 
HOW TO DEFEND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

by

James Joseph Doyle IV

SMASHWORDS EDITION

*****

PUBLISHED BY:

James Joseph Doyle IV on Smashwords

How To Defend The Baptism In The Holy Spirit

Copyright © James Joseph Doyle IV, 2010.

Copyright © James Joseph Doyle IV, 2010. Smashwords Edition. The right of James Joseph Doyle IV to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

*****

This work is firstly dedicated to my loving wife, Sharon, who has supported me through thick and thin (being an example of a true Proverbs 31:10-31 woman) and secondarily to the memory of my friend, the late Rev. Ward Ballard, who was closer than a brother and who, as my fellow scholar, inspired me to ever dig deeply into the treasure of the Word of God.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Ted Kitto, David L. Mohn and to my son Joshua Doyle who lovingly labored over this manuscript, correcting the grammar and challenging much of the thought that went into it.

Cover Art by Jessie-Leigh Doyle.

Technical direction by Bethany Doyle.

*****

HOW TO DEFEND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

*****

Introduction

This work mainly is the response of a Pentecostal Christian to much debate and discussion with Christians from Evangelical and Fundamentalist backgrounds. Many times, I have heard that, these beloved brethren had to walk away from debate with other Pentecostals knowing that at least they had stuck to their task throughout the debate by quoting scripture in their defence of their anti-Pentecostal stand. Too often, to their dismay, they had entered debate with Pentecostals whose only rationale for this blessed experience was the evidence of the experience itself. These Pentecostal brethren, on most occasions, had not even attempted to justify their experience by faith in the Bible at all.

Even more frustrating is this fact! How many times have we encountered people claiming to have received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and yet have not tested the experience by the Word of God? Isn't it about time that we, as Pentecostals, put an end to the ridiculous instruction of saying to a Christian who is seeking the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, "Repeat after me now will you? BAA...BAA...BAA...GAA...GAA...GAA...There you've got it! You've been baptised in the Holy Spirit! Praise the Lord!" As one minister friend of mine once put it "If God could throw up He would! This kind of behaviour is an insult to the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit."

This work is also a response to the Fundamentalist assertions that the Pentecostal is either demon possessed because of the practice of speaking in tongues or, if not possessed then, under a strong satanic delusion. As a result of this situation my style of debate will come across as provocative throughout this book but this effectively will be:

1. Nothing compared to the ultimate insult of working for Satan; and

2. From a motive to push the pendulum as far back in the opposite direction so that there will finally be a Biblical balance on this subject.

So, be warned!

I suppose that another aim of this work is to educate other Pentecostals as to the dire need to be armed with the Word of God so as to give a good account to those brethren of ours who have not received this promise. It is perhaps an appalling indictment on Pentecostalism that not many seem to put an emphasis on "studying to show themselves approved unto God" (2 Tim.3:15). In fact the trend in recent years, in some circles, has been to reject the necessity for Bible study which, in turn, has extended to a lack of emphasis in the need for in-depth ministerial Bible Training. Why train leaders to any in-depth degree when there will be few who will ever put their Bible knowledge to any real test? "After all doesn't the letter kill?" is a scripture that is commonly misquoted in Pentecostal circles as an excuse for not knowing or studying the Word of God. In its correct context "the letter" does kill but one thing is equally as certain and that is "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos.4:6).

This is where I fear that we have let the enemy gain an advantage. We are admonished not to be ignorant of his devices lest the enemy get an advantage over us (2 Cor.2:11). So how is it then that we, who supposedly have the fullness of the Spirit of God, encounter the enemy not with the Word of God as our Blessed Saviour did but with our newfound authority devoid of the Word of God? Perhaps this work will go part of the way in correcting this Pentecostal emphasis and redirecting it back to the middle of the road. And perhaps, as well, there may be a few anti-Pentecostals who will be challenged to dig deeper into that blessed Word and appropriate by faith "the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4).

*****

Defining The Terms

DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

* The baptism in the Holy Spirit is a state of being fully submerged in God the Holy Spirit by the Lord Jesus Christ after receiving salvation.

* It is that extra-ordinary manifestation of the power of the Spirit of God as He falls upon individuals who are open to the miracle working purposes of God.

* The initial evidence of having received this baptism is the manifestation of the miracle of speaking in tongues.

* These tongues may be in the languages of men or angels.

* The utterance of prophecy is another miracle that can follow tongues as an evidence of having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

* The terms, "the promise of the Father", "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and "receiving power from on high" are all synonymous with "the baptism in the Holy Spirit".

* The baptism in the Holy Spirit is inclusive of all the extra-ordinary manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit as He comes upon people He chooses to as suitable to operate these gifts.

*****

Chapter 1

Receiving The Holy Spirit

WHY DO WE BELIEVE IN THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? A good question, perhaps, and the multitude of answers one gets to that question vary from being fanciful, in a "cloud cuckoo land" sort of way, to being ludicrous in a "what's this person been sniffing" sort of way. Very few Pentecostals will reply with a confident reliance on Holy Scripture. Why is this so? And why is it that we, as Pentecostals, can respond so successfully to the call of Jesus to "go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them (the lost) to come in, that my house may be filled" (Lk.14:23) and yet so patently miss it when it comes to knowing the will of God regarding His Word?

To answer this I believe that we need a starting point and by far the best starting point that I know of in Holy Scripture is 2 Tim 3:15-17 :

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".

I like that! It teaches me that faith is integrally linked to the Word of God. If we want to understand anything of what God has done in us and desires to do to others we need to be made wise through the Holy Scriptures. It also teaches me that all of the Holy Bible is profitable for me. The reason that I make this point is that I have heard some Fundamentalist Christians respond to Pentecostal believers, who appeal to scriptures in the Acts of the Apostles, by maintaining that one cannot properly teach doctrine from this book, which mainly deals with historical narrative. These Fundamentalists maintain that since Acts of the Apostles is not a book primarily written for doctrinal purposes we should not put an emphasis on it to substantiate our position as Pentecostals. I oppose such a view on the basis of the above scripture. All of it is given by God and is profitable for doctrine...that's good enough for me. And if there is a pattern of outpoured blessings for the people of God in any book of the Holy Bible then I'll go for it, regardless of whether it is in Acts, Ruth, Hosea or Habakkuk; for I desire to be built up on the whole Word of God!

Having established that we shall only use the Holy Scripture in our defence of what we believe and practice let us move quickly onto another issue that appears not only to divide Pentecostals from non-tongues speaking Christians but also divides one Pentecostal group from another and that is the issue of whether the Baptism in the Holy Spirit saves the soul or not. Some maintain that it is an experience that follows salvation and adds to it, others maintain that one cannot be saved without it and still others maintain that it is not linked to the salvation experience at all but has an entirely different purpose.

Rather than go off the track and get bogged down in an exhaustive treatise on salvation let us set some simple ground rules regarding salvation. Follow me with these simple lines of thought.

* Salvation requires repentance: a turning of one's direction wholly towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

* Salvation requires belief: in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, having secured for us eternal redemption through His death on Calvary's cross.

* Salvation requires confession: in Jesus as Lord.

* Salvation requires fruit: growth in the grace and knowledge of God.

If you can agree with these simple ground rules then it will be relatively easy to sort out the problem of the purpose of Pentecost and its relation to our salvation because the collegial players in the birth of the Church are also our main examples of our salvation and our receiving of the "promise of the Father". Up until now there has been a tendency to equate the receiving of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, with the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of regeneration and renewing for salvation (see Titus.3:5). To my way of thinking these are two separate events designed for two separate purposes.

Let me elaborate: If the apostles received the Holy Spirit only on the day of Pentecost then it would be safe to assume that salvation was linked with speaking in tongues. It would also be safe to assume that they could not have possibly been saved prior to this event (having not the inward regeneration and renewing of the Spirit of God: Titus.3:5). But what would happen if the Holy Scripture said that the apostles actually received the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost and in an entirely different way? Would it make you think? Would it make you reassess your stand on this issue?

Let us quote a few scriptures from the Gospel of John Chapter 20. Let us set the scene for you. It is the day that Christ rose from the dead; so it is already well and truly prior to Pentecost. He has already appeared unto Mary Magdalene (vs.14-18) but the disciples did not believe her (Mk.16:11). He also has appeared unto the other women (Mt.28:9-10) and also to the two disciples on the Emmaus Road but neither were they believed (Mk.16:12-13). And now it is evening and the disciples are gathered together "for fear of the Jews"(v.19) and behold Jesus comes and stands in the midst of them. It is at this point that belief overcomes their fear and they are glad when they hear His blessing of "Peace be unto you" and see His hands and His side.

So would you agree with me that the disciples have turned away from their fear to the Lord at this point and are convinced that He is risen from the dead? Now although there is no direct confession of Jesus as Lord there is certainly convincing evidence that they had received the Holy Spirit for verse 22 says: "And having said this, He breathed on them and says to them, Receive at once the Holy Spirit" (Wuests Translation). Would any argue that they did not receive the Holy Spirit at that time? If so then you would be making light of Jesus intent in His actions.

The following verses confirm this receiving of the Holy Spirit by indicating a deep knowledge of the mind of God to confirm on those who have been forgiven by the Lord the complete assurance of salvation. (1 Cor.2:10-16 is a parallel scripture on knowing the things of God). So in John 20 we have rock solid evidence of the disciples being saved without the need for Pentecost, tongues or divine healing. To argue otherwise would be to create a precedent in scripture by avowing that some may receive the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus and still not be saved. The only possible conflicting parallel reading comes from Luke 24:41 in the words "And while they did not believe it because of joy and amazement..."(N.I.V) and I think that you will agree with me when I say that I doubt if this constitutes unbelief in the natural sense as it is used generally in scripture.

If the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit at that point then the words of Jesus are symbolic to the point of being entirely ambiguous and if they did receive the Holy Spirit at that point then many have to rethink the purpose of Pentecost. The reason for this is that it is evident that the Holy Scriptures teach that the disciples received the Holy Spirit twice. They received the Holy Spirit firstly on the evening of the resurrection and secondly on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

My question to you, dear reader, is "how many times have you received the Holy Spirit?" Should you wish to argue the point with me on this assertion I would remind you that it would be very difficult to assert that they (the disciples) did not receive the Holy Spirit in direct consequence of Jesus having breathed on them. The act in itself being a divine testimony to a work of God; this is not entirely unlike that same work which God did in Adam in Genesis 2:7. This time, however, it was not to initiate life but to renew spiritual life with God. And is it not fitting that the forerunners for the Christian life receive this new life on the day that Jesus conquered the grave?

An interesting addition to this small insight into when the disciples received their salvation is the theological dilemma that Thomas must have faced. Please note now; we are still working from the Gospel of John Chapter 20. As you are aware from your reading Thomas was not present when the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room. Nor did he believe their collective account when informed about the events later on. His response in verse 25 says it all: ÒExcept I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe". When Jesus reappears "after eight days" (v.26) Thomas comes before the risen Saviour and confesses to Him, "My Lord and my God". Dear reader, does not scripture teach us "that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"? (Rom.10:9-10). Did not Thomas meet these requirements? No doubt he did! Was he not therefore saved at this point? If he wasn't it then creates more problems than it solves. How could it be possible that he met these scriptural requirements (Rom.10) for salvation and yet not receive the "regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost"? (Titus.3:5). This point alone now puts both Thomas and the other disciples at odds with those who put salvation, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the birth of the Church and the manifestation of spiritual gifts all under the broad banner of Pentecost and trace everything back to that day. To my way of thinking they do not all fit into that one day. It is evident also that since the Holy Spirit was given twice to the disciples then God had a different purpose in each.

I do not accept for a moment the idea that the John 20 events were only meant to be partial impartations of the Holy Spirit. To get this from scripture is to read from the silence of the word (a very unsafe practice). The Holy Scriptures never mention anything about a partial impartation and therefore we have no right to read this meaning into the text. All that we have to work with is the text itself, comparing scripture with scripture, "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim.3:15).

If we are still working together along this line of thought then the conclusion is obvious that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not linked with the salvation experience of all the disciples. This being the case we cannot depart from the example of these first Christians by equating the impartation of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of regenerating and sealing us as God's property with the impartation of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of being empowered to be witnesses of Jesus Christ throughout the whole earth.

Those, then, who are adamant that a Christian must speak in tongues to be truly saved are standing on shaky theological ground and it is not me whom they are at odds with! It's Thomas and the others who set the example that we must follow.

Assuming that most of my dear readers are already acquainted with the first scriptural impartation of the Holy Spirit having been saved through His work and thereby been baptised into Jesus Christ (this being the "one baptism" of eternal significance since it is linked with our salvation) let us therefore move on to the second scriptural impartation of the Holy Spirit: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Please note that this is not that baptism into Jesus Christ (Rom.6:3). Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus Christ! Yet when this subject is discussed it is amazing how the two get mixed up. Quite obviously the baptism into Jesus Christ cannot be the same as the baptism in the Holy Spirit. So, from this point onwards you will appreciate it if I refer to the baptism in the Holy Spirit as pertaining to the baptism in the Holy Spirit!

Jesus referred to this blessed event as "the promise of My Father" (Lk.24:49) and "the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:5). Wuests translation of Lk.24:49 says, "As for Myself, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you" and the reading in Acts 1:4 says "And being assembled together with them He charged them not to go away from Jerusalem, but to be waiting for the promise of the Father which you heard from me". Please notice that Jesus is talking to them (post resurrection) about a future event. Please also notice that He refers to this event as "the promise" and that, in the same context from the book of Acts, this promise is equated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This association is undeniable. Compare with verses 5 and 8 of Acts 1.

Now in every baptism there are certain distinct parties involved. Firstly there is the baptisee (the one who will be immersed) and secondly there is the baptiser (the one who will perform the immersing) and thirdly there is the medium into which the baptisee will be immersed. In the case of those who get baptised in water the one getting immersed is the baptisee, the one performing the ceremony is the baptiser and the medium is the water. In the case of our being baptised into Jesus Christ we are the baptisees, the Holy Spirit is the baptiser (1 Cor.12:13) and Jesus Christ is the medium into which we are immersed. But with our being baptised in the Holy Spirit things change slightly. We remain the baptisees, Jesus Christ becomes the baptiser and it is into the medium of the Holy Spirit that we are immersed. Mark 1:8 says (when speaking of Christ) "He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost". Literally this should always be rendered as being a baptism in the Holy Spirit. But none-the-less the meaning is clear.

So why, then, is there so much confusion around this issue? I suppose that the answer lies in the fact that many slip up with their semantics and cloud the issue by referring to the baptism in the Holy Spirit as the baptism of/by/with the Holy Spirit. And the meaning changes, you will agree, when one uses different words. To illustrate: if one were to substitute the word "with" for the word "in" in John 3:23 the meaning would be obscure. So why so much fuss over one little Greek preposition "en"? The answer to this lies somewhere in the past when men changed the directive to baptise (literally to fully immerse) into the watered down version (pardon the pun) to sprinkle thereby allowing one not necessarily to be in the water. I do not agree with this sprinkling practise but many churches do this anyway by allowing infants to be baptised with water. Since the majority of translations took a back seat on this issue and allowed "en" to be directly translated as "with" most think that they are being obedient by submitting to sprinkling. For this present issue the influence of such changes have overflowed into the baptism in the Holy Spirit debate. The Fundamentalist certainly has been baptised by the Holy Spirit and would vehemently argue his case for having received a baptism of the Holy Spirit and, what is more, I would wholly support such an argument. In his mind-set he would understand these terms as applying to what the Holy Spirit wrought in him at the time of his conversion, i.e. having been baptised into the body of Jesus Christ (Rom.6:3-4,1 Cor.12:13) but does he understand that the scripture talks of a second baptism? In most cases, that I have encountered, there is no such understanding. We, as Pentecostals, are guilty of not making the debate on the basis for the need of a second baptism by the second member of the Holy Trinity. And this is perhaps the legacy we carry for having, historically, a brittle hermeneutic as a foundation for an underdeveloped systematic theology.

To conclude this chapter, as is obvious, the linchpin for my argument is based almost entirely on the issue of when Peter and the other disciples were saved. It is apparent that had they been saved prior to Pentecost as such then they must needs have received the Holy Spirit twice. This being the case, as is apparent from Holy Scripture, we need to get a hold on a few issues. Firstly, that all Christians have the Holy Spirit. Secondly, it is not essential to speak in tongues to be saved. And thirdly, if God's intent is for us to have a second baptism conducted by the second member of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, then it is necessary for us to respond to His will in faith as it is revealed to us through His Word. This shall be my intent throughout the remainder of this work; i.e. to study the Holy Scripture with you and allow it to speak to you of God's will for you concerning this subject.

