so much and that was all of it. But Peter says, "Ananias, that property was yours before you sold it, and after you sold it the money was still yours. Your offense is, then, that you said, ’We received for it so much and put the whole of it into the common fund.’ " So that Ananias’ case disproves any idea of "common property."

I will illustrate it: In the Madera Mountains, at the headquarters of the warlike tribe of the Comanche Indians, for many generations there has been a beautiful valley, plenty of water and plenty of grass, and when the moon is at its full, it is one of the best places in the world for holding a meeting. So every year they make great provision for a meeting. They say, "F. W. Johnson, what will you do towards it?" He says, "I’ll give ten beeves, and so many sheep." Another says so many quilts, another a big table, so that anybody may be invited to come. The crowd is too big to make it all into one table, however, and there is no time to average just what they give, but what they do bring there is "common." You step up to F. W. Johnson, or to W. D. Cowan, who are the main supporters of that meeting. You have just come, maybe a stranger riding horseback, and you say, "I’d like to have a place to sleep tonight – blankets, etc." "We have it for you," these brethren say; "just come here; everything is ’common.’ " Now that did not mean that Johnson sold all he had and put it in, but for the purpose in view it was truly a common affair.

There is a change from the American Version in the Revised Version of Acts 2:47 and Acts 3:1 which is a textual matter. Let us compare these two versions. The last verse of the chapter of the American Version reads: "Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." The Revised Version says, "Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved." Is there any church in it? No; "to them," epi tois, or epi to auto – the same phrase again. "And the Lord added" to the same crowd, the same place, daily such as were being saved. In the best of the Greek manuscripts the word "church," does not appear, but the Revised Version takes that epi to auto from the first verse in the next chapter and puts it there. In other words, Acts 3 begins epi to auto, and joins it together. "Now Peter and John were going up to the temple." We have no "together" in the Revised Version, and the revised is correct. It follows the true original manuscript. The "together" of Acts 3:1 in the American Version belongs to Acts 2:47, and this word "together" should be put there in the place of the word "church." The idea of the church is there. It was one church.

Is interpret this passage according to the Revised Version. Some later manuscripts give the idea as "church" by putting that word in, just like they put it in once before in the same chapter, where "church" does not occur, though the idea of church is there. It was an immensely big church. Before they got through, the way Is count it, there were 100,000 members right in Jerusalem, and the crowd just kept gathering by the thousands every day. It swelled and swelled, got bigger and bigger, all of the apostles preaching. Just like we would say, "Brother A. preaches in the First Church at 9 o’clock; Brother B. at the Second Church at the same hour, and Brother C. in the Tabernacle, while Brother D. will hold forth in the Court House." All over the town that great multitude gathered and had preaching. They were brought there and held together by the power of that meeting. If the reader would like to do a little private work, let him take an English-Greek concordance, and translate the word "fellowship" and see its relation to money. You will see that here it means participation in a money meeting, that is, a fellowship meeting. They had fellowship in the public services; fellowship in giving money’ participation in the giving of money; they had fellowship when the Lord’s Supper was observed; they participated m the prayer meeting, and everybody took part.

QUESTIONS

1. What is meant by the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38?

2. To whom was the gift limited?

3. Expound Acts 2:42, particularly giving the four services that constituted the habit of the early church.

4. Why was it necessary for those constant contributions?

5. What church office was instituted here, and what the circumstances of its institution?

6. What was characteristic of the young converts in the Pentecost meeting?

7. Is it the intent of Acts 2:44 to teach what is commonly understood as "Community of Goods"? What the proof?

8. What illustration by the author of the scriptural idea of having things "common"?

9. What change from the Authorized Version found in the Revised Version of Acts 2:47; Acts 3:1, and what is the true idea of the passage?

10. Interpret this passage according to the Revised Version.