*****

Chapter 2

"But Jesus Said That I Could"

I suppose one of the things that really nagged me as a young Christian was why was there so much debate over the issue of speaking in tongues. I was blessed of God to have been redeemed from a very sinful life at the ripe old age of 23. I was nurtured with a lot of love in a very sound Foursquare Gospel Church. And with all this love going on around me it came as quite a shock to me, as a young Christian, that not all believers in Jesus Christ were exactly overjoyed about us Pentecostals being on board the same ship. The main issue turned out to be "tongues". Before I was subject to such accusations as being "demon possessed" and being "an agent of the Devil" I was blessed to have owned my own Holy Bible. Having read it already before I was saved it was amazing just what came back to mind after I received the Comforter, who was to teach me as His word said He would (1 Jn.2:27).

To my way of thinking if Jesus told me that I must take up my cross daily and follow Him (Lk.9:23) then that was easy to understand. It was simply a matter of applying the same faith that I had placed in Him to forgive me of all my sins and the matter was solved. I experienced perfect peace in resting in the complete work of Jesus Christ. I had not a worry in the world. "Go and tell others about Him?" Sure! No problems! This salvation created more joy in me than all the world's riches ever could. I told everybody about Him and what He had done for me. I was so gung-ho that nothing was a problem because faith in Him was so natural. "Lay hands on the sick?" Why not? ; the Word said it! Cast out demons? Just let me find one! And God did and by faith I did. So, to me, speaking in tongues was just another response of faith in His Word which said "He that believeth .... shall speak with new tongues" (Mk.16:16-17).

But one thing perplexed me greatly. Why was there so much opposition to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues)? Pentecostals certainly didn't lack anything in their enthusiasm to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their love and commitment to Jesus Christ and the saints of God was undeniable. So why was there so much vehemence between Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals? From where did this "doctrine of demons" thinking stem? Didn't they know that Jesus said that it was a sign (Greek: semeion; lit. a miracle) that would follow them that believe? As Ward Ballard put it "they believe that the Bible does not allow them to speak in tongues. We do. But we have no right to hold onto our belief unless we first understand their biblical perspective and then examine both thoroughly in the light of scripture".

What ensued was a whole flurry of visits to bookshops of Fundamentalist persuasion to purchase literature that attacked Pentecostal doctrine. It was during these visits to these shops that I gained a lot of exposure to literature on the word of God that blessed me greatly and imparted spiritual truths that I would not have been exposed to otherwise.

In reading these books attacking Pentecostal doctrine I learnt that many believe that the day of miracles and revelation is over. They believe that the day of apostolic and prophetic gifting is also over. They believe that with the closing of the New Testament Canon after the last writing of the apostle John there was no longer any need for revelation either by prophecy or by a tongue with the interpretation. Hence, on the basis of scripture, they maintain that basically since the close of the first century AD the spiritual gifts that are evident in Pentecostal Assemblies are not functioning under the hand of the Holy Spirit. And since it is not the hand of God in it then it must all be a subtle, satanic counterfeit.

Attached to these attacks on the Pentecostal doctrine were a reasonable assortment of testimonies from people who had suffered rather unfairly under the hands of a) unscrupulous Pentecostal ministers; b) insensitive "spirit filled" people who were more preoccupied with their own gifting than the needs of those they were "ministering" to; and c) doctrines that put more of an emphasis on avoiding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (which could have been anything from questioning the ethics of the minister to speaking out against the anathema of Christian Rock Music). As well there were also testimonies from ministers who had come out from the Pentecostal movement either because they were fed up with some of the excesses or because they were more aligned theologically with movements that were distinctly non-Pentecostal.

Of the above I shall comment briefly. It is obvious that in any group there shall be characters whose behaviour will not measure up to the standards which that group espouses. For example: one scandal I learnt of involved the pianist of a very influential Fundamentalist assembly. Certainly the pianist had a ministry that involved leading the saints of that assembly into worship of the Lord. Even more certain is the fall of such a high profile member of a ministry team causing hurt in the lives of people sitting under this ministry. The seeds of sin had been planted much earlier and its practice had been hidden for quite a while. Now is this assembly to be judged on the basis of this one person's behaviour? Do we discredit a movement on the basis of the behaviour of one or a few as if they somehow reflect the whole of what that movement stands for? You cannot answer that question with a view that some behaviours we will frown upon and others we will react in such a way as to heat up the tar and get the feathers ready. In other words the way some of these testimonies are written you would get the idea that Pentecostalism is wrong because some theologically and spiritually immature people have inflicted themselves on some hurting and very susceptible people. Add to this the idea that Pentecostalism is wrong because some very greedy and ravenous wolves have made prey of they flock of God. What is this? Is it open season on Pentecostalism? Do we as Pentecostals have an entire corner on the market of unscrupulous behaviour? Or are there one or two of you non-Pentecostals out there who may have been insensitive or unscrupulous? I speak as a fool of course.

No church or movement should be judged on the basis of the unhealthy behaviour of isolated individuals proclaiming to represent it. If this were to be the case and each church movement were to be judged on this basis then there would be nowhere for dedicated believers to fellowship. Dear Fundamentalist brother or sister, would you judge Fundamentalism on the basis of some of the mistakes that have gone through your ranks? Doubtless you would not. You see, the line has to be drawn somewhere and it can only be done on the basis of the Word of God. Is Pentecostalism wrong, therefore, because of human error or unscrupulous behaviour? No more than Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism or any other "ism" is for that matter.

At one very non-Pentecostal conference I attended once, virtually all that these ministers would do in the session breaks was swap stories of how the local Pentecostals did this and did that. (They did not know that a couple of us Pentecostals had attended their conference with a view to learning more about the Word of God). They must have been feeling very smug and very well protected in that setting, for one little morsel of spicy anti-Pentecostal trivia seemed to invite another. "On the last day of the feast" we lifted up our voices to a few of them and let them know just how unloving and judgmental they had been! We asked why is it that they were not fair about their story telling? Would they like us to tell a few stories about some of the bizarre things that are perpetrated in the name of Christianity outside of Pentecost? If not then we would reluctantly supply them with a few. The table was amazingly quiet after that! I wonder why?

You see, dear reader, the question as to the validity of Pentecostalism lies not in the behaviour of those who espouse it but in the very Word of God itself. Is salvation scriptural? Then receive it, regardless of all the Jim Joneses in the world who bring Christianity into disrepute. Is the baptism in the Holy Spirit (for today) scriptural? If you find that it is, through the reading of this book, then receive it regardless of all who, through their behaviour or through what they have experienced, have turned from it.

So then, do we have any scriptural basis upon which we can defend our rights to be Pentecostal? Yes, much in every way. I would like therefore to go through the Holy Scriptures examining each verse in its context that deals with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Each reason for believing, I hope, will shed some light on why we do not believe that this wonderful promise finished around the close of the first century with the completion of the New Testament Canon.

As stated earlier it should require the believer to look no further than the words of Jesus in Mark 16:15-18:

"And he said unto them, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

One of the many accusations that are levelled at Pentecostals is that we focus too much on tongues, casting out of demons and laying hands on the sick but not enough on picking up serpents and drinking lethal potions. It is alleged that if one of these signs is to follow our believing then all should. Let me say in the defence against this argument that the word for "signs" should literally be translated "miracles" and, as such, stem from the Lord Himself. Given that deadly poison is to be offered to us I would think that it firstly should be in the context of being a witness for the preaching of the Gospel (v.15) and secondarily it should come as a revelation from God that the substance is poison (should it be administered in a surreptitious manner). Further to this argument that Pentecostals should involved themselves in drinking lethal potions and handlings serpents is the fact that of the numerous incidents recounted in the New Testament there are no incidents involving believers drinking poisons and only one where a believer handles a serpent. Does this invalidate the rest who bore no such testimony? Of course it is unsafe to read into the Holy Scripture from what it does not say, so we shall stay with the facts. Paul handled a viper, so to speak, (Acts 28:3), even though it was not from a voluntary act of willing to pick up a serpent to fulfil the saying of Jesus. Instead it "fastened on his hand" as he "gathered a bundle of sticks". Philip cast out unclean spirits (Acts 8:7) and Peter laid his hands on that man begging at the Gate Beautiful (Acts.3:7). There is no record of any saint drinking any deadly thing, either willingly or unwillingly.

You ask, "What point are you trying to make?" It is this: tally up all of the supernatural miracles individually performed throughout the New Testament and you still will have only a small fraction when you compare this number with those who spoke in unknown tongues. So there are more examples of saint's speaking in tongues than there are of any other miraculous gift. Just to begin with we have "about an hundred and twenty"(Acts 1:15) who were tarrying for the promise. Add to this number those of the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) and those "certain disciples" in Ephesus (Acts 19) and you have a good number. So if there is anything that we can glean from the Acts of the Apostles it is this: there is a greater body of witness supporting the speaking of tongues then there is in casting out of demons, drinking deadly things, healing and taking up serpents.

Dear reader, if you were asked to lay down your life for the Lord Jesus would you not do so? If you were asked to drink a deadly poison rather than renounce His glorious name would you not do it with faith in His name even though you have no New Testament example of anyone having done so? Of course you would! Then why is it that when it comes to following the example of a crowd of New Testament saints, in speaking in tongues by faith, some of you recoil?

Is it not easier to say "By faith I receive the promise of the Father and I shall speak in unknown tongues just like Jesus said I would"? Not on the basis of some scripturally misguided person asking you to parrot off "repeat this sound after me baa...baa...baa...gaa...gaa...gaa...there! You've got it!"

So let me present to you a scriptural basis upon which you may act in faith:

1. I MAY RECEIVE THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES BECAUSE JESUS SAID THAT I COULD IF I'M A BELIEVER (MK.16:15).

But is this all? No; absolutely not. There is much more. Will you please turn with me to Acts chapter 1 where we begin in depth with the promise of the Father?

Let me set the scene for you. This is the day on which Jesus will ascend to heaven. He has already given the disciples the Great Commission days earlier when they were away in Galilee (Mt.28:16) and had witnessed another miracle of divine provision (Jn.21:1-14). So here they are, having left their nets, yet again, possibly all fired up and ready to "go... and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". No doubt this explains their presence in Jerusalem again. Their Captain had directed them to "GO" and now they are assembled for what will prove to be their final instructions direct from His lips.

Will He tell them to "GO" today? No. He doesn't say that. He tells them to wait. Wait for what? They have it all! They have received the Holy Spirit when He breathed into them. What more could they need?

The reading from Lk.24:49-51 parallels with the reading from Acts 1. This is the account of Jesus' last words before He ascended to heaven. The first verse Lk.24:49 deals with three issues:

1. Jesus sending the promise of the Father.

2. The disciples tarrying until the promise is received.

3. The sign of the promise is being endued with power.

Of the words of Jesus in Acts 1:4-8 only one new subject is added and that is by way of correction of the disciples faulty preoccupation with the Kingdom being restored to Israel. Other than this the final discourse between Jesus and His followers deals with:

1. The disciples waiting for the promise of the Father.

2. The "promise" of the Father being associated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5 cp. Mt.3:11; Mk.1:8 and Lk.3:16) with Jesus officiating.

3. The sign of the "promise" being the receiving of power after the Holy Spirit had come "upon" them.

Isn't it interesting how the subject matter of Jesus' very last group instruction deals with the one issue? Now situated right in the centre of that last recorded sentence are some spiritual gems.

As a consequence of the Holy Spirit coming upon them they were going to receive power. Had they not received power when they received the Holy Spirit on the evening of the resurrection? Of course they had! No one who has the Spirit of God residing in them is without power. But there was something about this power that they were to receive when Jesus baptised them in His Holy Spirit that was different and very essential to His Plan. Instead of this power being given to them to live by faith and overcome sin it was given for the outward expression of their testimony regarding what Jesus Christ had wrought for all of mankind. The wording is:

"but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth". (Acts 1:8)

So let me present to you my second scriptural reason why we should receive this second baptism at the hand of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Holy Trinity:

2. JESUS BELIEVED THAT ALL PRESENT AT HIS ASCENSION WERE IN NEED OF THIS POWER TO BE WITNESSES AND AS I HAVE THE SAME COMMISSION SHOULD I NOT, THEREFORE, RECEIVE THAT SAME ENDUEMENT FROM HEAVEN?

Some at this point will argue that Jesus was only talking to the apostles. In refutation allow me to cite the following facts:

A) What was promised to the apostles "through the Holy Ghost" (Acts 1:2) was apparently not restricted to the apostles as Acts chapters 2, 10 and 19 demonstrate clearly.

B) The response of the disciples to the ascension of Jesus Christ was to return to Jerusalem with "great joy" (Lk.24:52) and were "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen". (Lk.24:53). Now Acts 1:14 adds to this list of saints who "continued with one accord in prayer and supplication... the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren". So the directive to wait in Jerusalem was taken up by more than the eleven apostles.

C) May I be so bold as to suggest that the group that waited for the promise of the Father in Jerusalem was at least 120? This being the case should not they expect to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit having waited for it? Yes! I believe so.

My argument goes much further. Given that the directive to wait for the "promise" was only issued to the eleven apostles it is obvious that others acted in faith upon this directive and subsequently received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was absolutely necessary to the Master's Plan. Did you notice in Acts 1:8 how that this receiving of power was for the witness to be "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth?" I want you to see how other translations finish this verse off:

Wuest "and to the end of the earth".

Youngs "and unto the end of the earth".

N.I.V "and to the ends of the earth".

Moffatt "and to the end of the earth".

They all say the same thing, don't they? In fact when W.E.Vine deals with the word "earth" (Greek: Ge) he describes it as "the inhabited earth"[1]. Now this assists me greatly in establishing the next scriptural reason why we should receive this blessed "promise":

3. THE EMPOWERING WAS FOR THE WITNESS TO GO TO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH. THEREFORE TONGUES WERE NOT LIMITED TO THE ANCIENT WORLD AND PEOPLE.

What is it then brethren? Did God only give the spiritual gifts to those who would be reached by the turn of the first century AD? Why then did He include the term "the uttermost part of the earth" and clearly connect that to the witness of Him through being baptised in the Holy Spirit (with the initial evidence of speaking in unknown tongues). The connection is so obvious that it should be screaming at you.

There is another school, however, that defends this verse by stating that "the uttermost part of the earth" refers only to the then, known, civilised world. The problem with this line of thought is that it creates one glaring, theological trap. Since it limits the spreading of the "power" in the "promise of the Father" as was evidenced on the day of Pentecost then it must needs also limit the spreading of the "witnesses" (Acts 1:8) to the same time period and geographical area because the two (the "power" and "the witness") are intimately connected to "the promise". There is no scriptural way of separating the two since witnessing is the scriptural fruit of having received the power. If this is so and the power signs ceased then all of western Christianity ought to throw in the towel. We would have missed the boat on the right to witness scripturally by around 1900 odd years. There seems to be no other way around this. Either the power lapsed with the witness around 1900 years ago or the witness and the power continue! And if they do continue then why should not the initial scriptural evidence of the same continue?

The fact that Jesus was aware of the baptism in the Holy Spirit having a much broader application than to be limited to His immediate listeners is obvious. So, too, is the fact that Jesus was aware of the magnitude of the task that lay ahead of the disciples in spreading the Gospel throughout the earth that He created. Was He still functioning through the limitations of human understanding as He was when the woman with "an issue of blood ... touched the border of His garment"? His response then was "Who touched me?".... Apparently He did not know. (Lk.8:43-48) Is this the same case in Acts 1:8? Is He unaware that there is more to the world than the extent of the Roman Empire? If this is the case then it creates certain doubts over the omniscience of One who has already been to present Himself to the Father in Heaven. (Jn.20:17; cp. Mt.28:9-10; Lk.24:39). I would prefer to look at the text as meaning exactly what it says and that is to literally mean "to the uttermost part of the earth".

Assuming, then, that the "power" and "the witnesses" are literally to go "to the uttermost part of the earth" would it not seem just a little incongruous of the Lord to limit one of these (the "power") and maintain the others. It is almost like the Lord saying "Now you guys in the first century can have the power to witness but you guys from century two onwards, well, you're just going to have to do without it! The reason is that since those who actually saw Me will not be around you are all going to have to do without them as well as the power that I first told them about. Now I know that you have to witness to billions and these guys only had a few million but that's just the way it is. As a consolation prize, however, what I'm going to do for you is put the whole thing in writing". Pardon the flippancy of the account but it virtually amounts up to the same regardless of how you like to word it. In refutation I would like you to consider the following points:

* There is no scriptural evidence supporting the belief that the eleven apostles saw themselves as being essential to the spreading of the Gospel throughout the earth. There is, however, evidence to support the opposite i.e. that the original eleven apostles (twelve if you include Matthias from Acts 1:26) played only a minor role in spreading the Gospel with Apostolic authority throughout the earth. To defend this argument I cite the fact that the Gospel to the uncircumcised nations was committed to two apostles, at least, neither of who were among the original eleven apostles. I am of course referring to the apostles Paul and Barnabas (see Acts 14:14 for proof of their apostleship) who having received authoritative blessing from the eldership in Jerusalem took the Gospel to the uncircumcised nations (Gal.2:7-9). So we see that there has been a shift in emphasis from the twelve apostles, who had been with Jesus "all the time" throughout His ministry (Acts 1:21), to other apostles such as Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias (Rom.16:7) and Apollos (1 Cor.4:6-9).

* The multiplication of the apostolic office was not only necessary for the fulfilment of the terms of Acts 1:8; it was also necessary for the fulfilment of the terms that are clearly laid down in Eph.4:11-16. It is here that it is clearly stated just how long God sovereignly said that the "gifts unto men" (Eph.4:8) would be around. For example these gifts (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers) were to be for the "equipping of the saints for ministering work" (Wuest. Eph.4:12). Now there is not a single verse of scripture that indicates that these gifts were split in two; i.e. that the apostolic and prophetic gifts were annulled whilst the remaining gifts were allowed to continue. Further to this, Ephesians goes on to say that all of these giftings were for the edifying of the body of Christ "until we all reach unity in the faith and in knowledge of the Son of God and become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ". Let me ask you, therefore, which position do you adopt? Are you with those who maintain that the apostolic and prophetic giftings ceased way back at the end of the first century? Then of necessity you must believe that the Body of Christ attained all of the requirements of Eph.4:12-13 back then and, as such, has since then been "no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine"? Have we all reached unity in the faith? Have we all come into a full knowledge of the Son of God? Have we all become mature attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ? If the answer is "no" to any of these questions then we, as saints, have the scriptural right to request of God that he supply us with what His Word says we need.

* As a direct follow on from the previous point it would appear obvious that if the gifted men are still to be with us then so too are their gifts. For the apostle one might expect to see them working "attesting miracles and miracles of a startling, imposing, amazement-wakening character, and miracles that demonstrate God's power". (Wuest: 2.Cor.12:12) These would include raising the dead (Acts 20:9-12) and laying hands on saints that they may receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17). For the prophet one might expect prophetic utterances that declare the will of God for individuals (Acts 21:10-11) and for large geographical areas (Acts 11:28).[2]

One more point on this issue warrants some consideration. Since the office of "bishop" is mentioned some eight times in the New Testament (though two of these appear as subscriptions to Pauline letters) it is not mentioned in Ephesians 4 as a ministry given by Jesus to the Body of Christ. It's possible that the term bishop is a term used to describe those officiating as overseers of an assembly and quite possibly referring to those with apostolic authority. In Acts 6:2 the twelve apostles tell the Church that "it is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables" so the process commenced of finding men who would fill the office of the deacon. Once again the Ephesians 4 structure is not mentioned. Similar language is used in Philippians 1:1 where "bishops and deacons" appear to be warranting separate mention. How do we sort out the problem that arises out from the question of which office really has the authority? Is it the office of "apostle" or the office of "bishop"? A brief examination of Acts 1:20 may solve the problem. Peter is talking about the demise of Judas and how it is necessary for his place to be taken. The language is interesting. "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take". In other words "as far as his temporal possessions are concerned, forget them, and leave them alone. But as far as his gifting for the Church is concerned, well that has to be replaced. What was this office that Judas occupied which Peter referred to as a "bishoprick"? Since it required being "numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26) we may safely conclude that this "bishoprick" was one and the same as "apostleship". This being so then it opens right up the number of those who would possibly have been functioning as apostles but being addressed in other terms such as "bishop" or "elder" (1 Pet.5:1).

Clearly, then, with such a growing body of "apostles" how is it possible that they all could have died out in the same era with the Church expanding so rapidly? If the writings of the early Church Fathers are to be given any weight it would seem that these fading offices were anything but fading. So, then, do we follow the recordings of the early Church fathers who tell us that the gifts of apostle and prophet indeed continued well on into the second century despite claims that they should have ceased? And how much weight do we give to these same sources which tell us that the gift of tongues continued well on into the second century? How can this be when they were supposed to have ceased abruptly decades earlier? Did not this Church which had come into "the unity of the faith" and had "become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" know that they should not have been practising these things along with the laying on of hands to heal the sick? Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

(1) W.E.Vine, Vines expository dictionary of New Testament words. Unabridged edition. Riverside Book and Bible House. p.353

(2) Critics who attack the ministry of the prophet do so with a challenge that goes something like this: "If the prophet is uttering divine revelations direct from God Himself why does he not write all of these words of God down so that we may add them to the Holy Bible? Why not share these words of God with the entire Church since no word of God is any less important than any other? In response I can only reply that the prophet's words of today should neither be any greater nor inferior to those of the prophets of New Testament times. These prophets include Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen and Agabus all of whom both delivered the words of God and left the Church no written record of their prophecies.

*****

Chapter 3

The Power And The Witness

Probably the most quoted chapter of the Holy Scriptures, among young Pentecostals, is Acts 2. Contained in its verses is a graphic picture of how the Holy Spirit was poured upon the believers on the day of Pentecost and how these believers exploded on to the world scene with a demonstration of power. There is perhaps no greater picture of boldness that one gets when one imagines how dynamic those believers must have appeared in going out into that sea of lost, and sometimes hostile, Jews who had come to Jerusalem for the feast. Was this boldness something that had been only distributed to the twelve apostles? The answer must be, "surely not", for there is no support in scripture for such a claim. Indeed the case appears very strong for those who support the idea that the Holy Spirit was given to all who were in "one accord". As previously mentioned this would definitely have included the 120 who were "together" with Peter (Acts 1:15). Here the Greek is "epi to auto": "upon/towards the same". In other words the number of saints who had gathered together for the same purpose was 120. So when the day of Pentecost comes we still find "all with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). So little wonder that, when the Holy Spirit is given to them, we find terms used like:

"it filled all the house where they were sitting". (v.2)

"and there appeared unto them cloven tongues... and it sat upon each of them". (v.3)

"and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost". (v.4)

Why is it that all who gathered together in one accord received the "promise of the Father"? Now we know that these 120 were not the full number of those who were counted as "brethren" to Jesus. The Holy Scriptures teach us that before Jesus Christ ascended into heaven he had quite a substantial following. 1 Cor.15:6 tells us that "He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once". So where were they all? The answer is that we are not told whether they were all there on the day of Pentecost or whether the number was restricted to those who appropriated by faith the directive "but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high" (Lk.24:49). What we do know is that all who responded to the words of Jesus received the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. So why is it that we do not take to heart the lesson that is being taught here that, by far, the majority of those who receive the "promise of the Father" do so after a period of tarrying together for this precious gift? And all who tarried ultimately received. Now if we were to find some other behaviour that is consistently followed by saints throughout the Holy Scripture we know through our well established hermeneutic that this ought to be imitated by ourselves. Take for example such things as studying the scriptures, singing praises to the Lord and observing the Lord's supper. We do these things without placing a whole lot of anxiety on our lives but when it comes to following the very first behaviours of the disciples we put a stop to it? Is it not easier just to rest in what the Word says? Follow me now as I spell out yet another scriptural reason why we should receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

4. IF WE TARRY FOR THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER WE TOO CAN RECEIVE, FOR ALL WHO TARRIED RECEIVED.

Now I have been asked, by those who think that the receiving of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is an absurd thing, whether "cloven tongues like as of fire" appeared on my head when I received the Holy Spirit. My answer is simply "No". But I add to my reply that neither was there any scriptural evidence that the same phenomena occurred in Acts 8, 10 or 19. So not having "cloven tongues as of fire" upon my head in no way scripturally invalidates my receiving of the Holy Spirit because if it were to it would also invalidate the experience of those who received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8, 10, and 19.

So what, then, is the significance of the "cloven tongues like as of fire"? To answer this we have to be certain of what exactly the Lord intended to happen on the day of Pentecost. As it is clearly written, the Holy Spirit fell upon the believers and, in unison, they went forth proclaiming the Gospel. Many theologians trace the birth of the Church to this day. Although the disciples had received salvation prior to this day God had reserved Himself the right to bestow His Holy Spirit upon these same disciples to endue them with power to be witnesses. May I say that the first receiving of the Holy Spirit marks a person's birth into God's family and the second receiving of the Holy Spirit marks a person's qualifications to be a witness of Jesus Christ so as to make an impact on a lost world and to overcome the forces of evil?

The first mention that we have in the scriptures regarding the Church describes it as being "built upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt.16:18). We see then that the message that the Church carries is a confrontational message. It storms the gates of hell so they do not prevail against it. The Holy Scripture also says that this group of believers, gathered together in unison as a Church, is also a "temple".

1 Cor.3:16 says, "know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" and Eph.2:19-22 says:

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,

In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:

In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit"

If the birth of the Church or Temple happened on the day of Pentecost then we certainly have Old Testament anti-types for fire coming upon the dwelling place of God.

When the tabernacle, which was prepared by Moses, was ready for the ministry that it should contain "a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Ex.40:34). (Here "glory" is the Hebrew "kabod": meaning "majesty, glory, splendour". (3)) Something that was entirely splendid and miraculous fell on the tabernacle.

When the temple, that was prepared by Solomon, was ready for the ministry that it should contain "the cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory (kabod) of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD" (1 Ki.8:10-11).

When the temple, which was prepared by Jesus, was ready for the ministry that it should contain "suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them". (Acts 2:3-4).

In each and every situation we have the glory of God manifesting when He institutes a new dwelling place for His Name to reside. Pentecost marked the birth of the Church, the new corporate temple of God. It is fitting that there should be a glorious manifestation of the glory of God. It is also fitting that this glorious manifestation should individually rest upon each person present: each being in themselves a "temple of the Holy Ghost"(1 Cor.6:19). The other events which display the baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot, therefore, mark the establishment of a new temple of God any more than the rededication of Solomon's temple could with its lack of signs and wonders. (Ezra 6:15-22). The only thing that is consistent throughout the different accounts of those receiving the "promise" is that something quite amazing happens every time! The question is often asked, "But what if I receive a false tongue from the devil?" Holy Scripture says that you cannot! If you ask God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, for something that the inspired Word of God says that you can have (to fulfil His will for you to be a witness) then how will God ever possibly allow it to fail and let the enemy win? In possible anticipation of this dilemma I believe that our loving God inspired these words. "For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask". (Lk.11:10-13).

Tell me, how many of us at the point of our conversion ask specifically for the Holy Spirit? Is this a doctrine that is prominent in texts dealing with how to lead a person to salvation? Does it major in the top ten witnessing hints or even in the four spiritual laws? No? Why is this so? I think that the answer lies in the fact that most are taught that they, indeed, received the Holy Spirit when they came to Christ so there is no great emphasis place on asking for something that you already have. Agreed! So why was there admonition to ask for the Holy Spirit? Because everything depended on the believers functioning, in the power of God, through the baptism in the Holy Spirit for the Master's Plan to work.

Let us, therefore, move on to the other events that happened on that day to see if they can shed any light on why the disciples spoke in tongues after receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Let me set the scene for you. The disciples have received the Holy Spirit and have boldly gone out into a crowd of "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (v.5). They have spoken in tongues about "the wonderful works of God" (v.11) to Jews from at least sixteen different nations. To cap this off, the Jews "were all amazed and were in doubt, saying one to another, 'What meaneth this?" (4) (v.12). Others accused them of being "drunken" (v.13). Peter, then, with the eleven, stands and begins his apologetic on the things that the crowd had witnessed. Firstly he dispels any doubts as to his sobriety by talking directly to them in a language that they all would have clearly understood. Then he goes straight to the scriptural foundation upon which this "promise" was laid:

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:16-21).

Firstly I would like to draw your attention to what Peter did not say. He did not say. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet Joel". Nor did he say, "This scripture must needs have been fulfilled" (as he did in Acts 1:16). He didn't even say, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy which was written in the Book of Joel..." Nor could he rightly have said that there was any fulfilment because there was nothing "fulfilled". It was, therefore, quite correct for Peter to have simply referred to this miracle, of people speaking in other tongues, as simply "this is that" which Joel spoke about.

So, then, the time parameters that surround the "fulfilment" of the prophecy of Joel begin with the day of Pentecost and continue on through to the judgements outlined in the latter half of the prophecy. And so they should be, for the witness should extend for as long as the prophecy, so that salvation is still available for those who are to be "slain for the word of God, and the testimony which they" hold (Rev.6:9). How can they (the saints of Rev.6:9) "call on the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:21) without there being a witness? (their deaths preceding aforementioned judgments). Yet the one witness, that was ordained for the Church, came with "power" (Acts.1:8) and was scripturally ordained until the judgements (listed above) should be completed. Then the prophecy of Joel would be fulfilled and then there would be scriptural grounds to say to Pentecostals, "You can't do that stuff any more!"

Let me work this through just a little bit more. Peter said, "And it shall come to pass in the last days". (Acts.2:17). A parallel reading for this term "last days" comes from the epistle 1 Jn.2:18. Now this epistle was supposedly written around the time that tongues were to abruptly cease, yet John is inspired to write "it is the last time (or hour)" and he, too, connects this with apocalyptic imagery. Could it be that we are still in "the last time (or hour)"? No doubt this is the case. What is interesting is that John goes on, in the same context, to tell us that we "have an unction from the Holy One". (1 Jn.2:20) There is never a hint that the Church is about to lose something that is essential for the witness to continue.

And what is more, the term "last days" is an interesting one. Apparently the Jews were well acquainted with the term and understood it to mean "the time of the Messiah"(5). If this is to be accepted then it sheds a lot of light on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peter would virtually be saying to them "This is the time of the Messiah. He is alive! He has been resurrected from the dead and is now sitting on the throne (Acts 2:22-36). The proof is that God has poured out His Holy Spirit and it is our Messiah who has baptised us in His Holy Spirit. You either accept the connection of this miraculous event to the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus or you will miss out on what God wants for you". The conclusion to his sermon says it all: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Messiah)" (Acts 2:36) they certainly had the matter simplified for them:

* Joel's prophecy re the pouring out of God's Spirit.

* The manifestation of miraculous tongues as evidence.

* The Messiah, Jesus Christ "hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" (Acts 2:33)

And do you know what brethren? It is still the time of the Messiah. Nothing has changed in His plan for this prophecy. Just as the "other tongues" were a sign that Jesus was reigning back on the day of Pentecost is there any less reason to believe that in fact Jesus is not still reigning? Of course not! If Peter can appeal to "other tongues" as an attestation that Jesus was on the throne then what can the modern day disciple appeal to that is of greater, scriptural importance? (For even Peter appealed to the Holy Scriptures to authenticate what he was saying about Christ's death, burial and resurrection; but he went much further in appealing to the miraculous manifestation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit upon the believers.)

But let us dig a little more. Peter said, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy". Joel, too, said, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy". They obviously meant the same. But Peter, showing a clear knowledge of the mind of God, applies the term "prophesy" (i.e. to speak out the revealed will of God) to the evidence of speaking in tongues. So, then, to "prophesy" one may do it either in tongues, as the prophesiers did on the day of Pentecost, or one may do it in the language of one's understanding. You ask "Is speaking in tongues to be understood as prophesying?" Well it certainly was on the day of Pentecost and if it were not so Peter then would have had absolutely no authority to have applied the scriptures from the Book of Joel, which dealt with believers in God prophesying, to the manifestation of believers in Jesus Christ speaking in "other tongues".

And it was not only the "sons and daughters" that were to prophesy. Verse 18 says, "And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy". The reading from Joel 2:29 is almost identical, only Peter adds "and they shall prophesy". The apparent effect of receiving the Holy Spirit is to "prophesy". Now the Jews had a belief that the Spirit of prophecy could not rest on a poor man (6). Peter corrects this view by showing them that, in the Messiah's kingdom, there is really no distinctions made upon the basis of ones socio-economic status. All may receive.

So with these points in mind and with an overview of verses 19-21 clearly showing that those events are still yet to be fulfilled let us lay down another foundation upon which we can receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit:

5. IT IS STILL THE LAST DAYS OR THE TIME OF THE MESSIAH'S REIGN. THEREFORE WE CAN STILL KNOW THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME BAPTISM BY SPEAKING OUT THE SAME WAY (NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT OR EVEN UNIMPORTANT WE ARE). (ACTS 2:16-36 PROVES THIS).

In fact, when we view this point (of the time frame of Joel's prophecy extending till the judgments of God) and place it along side of point three (which deals with the need of the of the power to witness to extend to the uttermost part of the earth) we find that they agree exactly with what Jesus predicted in yet another place in the Holy Scripture. If we turn to Matt.24:14 we will read the words of our Blessed Saviour: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come".

So, in a nut-shell, we have Jesus insisting that the disciples wait for the "promise" so as they will be endued with "power" to be witnesses of Him as they preach His Gospel. This very same Gospel is to be a "witness" to all nations, even to the uttermost part of the earth and shall continue to be preached until "the end".

And we are now expected to believe that for most of this time we are to do the job without the one, true, scripturally validated "promise" that even the original apostles could not do without. That does not seem either logical or reasonable.

To my way of thinking, if Joel's time frame (and, therefore, Peter's) was inclusive of the "last days" then should not the "sons and daughters" and "servants and handmaidens" still be scripturally allowed to "prophesy" according to Joel 2:28 and in a way that fits in exactly with what happened on the day of Pentecost? Now isn't it a good thing that Peter simply said "this is that" so that the "promise" would be left open to every son, every daughter, every servant and every handmaiden? I believe so, on both counts!

And as if enough had not already been written in Acts 2 in stating the evidence of the promise, the extent of the promise and the end-time limit of the promise Peter goes on to put the question beyond doubt. He goes on to define the endurance of the promise.

Let us, once again, set the scene for you. Peter has completed his first sermon. He has quoted his text. He has drawn its appropriate parallels. He has centred everything in Jesus Christ, showing from Holy Scripture how that God had spoken of Christ's death, burial, resurrection and His exaltation to the right hand of God. He reminds them that the proof of what he is saying lies in what they "see and hear" (v.33) and then finishes off with a statement that this Jesus, who they have crucified, has been made "both Lord and Christ" (v.36) by none other than God Himself !

What a dilemma they must have been in? The scriptural basis of what he said was sound. The miracle of Pentecost was absolutely undeniable. The empty tomb must have been screaming out at them and, even better, the Holy Spirit was at liberty to convict them.

Wuest's translation of what happened next is beautiful: "Now, having heard this, they were stung to the heart with poignant sorrow" (Acts 2:37). And, quite appropriately, they respond "to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (v.37). The reply is so absolutely profound that it should be given far more weight by Pentecostal apologists and far more scrutiny by those who profess an uncompromising love for the Holy Scriptures:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (v.38).

Do you recognise something different about the progressive sequence of Peter's statement here? Peter puts the order in this way.

1. Repent. (Turn to Jesus and forsake sin).

2. Be baptised in water because of (not for the purpose of) the complete remission of sins.

3. Then you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit can only mean one of two things. It is either referring to the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of Salvation or it is referring to the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

There is one huge danger with interpreting this receiving of the gift as pertaining to Salvation. If this is the meaning here then it gives a lot of weight to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration which advocates that water baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. If this were the case here one would never receive the sealing of the Holy Spirit until after they were baptised in water. This is a position that no self respecting Fundamentalist would hold. Yet the sequence here is not only deliberate but also inspired by God (2 Tim.3: 16). If it were not then Peter would have had to rearrange the order, placing the "gift" after repentance and, then, the baptism in water.

Fortunately, we have the same authorities (Peter, the writer, and the Holy Spirit, the inspirer) reiterating the correct doctrine later on in the Holy Scriptures. 1 Pet.3:21 speaks about baptism being the "answer of a good conscience toward God". The truth of the matter is baptism, being both a response to the saving work of Jesus Christ and a testimony to the world, cannot in itself save but is part of the requirements that are ordinarily expected of believers.

So what, then, is the meaning of "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in this verse? To answer this we have to, once again, clearly state that Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit and, as such, should not be arbitrarily confused with the Holy Spirit. One of the safest laws of hermeneutics is: when a scripture makes sense in its literal sense then seek no other sense. The Holy Scriptures are replete with information that helps us understand that God has given us more than one gift. For example, scriptures that deal with the gift of salvation do so by directly connecting the receiving of this gift with the receiving of Jesus Christ. For example:

"Yet to all who receive Him, to those who believe in His name, he gave the right to become children of God" (Jn.1:12. N.I.V).

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom.6:23).

"And this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son" (1 JN.5:11).

So in our witnessing and preaching to the lost we place an emphasis on receiving Jesus Christ. But there are other gifts mentioned in Holy Scripture, however, that do not involve a receiving of Jesus Christ but a receiving from Jesus Christ. A good example is found in Jn.15:26 where Jesus says, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me". This is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost. The gift came from the Father and was given by Jesus. So, then, what is the difference between "the gift" and "the promise"? Really nothing; except that the gift is the substance of what was promised. And what was promised? The Holy Spirit. And what was given on that day? The Holy Spirit. Therefore Peter, rightly, places the "gift of the Holy Ghost" after the believers' baptism.

Not only does he outline the will of God for them, having referenced the proof in what they saw and heard (v.33), but he immediately follows on from where he left off (i.e. "the gift of the Holy Spirit") by saying:

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts.2:39).

Ah; "the promise"! Remember "the promise"? Throughout the Holy Scriptures from the day Christ rose from the dead till His ascension the context of "the promise" has been the receiving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. There can be no escaping this fact. Yet those who would oppose the operation of the spiritual gifts for today would want us to believe that "the promise" is now speaking specifically of salvation. Yet this does great injustice to the context! To concede this point would do great harm to the position of those who are critical of the Pentecostal movement. Any agreement that "the promise" actually refers to "the promise of the Father" would almost certainly force them to concede that the spiritual gifts are all still valid for today. Why? Quite simply "the promise is ... unto all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call".

You may ask," Is salvation ruled out of the overall context?" My answer is," NO! A thousand times NO"; for Peter goes on to say "Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (v.40). Therefore Peter's aim is not to get them to the point of salvation only. Instead he wants them to go all the way in not only receiving the gift of eternal life (Jesus Christ) but also the baptism in the Holy Spirit (the promise of the Father). The immediate and overall contexts bear this out vividly. So, then, we may safely establish another scriptural reason for laying hold of this precious "promise" for our lives today, basing it entirely in the providentially preserved Word of God:

6. I'M AFAR OFF AND GOD HAS CALLED ME THEREFORE THE WORD OF GOD TELLS ME THAT I CAN RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (ACCORDING TO ACTS 2:37-39).

I was challenged, one day, by a Fundamentalist Preacher (for whom I had high regard as a man of the Word of God), to give him just one scripture that validated my right to believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I was asked for one scripture so I gave him one scripture. After carefully reading through the immediate context, pausing at times to clarify terms such as "the promise" and the order that Peter used in verse 38, we proceeded to the one scripture (v.39). To my utter dismay he confessed that he had not ever read that scripture before in that context. He, at least, did not try to read Salvation into that verse and even if he did think it he must have been careful not to say it at the risk of backing himself into a theological corner.

Yet, what a dilemma it must be for those who do read Salvation into verses 38 and 39. If they do not then they give the Pentecostal irrefutable grounds for the modern day manifestation of speaking in tongues. If they do then they do damage to the Holy Scriptures by:

1. The changing of the application of the term "the promise" without any prior authority or subsequent explanation.

2. Giving ground to those who falsely believe that baptism in water is essential for Salvation.

3. Confusing the issue of "the gift of the Holy Ghost" by excluding the predominant thrust of the chapter.

Yet the entire thrust of the chapter is summed up in verse 33 when Peter tells us of Jesus being "uplifted then by God's right hand, and receiving from the Father the long-promised Holy Spirit, He has poured on us what you now see and hear" (Moffatt's Translation).

The receiving of "the promise of the Father" (i.e. the baptism in the Holy Spirit under the ministry of Jesus Christ) is, therefore, a fitting progression from having already received the baptism into the body of Christ under the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

(3) Dr.W.Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) p.382.

(4) The Greek for "doubt" is "diaporeo" which means, "to be entirely at a loss, to be in perplexity". J.H.Thayer, D.D. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) p.141.

(5) Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Holy Bible. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) p.960.

(6) Adam Clarke; Ibid; p.961.

*****

Chapter 4

The Samaritan Dilemma

Does the picture change at all over the next few chapters in the Book of Acts? Not at all! We continue to find peoples' lives being changed due to a combination of experiencing the miraculous and hearing the Gospel. The main focus of the former involves God significantly getting the attention of those to whom grace is to be extended. The main focus of the latter involves emphasising the death, burial, resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the verse that best exemplifies the continuing theme of the Gospel walking hand in hand with the miraculous is:

"And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all" (Acts 4:33)

This great power and great grace certainly came with a price and, as a result, persecution arose. Soon the believers were leaving Jerusalem and were being scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1 cp. Acts 1:8). But the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. Whether they believed or not that the miraculous manifestations of God could only be received by Jews is not stated. We cannot assume that they were being disobedient to the directive of Jesus (Acts 1:8) by remaining in Jerusalem. We can only surmise that God used this for His glory. That all of the apostles stayed together is significant. Perhaps the timing here would suggest that they all needed to be together so that when news came through that some non-Jews were saved there would be:

1) a unanimous response; and

2) no confusion.

But with the apostles (the miracle workers) remaining in Jerusalem the others were just going to have to rely on the preaching of the Gospel (without any appeal to the miraculous power of God) to win souls, weren't they? Oh no they were not! If there wasn't an apostle on the scene to do the job then somebody else had to do it. God is not limited in who He can chose to work through.

This, therefore, leads us to Philip, who was formally set aside for the purpose of serving in "the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1-6). He was a man "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom" (Acts 6:3). Yet by the time we get to Acts 8 his spiritual stature seems to have grown. So much so that he goes (by faith in the word of Christ) to Samaria and works in Samaria what the apostles worked in Jerusalem. Let us quote the Holy Scriptures directly so that there can be no confusion:

"Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

And there was great joy in that city.........

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:5-8, 12).

A few things are patently obvious from these scriptures:

1. Philip had God-ordained authority to preach.

2. The validity of what he was preaching was attested by miracles.

3. These miracles were perceived through what the Samaritans heard (possibly both the miracle of him speaking in tongues and the sounds made by those being set free from demons) and saw (miraculous healings).

4. The Samaritans believed and were baptised.

All that we have to really do now is determine the answer to the question: Were the Samaritans saved when they believed? The answer, to me, is obvious; but to others, apparently, it is not so obvious. If a person believes in Jesus Christ after hearing the Gospel and witnessing the signs and wonders that accompany it, and they are subsequently baptised, then it would be a brave person indeed who would adopt the position that salvation did not occur. But let us (for argument's sake) adopt this position for just a moment. What ramifications would this have on the minds of every sincere person who has trusted in Jesus? What assurance could any of us have, in our salvation, if we cannot be sure that those who believed Philip's preaching (hearing and seeing the miracles) were, in fact, saved? And if they weren't saved then, under what sort of guidance was Philip acting when he baptised a city full of lost, unsaved people? Furthermore, why would Philip be casting demons out of people and healing the sick if it were not to attain the end result of reaping a harvest of souls? And, finally, why would there be "great joy" if the eternal states of those in Samaria were still desperately in darkness?

You will agree with me when I say that this aforementioned position creates a theological can of worms. It is far more hermeneutically sound to go with the literal sense and say that these Samaritans were indeed saved when they believed. It is safer from all aspects to conclude that Philip was not acting from spiritual ignorance and presumption when he worked the miracles, preached Christ and then baptised those who believed. Yes! They were saved at the point of their belief. As such, they were all part of God's family and therefore would have "received the Spirit of adoption" (Rom.8:15) being saved "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom.8:9). But these Samaritans most certainly did have the Holy Spirit indwelling them because they not only fulfilled the scriptural requirements of salvation but they immediately began demonstrating the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. "There was great joy in that city" and as you are aware "joy" is a "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal.5:22).

There seems to be little purpose in dealing with the character Simon (Acts 8:9-13, 18-24). There is a lot of debate over this man. Was he saved or not? What does the record about this man teach us? And the questions could go on and on. Suffice it to say that he "believed also" and "was baptized" (v.13). For our purposes his story bears little or no relevance except to say that Peter felt that he "hast neither part nor lot in this matter" (v.21). The "matter" that Peter and John were in Samaria for was the laying on of hands that the Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit (v.15-17). But as we have already illustrated they had already received their salvation and hence would have received the Holy Spirit with reference to His saving work.

What is significant for our purposes, however, is the fact that Holy Scripture clearly illustrates how another group of people received the Holy Sprit a second time just as the first group of believers (the Jews) did. The scriptures read:

"Now when the apostles which 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 Ghost:

(For as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:14-17).

Once again we are forced into making a decision. We must decide one of two things. Either the believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit only when the apostles prayed for them or they received the Holy Spirit a second time when the apostles prayed for them. Which is it?

Let us adopt the former argument for a few minutes just to see what theological ramifications it may have on us.

1. For some unexplained reason there seems to have been some delay in the Holy Spirit arriving to come into the lives of the believers in Samaria. How shall we explain this to new converts under our ministries? Shall we say to them, "Repent, believe, receive and be baptised. Once you do this all you might receive the Holy Spirit".

2. The response to the preaching of the Gospel (even if it is one of "great joy") may not be sufficient evidence to indicate that there has been a true "born again" experience. Let us, therefore, beware of any emotional exuberance that may follow a confession of the Lordship of Christ because this proved to be unreliable in the case of the Samaritan believers.

3. Let us tread very warily when it comes to the subject of salvation. Let us be absolutely cautious to only baptise those who have passed the severest scriptural scrutiny lest we naively mislead people into thinking that they are saved (when they are not).

4. Let us also be cautious not to fall for the error of assuming that a person is saved just because he/she begins to follow Jesus after having been set free from their demons or their palsies (7) or their lameness. On this basis, a combination of healing and believing in Jesus in no way guarantees that the person has already received "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5).

Once again this line of thinking creates some theological problems and does serious damage to the doctrines of repentance, faith, baptism and regeneration.

The other position does no such damage to these doctrines. It clears the minefield and paves the way for the believer to understand that, in the will of God, there is provision to receive Christ through the ministry of the Holy Spirit (for salvation) as well as to receive the Holy Spirit through the ministry of Christ (for the "promise of the Father").

Is there anything in Acts 8 that the believer may lay hold of, by faith, in order that they might receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Yes there is! Follow me as I examine the reactions of those in Jerusalem. Now how did they know that the Holy Spirit had not been given to these Samaritans? It seems that they somehow "heard that Samaria had received the word of God" (v.14). I assume that this was via a report from Philip. I assume also that what they heard also told them that there was no audible attestation that they had received the "promise of the Father". Upon what basis, therefore, would they assume that the Holy Spirit had not been given? It could only have been upon the basis that they believed that the tongues that followed their salvation (and, I assume, the salvations of those three thousand who were saved on the day of Pentecost) (Acts.2:41) should also be the portion for these new believers in Samaria. Therefore that which is at the heart of the Jerusalem Church is this: If a sister Church seems to be lacking in any thing then it is an expression of the mind and will of God to supply that which is lacking through those who have an abundance. We see this repeatedly throughout the Holy Scriptures. My point is this then:

7. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE JERUSALEM BELIEVERS WANTED THE SAMARITAN BELIEVERS TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS THEY DID. IS IT NOT, THEREFORE, SCRIPTURAL FOR BELIEVERS WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE PROMISE TO WANT OTHERS TO RECEIVE ALSO?

This is the charge that is often levelled at Pentecostals. They are falsely accused of unscripturally placing an emphasis on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Yet if the behaviour of the believers in the Jerusalem Church is to be examined you will find that this is exactly what they did as well.

Peter and John made the trip to Samaria for the specific purpose of praying for the believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit. When they arrived they laid hands on these dear believers and prayed for them and they received.

Simon comes back into the story at this point. His behaviour has been very interesting to study as well. We know of this man that he "used sorcery" (v.9) and that he had a great following (v.10). Philip's arrival with the real "power of God" put a rather abrupt end to Simon's popularity. What he was exercising was apparently nothing in comparison with the power that came through Philip. "Then Simon himself believed also and when he was baptised, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done". (v.13). Simon's behaviour, at this point, is a little disconcerting. He immediately aligns himself with Philip. The way I read it he has just fallen off one "great power" pedestal and Philip is at the top of the best great power display the world has ever seen. This Philip has latched onto real power and even Simon can't work out how he does it. So, you see, his positioning (next to Philip) and his focus (signs and wonders) are all rather odd for a new believer. It would have been better for him to be positioned in the fellowship with his focus on the person (Jesus) who is the real power of salvation. But not Simon. Oh no! Not this fellow. He is so far off the track that when people come along to impart something that is so miraculous that it overshadows what Philip has performed he gets out his wallet and is even willing to pay out money for this one. What did he witness in Peter and John? We are not told but it certainly had a greater effect on him than seeing that which Philip worked and it was certainly earmarked in the Apostles' understanding as being an evidence of the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Now to this point in time the only thing that we know from scripture about the receiving of the Holy Spirit is that it was evidenced by the manifestation of believers speaking in other tongues. So the only thing that we can deduce from this account is that Peter and John knew that the Samaritan believers had received the Holy Spirit in exactly the same fashion as they had done.

So can we place faith in any of this? Yes! Try this one out for size:

8. THERE WAS AN IMPRESSIVE MANIFESTATION OF THEIR RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT. SO, TOO, CAN WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE SOMETHING IMPRESSIVE THAT GOES BEYOND ANY HEALING OR CASTING OUT OF DEMONS.

But we are not quite finished with Simon. Peter rebukes him when he offers money so that he can bestow the baptism in the Holy Spirit upon others. Can you see Simon's motivation? First it was to learn how to climb to the heights to which Philip had attained. Next it was to go even higher and have the power to lay hands on people so that they would receive the evidence of God's power working through their lives. Naturally this motivation was entirely wrong.

From what Peter says to him we learn that Simon had some limitations placed upon him when it came to qualifying for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peter says, "thou hast thought that the gift of God (cp. Acts 2:38:"gift of the Holy Ghost") may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8:20-21). In other words Simon did not qualify for this gift because his heart was not right. The wonderful lesson that we can learn from this is that if our hearts are right in the sight of God then we should have both "part" and "lot in this matter". Simon stands as the only "believer" in the Holy Scriptures to whom this precious gift was refused. He is hardly a role model, therefore, to those who have not received the baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues). Since this fact is irrefutable one dare not align themselves with the modern day doctrine of those who claim to have asked God for the "promise of the Father" but were refused because there was no outward manifestation of having received. God will refuse no man who asks for the Holy Spirit (Lk.11:13). It is far more scriptural to tarry by faith until the Holy Spirit is poured out upon you giving you utterance in other tongues as He wills. We may therefore add to our list:

9. IF OUR HEARTS ARE RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF GOD THEN THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL REASON FOR US NOT TO HAVE PART AND LOT IN THE MATTER OF THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

What do we learn from knowing that we have both a part and lot in this matter? The Greek for "part" is "meros" which means a section of the whole. The subject here is the Holy Spirit and we learn from this that God has a part of the Holy Spirit reserved just for us. The Greek for "lot" is "kleros" which usually was a marker or an object that represented a person's right to be eligible for a portion. We have both a part of the Holy Spirit, reserved for us, and a right to receive this portion of God's promised gift.

I would like to make one more point by way of observation. I notice that Philip did not pray for the Samaritans to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was left for the apostles. I also notice that there is no record of Philip praying likewise for the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). (This neither proves nor disproves the relevance of the need for the baptism in the Holy Spirit). The narrative, however, speaks strongly about the presence of the Spirit of the Lord after the baptism of the eunuch. It also speaks strongly about a mighty manifestation of power due to His presence that is not entirely unlike that of Acts 19:1-6.

What can we deduce from this? It would be rather naive to assume that only apostles can pray for people to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In Acts 9:17 Ananias prayed for Paul to receive both healing and the Holy Spirit. I believe that since the Holy Spirit's role is to lead us into all truth (Jn.16:13) He uses saints from every level of service in the Kingdom whether they are laity (Ananias), deacons (Philip) or apostles (Peter and John).

(7) James Strong: "to loosen beside...paralyzed or enfeebled" Reference: 3886. From "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance" (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan)

*****

Chapter 5

Saul, Cornelius And Company

We arrive now at Acts 9. This chapter tells us that the Holy Spirit was still having His own way through the lives of the believers even though there was much persecution.

We then learn about the conversion of Saul on that Damascus road. It is almost universally held throughout Christendom that Paul received his salvation during this encounter with the resurrected Christ. His language and behaviour bear this out. He responds to the revealed identity of Jesus by asking, "Lord, what will thou have me to do?" According to Rom.10:9 he was saved when he confessed that the risen Christ was "Lord". His instruction was to "arise, and go into the city, and it shall be shown thee what thou must do" (Acts 9:6). In Rom.6:16 we read these words: "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness". It is obvious, from Paul's reactions, that he was no longer obeying the high priest in Jerusalem. It is fair to say that he implicitly obeyed Christ's directive thereby demonstrating:

1. Repentance from his dead works.

2. Faith towards the Son of God.

3. Obedience to follow Christ.

Was he saved on that Damascus road? No doubt he was. If he was not then this, once again, raises more problems than it solves. For example, one would then be entitled to ask, "At what point is one saved after repenting and deciding to follow Jesus? Is it only when an Ananias comes along, putting his hands on us, and prays that we can have any assurance in our salvation?" Taken to its logical conclusion this would empty most assemblies in the world (if not all). Ananias places the issue beyond doubt when he says, "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus..." How beautiful! We see here an understanding of the mutual relationship of them both, as brothers, and of Jesus as Lord.

Paul's testimony before the hostile crowd in Jerusalem (Acts 22) also adds to the story of his conversion. Here it states that Ananias prays, "Brother Saul, receive thy sight" and in that same hour he was healed (Acts 22:13) but the remainder of the sentence regarding being filled with the Holy Spirit is omitted from his testimony. The words "arise, and be baptised and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16) should not be interpreted as meaning that Paul was saved when he was baptised in water. There are a few reasons why I say this:

1. Baptism in water cannot wash away sins.

2. The actions of Ananias putting his hands upon Paul prior to his water baptism and his calling on the name of the Lord would indicate that his (Paul's) receiving of the Holy Spirit at that time was as real as his immediate healing (Acts 9:18).

3. The term "wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord" should be understood as meaning an outward confession, of what the Lord has already done, as being necessary upon being baptised. This would make his baptism consistent with the need to identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

What is even more significant is that Ananias prays for two things. Firstly that Paul might receive his sight and secondly that he be filled with the Holy Spirit (v.17). Ananias, not willing to break from the examples that have been set before him in Jerusalem and Samaria, proceeds to focus on Paul's need to receive something after salvation. In doing this he differs not one iota from his predecessors. So why is it that after having established such a succinct pattern in the New Testament we in the modern Church should so grossly depart from it? Why is it that the Church, by and large, feels that it has a better way of doing things?

Are we told that Paul spoke in tongues at this point? Answer: No. But we do know absolutely from Holy Scripture the following facts:

1. For three days following his conversion he was not "filled with the Holy Ghost".

2. He was "filled with the Holy Ghost" when Ananias prayed for him with the laying on of hands.

3. He did at some point begin speaking in tongues (1.Cor.14:18).

Is Paul's experience of having received the Holy Spirit twice any different from those who went before him? Who gave any man the right to shift the emphasis from receiving the Holy Spirit twice to receiving Him only once (for salvation)? Sometime between then and now the emphasis certainly has shifted ... but not among mainstream Pentecostals.

So can Paul's conversion help our argument? Yes, much in every way.

Since he differed not in receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit separate from his conversion and since he is the apostle to the Gentiles then we Gentiles should learn from it that:

10. WE, TOO, CAN RECEIVE THE FULLNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT SEPARATELY FROM OUR CONVERSION THAT WILL CULMINATE IN OUR SPEAKING IN TONGUES JUST AS OUR APOSTLE PAUL DID!

The apostles had to wait to receive before they could go out. Our apostle Paul "preached Christ in the synagogue" almost immediately. How did he know that he could do this unless something had happened to him that convinced him that he had, indeed, been given the Holy Spirit just as the other believers had?

Paul's experience cannot be an isolated one. If it were to be so it should be overlooked. But we should not segregate his experience for it is consistent with others throughout the New Testament and, therefore, should be given due weight. The reason I say this is because although it is unwise to base a doctrine on one scripture it is conversely very wise to base Biblical doctrine on established, consistent patterns. Were this not so we would have even less scriptural basis to partake of the Lord's Supper and pass around the collection plate for the tithes and offerings every Sunday than we would to actively practice the gifts of the Spirit.

Acts 10 introduces us to the man Cornelius who, we are told, was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway" (v.1). Was he saved in the sight of God at this stage? When one considers such scriptures as:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom.2:14-15).

"Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth" (Jn.9:31).

"Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4).

Could it be that his faith combined with his works was found to be acceptable before God? Most likely they were. Though this should not force the interpretation that he was saved. It is perhaps safer to adopt the position that he was as prepared for salvation as the disciples were prior to the crucifixion for there are a few similarities:

1. They both were cleansed. (Acts 10:15 cp. Jn.15:3).

2. They both were on the fringe of contemporary Judaism without being over-committed to it; and

3. They both were prepared to break traditional boundaries if it meant walking with God.

Cornelius was neither Jew nor Samaritan. He was a God-fearer. This means that he was one who sat on the verge of becoming a Jewish proselyte but had not gone to the length of committing himself to that decision. In God's eyes, however, his prayers and deeds were acceptable. Yet there was something still lacking in his spiritual relationship with God hence he is told to send for Peter who will tell him what he ought to do (v.5-6).

Peter, responding to the vision God had given him, goes to the house of Cornelius and proceeds to preach the Gospel unto those that had gathered to receive his word. Peter must have been expecting that when he finished his preaching he would give his altar call and then proceed on to the task of baptising them in water and then lay hands on them for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. But it didn't happen that way.

The word says:

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." (Acts 10:44-48).

A few issues are raised when one usually begins to discuss Acts 10; not the least being the issue of salvation. At what point were Cornelius and the "many that were come together" saved? Was it before, during or after they had received the Holy Spirit? Does this open the door for those who would argue that God at this point was beginning to merge the experiences of receiving Christ for salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit? Each and every one of these questions are complex and need close examination.

When were they saved? There certainly was sufficient information for them, in what Peter preached (v.36-43), to hear enough to believe. There can be no doubt about this. The only missing factors seem to be repentance and confession of Jesus as Lord. When it comes to dealing with the issue of repentance I struggle to find any grounds upon which they should have repented. That the prayers and deeds of Cornelius were acceptable before God as "a memorial" (v.4) is evidence that sin was not an obstacle in his life. That they had turned from the direction of contemporary Judaism to embrace whatever this stranger from Joppa would tell them is equally evident. Also there is another hint, that Cornelius had repented already, in the vision of the angel's visitation. The angel basically told Cornelius two things:

1. God accepted him.

2. A man called Peter from Joppa could supply the information that was missing in his relationship with God.

No statements like "Repent and then go and get Peter". Instead it was "God accepts you ... now go and get Peter". By the time Peter arrives they are all in readiness to soak up literally every syllable that comes out of Peter's mouth. Peter even picks up on this theme of the acceptance of Cornelius in verses 34 and 35 when he says, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him".

This leaves us with the need to see whether Cornelius and those that were with him had in fact made a confession of Christ as Lord. Let us go back in time, a short while, to try and get some background information first. We know of Cornelius that he was a god-fearer or a proselyte. He would have then had a fair degree of contact with the synagogue. Not only this but his involvement extended beyond the synagogue in terms of his giving and in terms of his spiritual influence on his household to, at least, two of his servants and at least one of his junior soldiers (v.2, 7). So his involvement was no casual thing. He would have, therefore, not been ignorant of the spread of the Christian faith as it would have been mostly expressed in synagogues through believing Jews who attended. Perhaps some believers attended the same synagogue that Cornelius did. We are not told but it is possible. The Holy Scriptures do tell us that believers were, at some stage, in Caesarea (Acts 9:30). We are also told that there were "churches...throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (Acts 9:31). Caesarea was in Samaria so it was likely that not only would there have been Christians there but there possibly would have been a church there as well. If this was so it would then be a distinct possibility that Cornelius heard about the need to confess the Lordship of Christ.

Peter preaches Christ to them and there is an immediate connection with this Jesus and the instruction from the angel of God. Had there also been a connection with prior information about Jesus (i.e. that He was God) it would cast a lot more light on their response of magnifying God (v.46). Yet the only lead we have to follow is this magnifying of God in verse 46. Is there sufficient evidence for Cornelius and those that were with him to be saved through magnifying God? I believe there is. To extol the greatness of God based upon what He has accomplished through Jesus Christ ("Lord of all" v.36) is no different to confession of Christ. We are not told whether they magnified the Father or the Son or both. It is sufficient that they magnified God. If this were not the case they could have, just as easily, magnified God in the synagogue without any association with Christ. The connection with the preaching of Christ is, therefore, significant.

Were this not the case it would give some folk grounds to promulgate the idea that direct confession of the Lordship of Christ is not vital to one's salvation. This could lead to the idea that belief only is necessary and that would be dangerous. Too many scriptures place a priority upon confession for this precious aspect of salvation to be ignored. Once we start cutting out essential elements to the steps of salvation we begin the dangerous process of leading others into the same pit that we have dug for ourselves.

Were they saved before, during or after receiving their salvation? I believe that God's order is this:

1. Repentance.

2. Confession in Christ as Lord with believing from the heart that God has raised Him from the dead; resulting in:

3. Salvation with the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)

4. Baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit.

5. Growing in the "great power" and "great grace" of God (Acts 4:33).

Before anything pure can come out of us we need to be purged of that which inwardly defiles us: sin. The house needs to be swept clean so that the Lord may take up residence. The Spirit of God will not come where he is not fully welcome and will not use those vessels that have not been purge and made "meet for the Master's use and prepared unto every good work" (2.Tim.2:21). Knowing this, I believe that salvation must have preceded the receiving of the Holy Ghost.

Was God merging the baptism in the Holy Spirit with salvation? If He is showing the Church something new which is to stand as an example of what should follow then it is certainly going to disqualify a lot of people whose salvation experience does not scripturally measure up to that of Cornelius and company. But, God be praised, He is introducing nothing new here of that nature. Later on in Acts 19 we will see how the established pattern of salvation then the baptism in the Holy Spirit continues to be emphasized.

A few other issues need to be clarified. Many argue that God, here, is introducing another initial evidence to the receiving of the baptism in the Holy Spirit i.e. the magnifying of God. If this is to be accepted at face value then we need proceed no further with new converts to Christianity than to wait for them to magnify the Lord before we can know that they have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This line of thinking, however, takes the miraculous right out of the experience and confuses the issue as to why believers needed to speak in tongues in the first place. The fact of the matter is that these new believers in Acts 10 did both. So if any are to suggest that they have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the basis of magnifying God it should be pointed out to them that they are doing so on the sole basis of one scripture (that has not been quoted in its full context).

The two cannot rightfully be separated. So, then, the onus that should be placed upon any person claiming to have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit is that it must, at least, be attested to by the speaking in tongues and, at most by the speaking in tongues and magnification of God. These criteria will be added to again in the next chapter.

It is also argued, by opponents of Pentecostalism, that the sign of tongues was for the purpose of rapid, cross-cultural evangelism. In other words, they say, God gave the believers the "other tongues" so that they could rapidly reach those of other cultures in their native tongues. While this is, no doubt, true it does not, therefore, limit tongues to this purpose. The experience of Cornelius and those in his company serves as a good example. Here it is not the unbelievers who hear the other tongues (as it was in Acts 2) but, instead, it is the believers who hear these Gentiles (who were previously unbelievers) speaking in tongues. Now how does that fit into the "tongues for evangelism" argument? It doesn't. Nor should it have to.

What should be evident from Acts 10 is that God was willing to show in a dramatic way that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was well and truly designed for "all flesh". When this fact is considered at length we can arrive at a very strong scriptural basis upon which we may believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is as valid for today as salvation is:

11. IF GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS TO SAVE THEN HE IS EQUALLY NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS TO GIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THOSE HE SAVES.

This fact alone should be scriptural proof enough that God not only wants all of the spiritual gifts for the Church today but also all of the power ministries that walked hand-in-hand with these gifts among Jewish, Samaritan and Gentile Churches in the first Century under the dispensation of His grace.

*****

Chapter 6

12 Unusual Disciples

The final section in the Acts of the Apostles that deals with the "promise of the Father" is found in Acts 19 verses 1 to 7. A little bit of background will help us understand something of God's timing here.

Paul is travelling in the region of Achaia (part of Greece divided up by Rome). He specifically travels from Athens to Corinth (Acts 18:1) and joins up with a fellow tent maker, Aquila. Later both Aquila and Priscilla, his wife, travel with Paul to Ephesus (Acts 18:19) as new converts to Christianity. Paul leaves them in Ephesus and travels to Jerusalem to keep the feast (v.21). He will later return to Ephesus (Acts 19).

Whilst in Ephesus Aquila and Priscilla met Apollos, who was "an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures" (v.24) who "taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John" (v.25). Aquila and Priscilla take Apollos aside and explain "the way of God more perfectly" (v.26). Apollos then is "disposed to pass in Achaia" (v.27) and leaves with written recommendations from the brethren. We are not told whether or not Apollos had any pre-conversion contact with those in Acts 19:1-7 who also knew only "John's baptism" (though this is likely). If this is the case then their lack of follow up after the conversion of Apollos is of some concern. But in his defence we must give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he lacked opportunity to attempt to convert these men or put them in contact with Aquila and Priscilla who could explain "the way of God more perfectly".

And so it is that when we come to Acts 19 we find Paul in an encounter with "certain disciples" (v.1). Were these disciples already Christians? The question "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (v.2) casts some doubt as to whether they were saved or not. Certainly the terms "disciples" and "since ye believed" imply that, at least, in Paul's initial view they were treated as believers. We do know the following facts however:

1. They could not have known Aquila and Priscilla. Had they known them they would, no doubt, have had "the way of God more perfectly" explained to them.

2. They knew not of the existence of the Holy Spirit.

3. They knew not the Christian baptism.

What probably made them appear to be believers, in Paul's eyes, was their preoccupation with the Christ and how men should repent because of the coming of Christ. John preached this with a view to the coming of Christ. Christians preach this because of the coming of Christ. Were they disciples of Judaism? No. They were men who, by faith in the Christ to come, had lived for decades being obedient to what little revelation they had (8). They were men of faith in Christ. The only difference is that they did not know Christ had already come. So in that sense they were indeed disciples and we can understand Paul's initial impression that they had already believed.

This raises the questions: If the issue of Old Testament believers (such as David) who looked forward to the coming of Christ is not a problem for us why, then, is it a problem for us to look upon these "certain disciples" as believers? Were they not doing exactly what Abraham, David and John the Baptist did? Should they not, therefore, be considered as believers in that light?

It seems then that their foundations were purely based in the preaching of John and were, therefore, insufficient in the light of new covenant requirements for the new birth. But Paul only perceives this when he learns that these men are unaware of their need to receive the Holy Spirit after their conversion.

What is extremely interesting is Paul's question," Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (v.2). Other translations substitute the word "when" for "since" but regardless of this fact it still raises the same interesting questions.

Which receiving of the Holy Spirit is Paul referring to here? Let us assume that he is referring to the first receiving of the Holy Spirit. And let us also assume that the proper sense of the Greek is "when you believed" so that we do not get embroiled in a debate in semantics over the issue of timing. What theological ramifications would this have?

It would show a lack of understanding on Paul's behalf of what happens to a person when they get saved. This would be at a time close to, if not immediately before, the writing of the Epistle to the Romans (which is the Salvation Letter) (9). That appears to be a little incongruous to me. How could Paul have been so unsure about the validity of all believers receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation in Acts 19 and then be able to turn around by Acts 20 and be sure that at salvation we receive "the Spirit of adoption" (Rom.8:15) because "the Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom.8:16). If that is not speaking about assurance of salvation then I do not know what is!

It would imply that the receiving of the Holy Spirit at salvation was not automatic. This is contrary to sound biblical doctrine. No man can confess that Jesus Christ is Lord without the Holy Spirit. (1 Jn.4:2)

It would also imply that some experience, by which they could know that they have particularly received the Holy Spirit (as distinct from Jesus Christ), should be manifested. This would negate the faith alone that is sufficient to justify a man in the sight of God (Rom.5:1). It would also necessitate the identification of how such a receiving should be manifested.

He would then be guilty of creating two classes of saved people. There would be those who have the Spirit of God indwelling them and those who do not. What is even more intolerable is the fact that he at no time in any of his writings tells us how we can know just which class we are in.

Dear reader, how do you know whether or not you received the Holy Spirit at salvation? Apart from faith in the Word of God and the experience of His indwelling you cannot know. Yet Paul's question seems to totally undermine this. In the Australian vernacular this question would be phrased, "When you blokes got saved did you receive the Holy Spirit?" In the context that we have been treating this verse the question is as ludicrous as asking if a person received Jesus Christ when they were saved. Or how about taking the same terms and phrasing them in the following fashion? "When you were saved were you regenerated as well?" (cp. Titus 3:5) Or, (from the same verse),"When you were saved were you renewed as well?" Or how about, "I know that you are saved but have you received the Spirit of adoption whereby you may cry 'Abba Father' yet?"

Paul didn't even say, "Did you know that you received the Holy Spirit when you believed?" That would have solved a lot of problems if he had said that. Instead we are left with the inspired text, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"

The application of the receiving of the Holy Spirit at the point of one's salvation quite obviously does not fit into this text. And if we are to force this meaning into the text then we have to resolve the above theological ramifications. This, again, is creating more problems than it is solving. It is far more congruous, with the body of evidence within the Acts of the Apostles, to interpret this question about the Holy Spirit in the light of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

If that question was valid for Paul to ask to people he assumed were saved, then why is it not valid for Pentecostal Christians to be asking the same question today to other saved people? For Paul to have asked that question it must have been a natural thing for him to do. Why should it be any less natural for us to do? Instead the onus is placed upon us not to make waves by asking such (scriptural) questions. Why is this so?

The reply that Paul receives to his question alerts him to the fact that these disciples were functioning on spiritual revelation that was distinctly pre-Calvary. Not only did they not know about the baptism in the Holy Spirit with its God sent gifts but also they didn't even know about the new birth and their need to identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Paul introduces these disciples to the Christ they had long been waiting for. They immediately consent to Christian baptism. What has happened? The revelation that was lacking in their lives has been supplied and it is not a matter of asking them to repent. It is just a matter of allowing them to publicly confess their new faith. Would you agree with me that Paul would not have baptised unsaved people? Thank you! This being the case we may once again safely assume that they had received the Spirit of adoption (Rom.8:15) and the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5) prior to being baptised in water.

And what happens next? You guessed it:

"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied" (Acts 19:6).

How wonderful is our mighty God not to have broken this marvellous order that runs through every people group throughout the Acts of the Apostles? Not once does the word say, "and the apostles laid hands on them and they miraculously did not speak in tongues!" To argue that some Christians did not speak in tongues following conversion is to cut directly across the main thrust of what is expressed throughout the Acts of the Apostles. (The question "Do all speak in tongues?" from 1.Cor.12:30 will be dealt with in depth when we come to discuss the Corinthian Church).

Further to this the Holy Scripture again confirms that in the prior groups the earmarks of the indwelling Holy Spirit were evident. Did not the apostles receive a blessing of "peace" when they received the Holy Spirit in Jn.20:19-23? Did not the Samaritans have great "joy" when they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:8? And was not the "righteousness" of Cornelius brought to Holy Spirit perfection when he was saved? The answer is "yes" in every case. Now the Holy Scripture says, "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom.14:17).

The fact that Paul went back to the basics with these disciples, supplying them with the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ, will help us as we supply you with another scriptural reason why you too can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

12. ALL PEOPLE GROUPS IN SCRIPTURE, WHO FOLLOWED ON FROM A WELL ESTABLISHED FOUNDATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS LORD, RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT A SECOND TIME. IN LIKE FASHION WE CAN RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT A SECOND TIME BECAUSE OUR FOUNDATION IS THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST.

It should be noted, at this point, that these disciples not only spoke in tongues but "prophesied" as well. It is argued that prophecy is another initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and, therefore, can be used instead of tongues to support the claim of having received this precious gift. If this is so then two facts fly in the face of this and are immediately evident:

1. Tongues are never negated and as such should accompany prophecy in all cases where one would call upon this scripture as proof of having received the "promise".

2. If one refers to this "prophecy" as evidence for the modern day receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit then it should equally validate the modern day speaking in tongues that, both, occurs with it and has a larger body of scriptural support.

(8) Adam Clarke places this incident twenty-six years after their exposure to John's ministry. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Holy Bible. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.) p.1010.

(9) Unger: "The letter was written in Corinth during Paul's three months visit to Greece (Acts.20:2, 3)". Unger's Bible Dictionary. (Moody Press, Chicago) p.933.

*****
Chapter 7

Working With The Holy Spirit

The great thing about being able to defend the emphasis, in the Pentecostal movement, of speaking in tongues is that the vast majority of scriptures that support this wonderful miracle are taken from pages that are pure historical narrative. Doctrine may be debated and developed but there is something about history that says, "This is the way it happened and that's that!" You cannot change the fact that tongues are still there at the end just as fresh and miraculous as they were when they were first given to believers. The last group of people we find being baptised in water in the Acts of the Apostles are also the last group to be receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This is an undeniable fact. There are no further reports in the Acts of the Apostles of believers receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Should we infer from this that the issue abated somewhat? If it did then we must infer the same about baptism in water. This is the mistake that many make when it comes to this subject. They argue from silence.

Are the Holy Scriptures silent on this subject from the Acts of the Apostles onwards? I should say not. Were the Holy Scriptures to be silent from Acts of the Apostles onwards it would say a lot about the importance of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This brings us to Romans 8. Ah! What a blessed chapter in the Holy Bible! What a chapter of victory! What reassurance we have from our mighty God!

Let us examine this wonderful chapter, from the Holy Spirit, to our hearts in order to see what treasures are to found therein:

v.1 No condemnation.

v.2 We are made free from the law of sin and death.

v.4 Righteousness is fulfilled in us.

v.5 Our minds are on spiritual things.

v.6 We have life and peace.

v.9 We are not in the flesh but in the Spirit.

v.10 We are spiritually alive.

v.11 We are healed physically.

v.14 We are sons of God.

v.15 We have received the spirit of adoption.

v.16 We have the Holy Spirit witnessing to our spirit.

v.17 We are heirs of God; Joint heirs with Christ.

v.18 Suffering is a prerequisite to glory.

v.19 Even creation exists so it may see His glory in us.

v.23 Our groanings anticipate our bodily redemption.

v.28 All things work together for our good.

v.29 We shall be conformed to His image.

v.30 We are foreknown (v.29), predestinated, called, justified and glorified.

v.31 If God is for us who can be against us?

v.32 All things in Him are freely given.

v.34 Christ makes intercession for us.

v.37 In all tribulations we are more than conquerors.

v.38-39 Nothing can separate us from God.

What a chapter of victory! And in the very centre of this chapter we are introduced to yet another scriptural evidence of the validity of the baptism in the Holy Spirit for today.

But let us digress for a few moments first. Since this is a chapter on the Christians victory and since the Holy Spirit is central to this victory because of "the promise" one would expect there to be an abundance of references to the Holy Spirit. Between verses 1 and 39 the Holy Spirit is mentioned 19 times.

Add to this the idea that the Church is to function at its best under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ("For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" v.14). The picture then begins to form fairly rapidly that our effectiveness for God can only come through an intimate co-operation with the Holy Spirit. Keep these thoughts in mind.

Now let us examine the context of the next scriptural evidence that shall support the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The immediate context can be ascertained from reading verses 22 to 26. As we go we shall focus on the word "groan" which occurs three times between verses 22 to 26 and is essential to the establishment of a sound interpretation of the passage.

Verse 22 reads: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now".

Why does the whole of creation groan and travail "until now?" How does the whole creation groan and what relevance does it have here in the centre of this glorious chapter on victory in the Christian life?

Let us examine the words "groan" and "travail" used here in this verse so that the picture will begin to clear somewhat for us.

James Strong: Ref: 4959; Greek: Sustenazo from 4862 (Sun meaning "union; with or together") and 4727 (Stenazo meaning to "sigh, murmur, pray inaudibly"). The word then means to "moan jointly...groan together"(10). The meaning of "travail" is closely associated with "groan" and is more expressive of the pain experienced rather than what is expressed through the groaning. So we see that, in groaning, the whole of creation is expressing something that is both highlighting a need for the alleviation of the "travail" and is grabbing the attention of Paul.

Why is the whole of creation groaning and in travail "until now"? To answer this one has to understand something of the desire of God. From the very beginning His desire was for his creation to enjoy His presence, His love and His fellowship. All of creation was robbed of the fulfilment of this at the fall of Satan (with his angels) and the fall of man. The ministry of Jesus Christ reopened the door to the future fulfilment of God's desire. This is even foreshadowed in the Book of Psalms where the Holy Scripture says, "Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD" (Ps.150:6). Again, in Psalm 148, where all of creation is admonished to praise the Lord. But this will only be fulfilled through those who appropriate the complete atoning work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. Having done this we gain entry into the family of God hence:

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit our spirit that we are the children of God" (Rom.8:15-16).

Before we go on, it is interesting that the apostle Paul does not write about the Holy Spirit bearing witness to our spirit but with our spirit. The word "with" in the Greek is the same used on the previous page that was taken from Strong's Concordance (see reference 4862: Sun). This being the case does that not change the main thrust of the text from that to which it is usually interpreted? You will agree with me that if I was to say that, "I witnessed to Bob", it would have an entirely different meaning from the statement, "I witnessed with Bob". As such do we have the right to force the literal meaning of the text? Should we glean from it: that to be children of God we need not only to know that we have received the Spirit of adoption but also that we are bearing witness with Him that we are the children of God? And if this is so then should not this witness be in perfect harmony with the witness of Acts 1:8? This being the case there should be further supportive evidence in the main body of the texts from which we are reading. Let us, therefore, examine these texts.

The whole of creation is waiting "for the manifestation of the sons of God" (v.19). There is something that is instinctively placed in creation that will not settle for anything less than seeing the glory of God revealed in His children. This had not been observed by creation in Paul's day hence he adds "until now" (v.22). The groaning and travail are, therefore, to be a part of the Christians walk with God "that we may also be glorified together" (v.17). Hence verse 23 says,

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body".

Yes, we have groanings as well. The Greek here is not Sustenazo (a joint or combined groaning) but Stenazo (an individual groaning). Our groaning is unique. It is not to be classed with that of the rest of creation. Perhaps it is because it is our own bodily redemption being referred to here and not the bodily redemption of any other class of creation.

The following verse appears to confirm this referring, at once, to our salvation being based in the full expectation of our bodily resurrection: "For we are saved by hope". Not only, then, do we have this confident expectation that is deeply rooted in the suffering we share with Christ but we also dig deeper into the mystery of Christ and find that these sufferings must occur so that the glory of God shall be manifest in us.

Why would God want to, and why should He, manifest His glory in us? There are at least three very good reasons:

1. Because of what He has done in Christ to reverse the curse on man.

2. Because of our faith in Christ.

3. Because of our response (works) as a result of faith.

This last point, in the lives of the first saints included the confession of the Lordship of Christ at salvation, a subsequent baptism in water as well as a subsequent receiving of the "promise of the Father".

So all of creation looks forward to some future event that involves the "redemption of our body". This raises the question, "when will we receive the redemption of our body?" The answer to this can be none other than the rapture of the Church (1.Cor.15:51-52; 1.Thess.4:15-17).

Why, then, is the whole of creation looking forward to this wonderful moment? The answer is found in 1.Cor.15:54-56 which says, "then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"

This blessed event was revealed to Paul much earlier (1.Cor & 1.Thess. predating Romans) so Paul is not dealing with any revelation that is new to the Church. In other words, this expectation of being raptured and receiving the glorious redemption of our body is clearly something that Paul had been holding on to for years; hence:

"But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it" (v.25).

This is perhaps why the rapture is also referred to as "that blessed hope" (Titus 2:13). Could it be that this is what Paul is referring to when he talks in 1.Cor.13:10 about "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away"? It would make this scripture more cohesive with a cross section of other scriptures that refer to the rapture rather than trying to make the prediction of the closing of the New Testament Canon hang on one small section of Holy Scripture.

To date, then, we have the whole of creation jointly groaning or sighing or murmuring. We as Christians are individually doing the same, only, with us, our groaning is out of an expression of our identification with the sufferings of Christ. We are all in expectation of that glorious moment when we will receive the redemption of our body.

This brings us to the scriptural basis upon which we may receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Now Paul is not talking to a group that needed to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit so he has no need to challenge their need to receive. He is talking to believers that (even the staunchest Fundamentalist would agree) spoke in tongues already. His language, therefore, is directed at one of the two aspects of speaking in tongues (intercessory prayer). Let us examine the verse closely:

"Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered".

The verse begins with the words "likewise the Spirit..." In what like fashion is the Holy Spirit helping us? This question, therefore, necessitates the need for there to have been prior mention, in the chapter, of how the Holy Spirit is helping us. There is abundant evidence in this chapter to establish this point beyond any reasonable doubt. For example He sets us free from the law of sin and death in verse 2. He heals in verse 11. He adopts us in verse 15 and finally He conjointly witnesses with us in verse 16 that we are the children of God. Paul then digresses for a moment to discuss the ramifications of what it means to be a child of God. This dialogue takes up verses 17 to 25. Now Paul gets back to focusing on what assistance we receive from the Holy Spirit, hence, "Likewise the Spirit also..." In other words the apostle Paul is saying to the Romans, "In the same way the Holy Spirit does this for us as well..." The question, however, remains, "Like (wise) what?" "Like all of the aforementioned things that he has done for us or like the last thing mentioned"? The former things involve what the Holy Spirit does in us. This last thing differs from the others in so much as it implies that as far as bearing witness is concerned it is to be a conjoint effort (v.16). If this is so then the text should bear this out ... and it does!

The Greek for "helpeth" is Sunantilambanomai and it means to conjointly take hold of something. In other words we are looking at a joint co-operation being required for the task to be accomplished. It is necessary for the Holy Spirit to work together with us for a number of reasons:

1. He is "another comforter" (Jn.14:16) and, as such, it would be appropriate for Him to work with us on the same basis that Jesus shared the workload with His disciples. Not on the basis of an equitable workload for none of the disciples would have been able to keep up. Instead, it was on the basis of knowing their limitations and yet still expecting their best effort.

2. In us "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (1.Cor.1:27).

3. We are to develop spiritually; hence "be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Ongoing renewal is a work of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5)

The three areas where the Holy Spirit chooses to work with us, because of our "weaknesses" or "infirmities" (v.26), are:

1. Our witness that is an outward display of His power. This is best illustrated in such places as Acts 2, where the demonstration is to unbelievers.

2. Our worship, as in Acts 8 & 19, where the demonstration is uniquely to believers and is accompanied with intelligible language.

3. Our praying which energises our faith. That the Holy Spirit assists us in praying to God in tongues is clearly stated in 1.Cor.14:2 where tongues language is addressing God.

In fact the next part of the sentence bears out perfectly that the real context of the conjoint work is prayer that is so deep that it surpasses what we can intelligibly verbalise. Why does the Holy Spirit come along side of us to work with us? "For we know not what we should pray for as we ought..." (v.26). Now the Holy Scripture is not saying that we don't know how to pray at all, for that would necessitate the Holy Spirit carrying all of the work load. Nor does the Holy Scripture ever infer that we do know how to pray adequately "as we ought" because that would undermine the inspiration of this verse. As it stands the truth is that God says we do not know "what we should pray for as we ought" thus showing our need for divine assistance due to our "infirmities".

So how is this done? The Holy Scripture continues: "For the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered". This is saying one of two things. Neither of which do any damage to the Pentecostal position of saying that tongues are valid for today.

The verse could be referring to praying in tongues with the emphasis being placed upon the believer allowing the Holy Spirit to pray through their exercising of the heavenly gift of tongues.

The verse could be interpreted as meaning that, because of the human weaknesses of the saints, the Holy Spirit individually makes up that which is lacking in their prayers. Where and for how long He does this "intercession" is not stated. This leaves the Church with a doctrine based upon one short passage of scripture, for nowhere else is the intercessory role of the Holy Spirit stated. This stands in direct contrast to the intercessory role of Jesus Christ which has many scriptures upon which we base a doctrine (Heb.4:14-16, 7:25 and 1.Jn.2:1 to name but a few).

Because of God's divine perfection it would be entirely out of character of Him to require of us doctrine that is based on at least two scripture passages when He has only supplied one. We are, then, left with a few choices (all of which force us to make some hard decisions which stem from sifting through very complex issues). Many will be forced into either holding on to a doctrine based upon one passage of scripture or changing their doctrinal viewpoint on this subject or, worse still, having to either rip out or blot out these blessed verses from their Holy Bibles!

Let us examine the choices that we have before us:

1. We can accept the doctrine based upon this single passage that the Holy Spirit solely makes up for that which is lacking in our prayer life. He does this through sighs or "groans which cannot be uttered". We have to accept completely and without reservation that Paul received this revelation from God and we must trust that whatever these groanings are they are working effectively for us. On this basis we must accept that these "groanings" are representative of the language of God and that our language before God in heaven may be similar (if that is how God the Holy Spirit talks to the Father and Jesus)(11). As well as this we must accept the fact that if we can base a teaching on one short passage of scripture then others may exercise their right to do likewise. We should then be prepared to suffer the flood of hermeneutically unsound doctrines that will, no doubt, follow. Be honest now, are you really prepared to go with this option?

2. We can choose to ignore this as a teaching. The problem with this option is that it cuts the heart out of the chapter. The very thing in which we must be strong occurs in this verse: PRAYER. It is vital for us to take a hold of what God is communicating to us in this verse.

3. We can dig deeper to find the true treasure. Since PRAYER is the key to this verse we need look no further than the immediate context to ascertain the meaning. Now does the scripture say that these "groanings cannot be uttered" at all? No; it does not carry that meaning for these "groanings" are obviously "uttered" by the Holy Spirit to convey the perfect meaning of the intercession to God. Well, does this scripture say that these "intercessions...cannot be uttered" on an earthly plane because this plane is corrupted? No; it does not carry that meaning either for 1.Cor.13: 1 and 1.Cor.14: 2 clearly show that this earthly plane is no hindrance to angelic, God-directed prayer. Well, what other meaning could it have? It could have the meaning that these "intercessions...cannot be uttered" in intelligible language (of men). This fits in with the limitations of intelligible prayer ("for we know not what we should pray for as we ought") and it adds a dimension to what Paul says in 1.Cor.14: 15 ("I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also").

Moffatt's translation of this verse says, "So too the Spirit assists us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray aright, but the Spirit pleads for us with sighs that are beyond words".

The Revised Standard Version finishes this verse with the words, "but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words".

The New International Version finishes this verse off in this way, "but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express".

The meaning that comes forth from this, then, carries the idea that, since mans understanding falls short of the will of God when it comes to praying in His will, we need the assistance of the Holy Spirit as we are praying to give us spiritual words that:

1. Are beyond or deeper than the words of our understanding (v.26).

2. Are "mysteries" spoken in a direct way to God (1.Cor.14: 2).

3. Overcome the limitations of prayer that comes from our understanding only (1.Cor.14: 14-15).

4. Edify (build up, strengthen) us (1.Cor.14: 4, Jude 20).

When one considers this interpretation of the Holy Spirit assisting us to pray (v.26) according to the will of God (v.27) one would have to agree that it couples beautifully with the combined assistance of the Holy Spirit and ourselves in the witness "that we are the children of God" (v.16). This fact should not be overlooked when one interprets this verse.

I ask you, "does this interpretation do damage to the text"? No, it harmonizes with the immediate context of "groaning" until the "redemption of our body" at the rapture. It harmonizes with the overall context of the chapter in so much as it is essential to our ability to effectively fulfil the words of Jesus Christ in Acts 1:8. Finally it harmonizes with the full body of scriptures that deal with the subject of speaking in tongues.

We may, therefore, present to you another scriptural reason to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

13. BECAUSE OF OUR INFIRMITIES, RELATED TO THE AREA OF PRAYER, GOD WANTS US TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT WE MAY PRAY ACCORDING TO HIS WILL.

(10) James Strong, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

(11) Whilst it is true that "if a verse makes sense in its literal sense we should seek no other sense" I cannot see the sense of the Holy Spirit going before God with "groanings" if it were not to do other than relate this sound to the language of heaven. So what then is the difference from this to speaking in tongues which includes language from heaven i.e. "Thou I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." (1.Cor.13:1).

*****

Chapter 8

The Irrevocable Gift

Dr.H.L.Willmington, in his excellent "Guide to the Bible"(12), lists 18 gifts given by "Christ through the Holy Spirit to the believer at the moment of his salvation"(13). Though I differ somewhat in the timing and duration, which he places on these gifts, they are none the less extremely well documented and are an excellent source of reference for the serious Bible student. They are listed here below in a condensed form:

" 1. The gift of apostleship.

2. The gift of prophecy.

3. The gift of miracles.

4. The gift of healing.

5. The gift of knowledge.

6. The gift of tongues.

7. The gift of interpretation of tongues.

8. The gift of wisdom.

9. The gift of spirit discernment.

10. The gift of giving.

11. The gift of exhortation.

12. The gift of ministering (or of helps).

13. The gift of mercy showing.

14. The gift of ruling.

15. The gift of faith.

16. The gift of teaching.

17. The gift of evangelism.

18. The gift of pastor-teacher. (14)

We may add to this list gifts such as salvation itself in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the prophet itself, which was a permanent ministry, listed along side the gifts of apostle, evangelist and pastor-teacher. There is an obvious difference between the Ascension gifts of our Lord Jesus Christ (listed in Ephesians 4:11) and the spiritual gifts of 1.Cor.12. The Ephesians 4 list of gifts are specific to those individuals the Lord Jesus Christ chooses and the spiritual gifts are specific to those the Holy Spirit chooses. The latter list of gifts may vary from person to person. One week a believer may operate the gift of healing the next week it may be either another gift or even no gift at all.

Now you are probably thinking to yourself, "That's good of James to have listed all of these wonderful gifts that God has given us... but what has this got to do with the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Answer: Quite a lot! It is vital that every gift that God has given to the believers remain totally in function for as long as the Church is to be expected to complete its great commission. I say this not merely from the point of view of all of the listed reasons to date but also from the point of view that it would be totally incongruous for our God to give us a gifts that were designed to go to the limits of time (Reason 5) and to the geographical limits of this planet (Reason 3) and then remove those gifts before the Church hardly got out of its infancy. But we are expected to believe that this is exactly what has happened.

Let me put this question to you, "If God said directly in His Word that these gifts were never going to be taken away at any time to those individuals or groups of individuals would you drop any presuppositions about tongues and appropriate the gifts of the Holy Spirit by faith?" It's a question that is basically asking, "Do you really put God's Word first in your life?" Well, if you do put God's Word first in your life allow me the blessed privilege of being able to feed some of that Word to you. The Holy Scripture says:

"For the GIFTS and CALLING of God are without repentance" (Rom.11: 29)

You will agree with me when I say that salvation is both a gift and something to which we are called. It would be uncharacteristic of God to give both this gift and this calling and then change His mind on it (either for any individual or group of individuals). And so we could go through all of the gifts of God that that are still accepted by all (as valid for today) and we could rightly apply this scripture. Why? Because it is true and it reflects something of the immutable character of our God.

The word used here for "repentance" is translated as "irrevocable" in respected translations such as the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and Wuest's Expanded Translation of the New Testament. I like the way Moffatt says it, "For God never goes back upon His gifts and call". No, dear reader, He never goes back on the gifts which He has given. Do you know what this means? It means that the gift of the Holy Spirit is as viable today as the day of Pentecost. It means that the spiritual gifts are equally as viable today as what they were in the early Church. It means that God has never at any time revoked His gifts to the Church. Therefore:

14. I MAY SPEAK IN TONGUES AND FUNCTION IN ALL OF THE GIFTS OF GOD BECAUSE THE HOLY SCRIPTURE TELLS ME THAT GOD'S GIFTS ARE IRREVOCABLE (ROM.11: 29).

(12) Willmington's Guide To The Bible, (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois.

(13) Ibid, p.429

(14) Ibid. p.430-433.

*****

Chapter 9

When Tongues Shall Cease

Perhaps the verses from Holy Scripture that are most (if not exclusively) used as a basis to contradict the modern day use of tongues come from 1.Corinthians 13. As you know, the main theme of this chapter is the importance of love in all that we do. It is no accident that this precious chapter is placed directly between Paul's introduction of spiritual gifts in the body of Christ (chapter 12) and Paul's elaboration on the use of the prophetic gifts (chapter 14) for love is the main key to all functions in the kingdom of God. Its presence accounts for the predominance of tongues speaking believers on the mission fields despite being vastly outnumbered, in Church membership, by mainline non-Pentecostal Churches. Its absence accounts, in part, for the large number of the spiritually violated believers who will never trust anything of a miraculous nature even if it is performed in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Love is, therefore, essential in the practising of the spiritual gifts. Paul reiterates this fact again in Galatians 5:6 where he says, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love". This fact has been lost in some areas of the Pentecostal movement where two of the main motivations behind the manifestation of the spiritual gifts, apparently, have been:

1. Spiritual prestige eg. Diotrephes (3.Jn.9).

2. Control eg. Simon Magus (Acts.8).

The fact that some have brought the spiritual gifts into disrepute through unloving and unholy behaviour in no way invalidates the gifts. If the balance of the argument is to be decided on the basis of the behaviour of individuals within Pentecostal movement then we should judge other aspects of the Kingdom of God on the same basis.

Baptism and salvation for today would almost certainly be the first doctrines to go for there has been many a professing, baptised, born again Christian who has brought the name of Christ into disrepute. Once baptism and salvation have gone then it would be open slather. You could virtually pick and choose whatever doctrines you liked and then ultimately, toss out the rest. Fortunately we do not judge the validity of a doctrine upon the basis of the behaviour of those who profess to believe the doctrine.

So let us, therefore, outline the scriptural argument that is used against the Pentecostal movement, starting first of all with the verses that are most often quoted:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity". (1.Cor.13:8-13).

The argument goes something like this: Tongues shall abruptly and finally cease at some time in the future and shortly afterwards prophecy and knowledge shall gradually but surely vanish. In the mind of the Christian who opposes the spiritual gifts this happened around the close of the first century AD with tongues having ceased abruptly at a time preceding this. Further to this, it is believed that tongues will cease of themselves. That is, they would have run their full course so completely that all believers would know that they no longer serve any useful function. Prophecy and knowledge, on the other hand will be caused to stop. In other words, God will step in and signal their end. This, according to Fundamentalist belief, occurred when the last Book of the New Testament was written. The argument continues, that since the Church then had the full written revelation of God there was no further use for tongues, prophecy and knowledge. Somehow the ministries of the apostle and prophet are included in these verses with the authority of the apostles' knowledge taking its rest in the written Word and the revelation of the prophet doing likewise. Added to this growing group of vanishing gifts are divine healing and miracles.

Let us assume that this position is true. What are the ramifications and how would they impact upon the Pentecostal movement?

The ramifications would be:

1. It would have to apologise to the Body of Christ for practising gifts that were not of God and therefore of the occult.

2. It would have to apologise to every person who has turned from his or her sin after receiving a prophetic word.

3. It would have to apologise to every person who ever was healed from sickness, through the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, from the second century onwards up until now.

4. It would have to apologise to every person who has been raised from the dead, in the name of Jesus Christ, from the second century onwards up until now. (Mind you it is only apostles in the New Testament that raise the dead!)

5. It would have to concede that Satan caused the tongues that glorified the name of Jesus Christ. The same would apply to the prophetic utterances that promoted a turning from sin and a walk of holiness in the name of Jesus Christ. This is despite the direct words of Jesus, "for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly speak evil of me. He that is not against us is on our part" (Mk.9: 39-40)

6. It would have to concede that Satan does both heal and raise the dead in the name of Jesus Christ. If this is so then the entire Body of Christ ought to readjust its doctrine on Satan! It should also modify its position on the doctrine that Jesus really has the keys of DEATH and hell.

7. It would have to concede that other power ministries such as deliverance from demonic possession with the subsequent confession of Christ following the deliverance are nothing but elaborate satanic hoaxes designed to fool us.

8. It would make false apostles and prophets out of the modern day apostles and prophets (though some of them are doing this on their own). In like manner it would turn the forefathers of the Fundamentalist movement into individuals that are either just as evil or just as deluded because many of them held fast to the belief that God had revived the spiritual gifts for their day. They also believed that God had revived the ministries of the apostle and prophet. One such classic example is Hans Hutt of the Anabaptists who was regarded as a prophet.(15)

Apparently dignitaries, of the early Church, such as Ignatius and the writer of Didache were equally unaware that the spiritual gifts had ceased.(16) Where could they have been to have missed out on such a significant event?

How do we reconcile the apparent differences in this matter? I believe that it can only be done through an honest study of the Holy Scripture. If God clearly says that these gifts are to cease then we must accept it. We must also go back over the Word of God and pencil-in huge, red question marks over every scripture passage that has been studied in this book to date.

Let us deal with each verse, one at a time, and see whether or not if we can work this passage out.

Moffatt's translation of verse 8 says, "Love never disappears. As for prophesying, it will be superseded; as for 'tongues', they will cease; as for knowledge, it will be superseded".

It is perfectly obvious that prophecy and knowledge will finish in exactly the same way (and, I believe, at the same time). I would conclude, therefore, that tongues will cease in a different way and at an earlier time (due to the construction of the Greek in this phrase). So far what I have said is in perfect accord with Fundamentalist teaching.

It is concluded by the non-Pentecostal that the thing, which is "perfect" of verse 10, is none other than the completion of the New Testament Canon. If this is the case then prophecy and knowledge were superseded at that time, with tongues having ceased at a time prior to this. Others conclude that the perfect of verse 10 is a reference to Jesus Christ at His second coming.

Question: Is the theme of the New Testament Canon completion referred to here either in the immediate context of the chapter or the overall context of the chapter or, for that matter, in the overall context of the entire letter to the Corinthians? If the answer to this is, "No", then we must exclude this as a viable interpretation. I have looked everywhere for a reference to the Canon being completed and I have not found any. So we do not have the authority to base a doctrine on one word ("perfect") when the exact meaning of the application of that word is not clear.

But let us assume that this, "when that which is perfect is come", really is talking about the completion of the New Testament Canon. What would this mean for those who lived for the Lord after that time?

It would mean that any believer who spoke in tongues during the second century was doing so either under a strong delusion or from being under satanic control.

It would mean that, from the second century AD onwards, any who spoke out prophetically would be false prophets (Hans Hutt included). Since prophecy included speaking "unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (1.Cor.14: 3) all such words coming from one saint to another (without it being a direct verbatim quote from the Holy Scripture) would have to be considered spurious.

It would mean that the knowledge gifts had also ceased to function. The knowledge gifts are "the word of wisdom .... the word of knowledge" (1.Cor.12:8) and "discerning of spirits" (1.Cor.12:10). This means that every prompting that any Christian has received for almost the last 1900 years would be equally as spurious. This has repercussions that reverberate all of the way down from being burdened in the middle of the night to pray for a brother or a sister to being led of the Lord to put $50 in brother Bob's Bible (anonymously). None of these can be considered to be "of the Lord" as there is not a scripture that mentions "brother Bob". It would also mean that there has been no "discerning of spirits for almost 1900 years... which kind of makes it hard when it comes to dealing with principalities and powers over areas of the world that were discovered after 95 AD.

One Baptist brother tried to tell me that these promptings fall under the "unction" of the Holy Spirit. But this is no answer since these promptings effectively do exactly the same as the knowledge gifts. They both amount up to receiving supernatural knowledge from the Lord. The only difference is that when they are practised in the non-Pentecostal setting they are "unctions" from the Lord and when they are practised in the Pentecostal setting they are from the pit of Hell.

But does the Holy Scripture say that knowledge will cease before the termination of the last days events? Have a look at Daniel 12:4: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased". And does the scripture say that all prophetic utterances will have ceased well and truly before we arrive at the judgements of the Book of Revelation? No. In fact history, experience, common sense and the Word of God itself say that prophecy is valid for today and "even to the time of the end"! Upon what authority do I say this? Upon the authority of the Holy Scripture that says, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev.19: 10). I ask you dear reader, "Did the testimony of Jesus finish in 95 AD as well?"

There can be no escaping this. Either these gifts finished a long time ago or we are stuck with the above conclusions.

So, what then, is the solution? Simple! Take off this time restriction and consider the "perfect" of verse 10 in the same light of Eph.4: 12-13 where the apostle Paul (same writer) talks about the gifts of ministry (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers). He says essentially the same thing. These gifts are all for the Body of Christ till we all come into the unity of the faith. All of these gifts are for the perfecting of the saints (v.12) and until we reach the state of "a perfect man".

This leaves us with the following scenario:

1. Since knowledge shall increase until the end (Dan.12: 4) then the knowledge "in part" (v.9) must still be valid for today. This validates the aforementioned "unctions" as well as the knowledge gifts.

2. Since knowledge "in part" is valid so, too, must be prophesy with its inclusive edification, exhortation and comfort. These will both continue until the end where "knowledge" shall have increased with the "testimony of Jesus" which "is the spirit of prophesy" (Rev.19: 10).

3. These both clearly continue "in part" in accordance with 1.Cor.13: 9.

4. Tongues shall cease abruptly at a time prior to these end times events in accordance with 1.Cor.13: 8.

5. Only one event in Holy Scripture happens with such an abruptness that it is momentous on God's calendar and that event is the rapture of the Church. I believe that tongues will cease at that time.

The scenario of tongues ceasing at the rapture fits in well for the following reasons:

1. The saints will be perfected at that moment in accordance with Rom.8: 17-25; Eph.4: 11-16; and 1.Thess.4: 16-17 thereby negating the need for tongues, which is a Church only gift, but necessitating the need for prophecy and knowledge which are also for the nation of Israel. Tongues are not for future Israel! This is made quite clear by paralleling 1.Cor.14: 21 with Isa.28: 12 where it is prophesied of Israel that "they would not hear".

2. The rapture is clearly in Paul's thinking as he writes this letter (1.Cor.15: 51-52).

3. The metaphor in verse 11 of being a child spiritually and then putting away childish things when this childhood stage has passed fits more suitably into the context of reaching the eternal (state of complete redemption i.e. spirit, soul and body). The things of this earth will be as childish things to us when we are in glory.

4. To Paul this state is future (as is the rapture) hence he writes that he has not yet attained to the stage of putting away the childish things for he says, "For now we see through a glass darkly..." Not only had he not reached this state of being a man but it seems that nobody else alive had either for he uses the word "we". "Now I know in part". Paul did not have it all! As spiritual as we would like to think that this blessed saint was, he still did not have it all.

What is the balance here? It is briefly summed up in a few lines from the same context. The point of arrival is when we can see Him "face to face" and to "know even as also I am known" (v.12). Other translations come forth with the same meaning; i.e. we will understand in exactly the same way that we have been understood and only One knows and understands us. It is He that saints from all ages have the desire to see "face to face". Some very well meaning brethren in the Fundamentalist movement have tried to tell me that putting away of childish things was the abrogation of the spiritual gifts around 95 AD. If this was so it would result in a "then face to face" relationship. The conversation with the holder of this doctrine goes something like this:

Myself, "What is it like?"

The baffled looks that come from this provocative question are usually followed by the question, "What is WHAT like?"

Myself, "What is it like to have a face to face relationship with God and to know even as you are known? Does not the scripture say, 'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him' (1.Cor.2: 9), and again, 'Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is" (1.Jn.3: 2). So, what is it like?

Hmmm. Silence. Maybe tongues did not cease around 95 AD.

Can I submit, therefore, another scriptural reason to appropriate the promise of the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues?

15. TONGUES WILL CEASE AT THE RAPTURE. PROPHECY AND KNOWLEDGE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE END. I MAY SPEAK IN TONGUES UP UNTIL THE TIME JESUS TAKES ME TO SEE HIM FACE TO FACE AND THEN I SHALL KNOW EVEN AS I AM KNOWN.

I would like to make one closing observation on this section of Holy Scripture. It is stated that both prophecy and knowledge are "in part" but it is not stated that tongues are "in part". The gifts of prophecy and knowledge are to a large degree subject to the reasoning of the individual who is exercising them. The same cannot be said in the same way about tongues, which are completely under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Tongues are not, therefore, subject to the reasoning processes of the individual (1.Cor.14: 2) and are not, therefore, spoken of as being "in part". There is nothing "in part" about tongues at all. It is fully available as a gift from God and, as such, believers should make the most of this gift while they can; both for their own edification and for that of the Body of Christ.

(15) John Wimber, Power Evangelism, Signs and Wonders and Church Growth. (Vineyard Ministries International) p.85.

(16) Ibid. pp.62-78.

*****

Chapter 10.

Where Many Have Missed It

There is no doubt, in my mind, that the most misunderstood chapter in the entire Holy Bible is 1 Corinthians 14. This is, perhaps, mainly due to the prominence of the issues of tongues, the interpretation of tongues and prophecy in this chapter. Hopefully, by now, many theological presuppositions have been addressed via the soundest Bible hermeneutic that I could present to you.

As we deal with the final verses from Holy Scripture that ratify the validity of speaking in tongues and prophesying for the whole Church let us keep in mind a few sobering facts:

1. The approximate date of the writing of this letter is 55 AD. This places it about 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and 40 years before the closure of the New Testament Canon.

2. For the first twenty-five or so years of the Church there were no written instructions (that we know of) regarding proper order in an assembly of Christians that were speaking in tongues.

3. 1 Corinthians had a maximum exposure of 40 years to the Church before the spiritual gifts supposedly ceased to function in 95 AD.

4. Paul repeatedly has to defend or state his apostleship throughout many of his letters so it is very likely that the Church in general did not receive much of what he wrote immediately. This limits the exposure of this God inspired letter to less than 40 years.

5. Paul's writings would have gained more credence throughout the Church in general following the writing of 2 Peter where Peter puts his support behind the authority of Paul's letters (2.Pet.3: 15-16). 2 Peter is dated about 67 AD. (28 years before the close of the New Testament Canon).

So, at best, 1.Cor.14 had 40 years exposure to the Body of Christ before it supposedly became redundant and, at worst, it had 28 years exposure. If tongues did cease in 95 AD it leaves a massive 1,915 years since then of sitting in our Holy Bibles talking to nobody in particular. My question is: What is the point of this chapter being in the Holy Bible? Due to its redundancy it would make it the only chapter in the New Testament that is entirely of no practical value to the main body of believers throughout the Church age. The Church would have better served its members if it had passed on a notice to all believers of all ages to put a big red line through the middle of this chapter with a note attached: IGNORE AFTER 95 AD. Or, at least, a postscript would have sufficed.

What is even more interesting is the fact that God providentially preserved this chapter for us. I mean, couldn't it have just got lost somewhere (any time after 95 AD) as other writings did i.e. the Letter to the Laodiceans? (Col.4:16). It would have hardly been missed. It could quite easily have been arranged for chapter 13 to be attached to chapter 15. Why wasn't this done? Answer: Because God has a purpose for 1.Cor.14. Let us, therefore, dig into this treasure that God has preserved for us.

The first admonition that we have in this chapter is to "follow after love" (v.1). Wuest's translation says it this way, "Be constantly pursuing this love, earnestly endeavouring to acquire it". The emphasis here is placed upon what we are doing. In other words, is what we are doing from moment to moment, hour to hour and day-to-day based in love? Do all of our efforts centre on attaining this love and having it as in integral part of our daily walk?

It is so important that we have this love as the basis of everything that we do. You see, dear reader, that this love is active and ever responding. It is never idle. It is the outworking of that which we call faith (the "faith which worketh by love" Gal.5: 6). This is why Paul goes to great pains to point out that love is the all-necessary ingredient in tongues, prophecy, in-sight, knowledge, faith, sacrificial giving and martyrdom (1.Cor.13:1-3).

It may rightly be said that love is that ingredient in our lives that balances all of the gifts. If this love is lacking then the gifts will be out of balance or lopsided. The apostle John said it beautifully in 1.Jn.4: 7-8:

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love".

Perhaps these words will come back to haunt every Pentecostal who has tried to minister to another person without doing it from a pure heart of love for that person. The results have often been tragic. I suppose that this is one of the drawbacks of living in a rapidly developing world. For decades the emphasis has been on speed and efficiency. The victims of this "fix it quick" mentality would, no doubt, have benefited more from being healed out of a true expression of the love of God through the one bringing the ministry.

It's not a lack of faith that is robbing the Western Pentecostal Church of Holy Spirit revival, it's a lack of love towards God, the lost and those with whom we fellowship. The modern Pentecostal movement, in many respects and in many areas, got so focused on the spiritual gifts that it lost sight of the need to show practical love. Consequently other aspects of the Body of Christ have picked up on this and are teaching us how to operate effectively in the spiritual gifts out of a genuine love for God, the lost and those with whom we fellowship. How could this have happened? Well, if 1.Cor.14: 1 is any indication, we simply forgot to put first things first: Follow vigorously and continuously after love. The rest will fall into place after that.

It could equally be said that love is the vehicle that carries all of the other gifts. None of the other gifts make any sense without the love of God being there. It is the love of God that sent Jesus Christ so that we may have everlasting life (Jn.3: 16). It is the love of God that "is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us" (Rom.5: 5); and it is the love of God that shows all men that we are Christs disciples (Jn.13: 35). So why should it be so strange a thing for the basis of all things truly spiritual to be love? Yet this amazingly simple question has eluded many ministers and those aspiring to be "spiritual".

Yes, love is the first gift, the greatest and most essential gift but it is not the only gift. Love alone will not preach to the lost. Love alone will not shepherd the flock. Love alone will not raise the dead, heal the sick, cast out demons or even speak in tongues for these are all gifts that operate by love through the working of faith.

We are told to put our energy into pursuing love but we are not told to do the same about the spiritual gifts.(17) We are told, instead, to "desire" these spirituals. Moffatt's Translation says it simply and accurately:

"Make love your aim, then set your heart on the spiritual gifts - especially prophecy".

When one considers the directive in this verse to set our hearts on spiritual gifts as a secondary response to our first having aimed for love it makes the suggestion that the spiritual gifts were abrogated in 95 AD rather silly. It would, in effect, be giving the Church a directive that it could not possibly keep. God would be saying to the bulk of the Christian Church throughout history, "I want you to eagerly desire those gifts which I took away in 95 AD.... especially prophecy".

No! God never asks the impossible of us. His word is true and reliable. He does want all Christians of all ages to set their hearts on spiritual gifts; especially prophecy. Otherwise He would not have inspired the words "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2.Tim.3: 17).

What is the point of eagerly setting our hearts on the spiritual gifts with a special emphasis on prophecy? The answer can be briefly summed up in one word: EDIFICATION. To Paul the strengthening and building up of the individual and the assembly was a priority. The rest of 1.Cor.14 will clearly illustrate this.

The obvious objective of Paul's writing is, therefore, the full development and fruitfulness of each individual and each assembly. This objective, then, lies at the very heart of God for Jn.15: 8 says, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples".

This development in the spiritual things of God is picked up in verse 2 and taken further:

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (v.2)

Let me introduce to you the first of the two types of tongues that God has given to the Body of Christ. This first type is what I call the God-ward tongue. It is a prayer tongue for, as the Holy Scripture says, it is "not unto men, but unto God". Please lock this fact into your memory. Parallel scriptures that fit in with this are 1.Cor.13: 1 where Paul writes about speaking in the tongues of angels. This is quite clearly a heavenly language. I believe that this also parallels with Romans 8:26 where the language of the Holy Spirit is being spoken about.

Another important thing to remember about this God-ward tongue is that it is not unto men. This means that it is not intended for the ears or the understanding of any man. No! Never at any time. It, then, by definition, should never be accompanied by an interpretation. This is the basic, literal and sensible meaning of this verse. It is plain to me that if a tongue is not unto men then it should not be interpreted for the understanding of men.

It is equally plain to me that if a tongue is unto God then it should be categorised as prayer. This is why Pentecostals pray in tongues without seeking any interpretation to the tongue that they are using. It would be a violation of the Holy Word of God to do so. We are often criticised for doing this kind of praying without seeking an interpretation of the tongue that we are using; but even a child would be able to see from this verse that we are perfectly within our rights to hold this interpretation.

The linking, therefore, of this prayer (this God-ward tongue) to speaking "in the spirit" is significant. Since this communication, "unto God", is obviously prayer it is important to also lock into your memory that fact that praying in tongues is synonymous with speaking "in the spirit". Later on Paul will use the term "with the spirit" (v.15) in the area of prayer that does not stem from an intellectual understanding and Jude will talk about building up ourselves on our most holy faith by praying "in the Holy Spirit" (Jude 20) (18). There is, therefore, a correlation between praying in tongues (or in the spirit) and the edification of the believer.

"howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (v.2).

What these "mysteries" are we are not told. We do know, however, the following facts:

1. Since these tongues are not processed by human reasoning then they must be pure and true.

2. Since it is the eternal spirit of a saint speaking these "mysteries" must be Holy Spirit energised and controlled.

3. Since these "mysteries" are accepted by God this tongue must be a work of righteousness (Acts 10:35).

4. Because it is Holy Spirit inspired language operating in a saint (that is still subject to temptation) these "mysteries" must have a positive, strengthening effect on that saint (v.4).

Prophecy, however, is different. It has a different language and a different goal. The language that is used is the one that is commonly shared by those in attendance in the assembly. Its goal is not to address God for it is a man-ward message from God. Its goal is primarily for the assembly that it may receive a message supernaturally from the Lord. (19)

"But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (v.3)

Now as regards to this prophecy, is it God only speaking or is it man only speaking or is it a bit of both?

To adopt the position of prophecy being man only speaking undermines the divine intent of the message.

To adopt the position that it is God only speaking through the voice of the one uttering the prophecy one must, as stated previously, account for a few apparent contradictions. For example: those opponents of prophecy point out, and quite validly, that no word spoken by God to man should be any less important than any other word spoken by God. Once we begin to draw distinctions between the importance of the messages that God gives to us we are, in effect, making at least some of the messages of God inferior or subordinate. We are saying that some words of God are important enough to pass on to all of the Church and others aren't important enough. They cry loud in their appeal, "If God is talking, then why not share it with the entire Church?" It is a good question but to rightly answer it we must first stand in line and wait for our turn to answer the question. What? You didn't know that there were others on the queue in front of us? Why, of course there is! Listed below are some of the people of God who received messages from God but did not go to the effort of writing every message down (or in some cases writing any message down):

1. All of the Old Testament prophets who spoke of the place where Jesus would be brought up (Mt.2: 23).

2. Jesus Christ did not leave us with a written record of all that God spoke to Him.

3. The apostles did not write down everything (Jn.21: 25).

4. The prophecies of Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manean and Saul were not left for us.

5. The other prophecies of Agabus were not recorded (Acts.11: 27-28; 21:10-11).

6. The prophecies of all the other prophets from Jerusalem were not left for us (Acts 11:27).

This position also makes God look like He is using the prophet as a bit of a robot or puppet. Therefore this position must be discarded.

That leaves us with the last alternative where the prophecy is indeed from God but is expressed through character, nature, language and imperfections of the prophet. This position is similar (if not identical) to the argument used in defence of the writers of the Holy Scripture.

The truth of the matter is that God does not want every prophecy written down and disseminated throughout the Churches all over the globe. The purpose of prophecy within an assembly of Christians is for that Body of believers to receive words from God that are particular to them. And what is more, the words are rarely predictive (as in foretelling coming events). In all of my years in Pentecost I have only ever heard a few prophecies that were of a predictive nature and they came to pass.

Verse three outlines the purpose of prophecy. It is for edification, exhortation and comfort. And isn't that so much like our God to desire His assemblies to become strong, to come in unison to His side and to hear His tender words of comfort and consolation.

So how, then, should we judge if a prophecy is from the Lord? Paul very clearly outlines the intent of God for prophecy in the New Testament Church. Does it meet these standards? :

1. Does it build up the assembly causing it to grow spiritually?

2. Does it tell you where God's singular will is for that assembly and does it beckon the members of that assembly to draw up along side of Jesus so that the assembly can get to where God has called them to be? In other words, does it call them to fulfil God's call on that assembly?

3. Does it very intimately and tenderly comfort and console the assembly in its quest to mature and draw near to God?

If the prophecy does not meet at least one of these standards then it cannot be scriptural in the 1.Cor.14: 3 sense. Other prophecies may meet the Old Testament standards but our main concern here is for the context of "prophecy" in this chapter to be outlined.

Paul then goes on to draw further distinctions. In the purpose of God it is absolutely essential for every aspect of the temple to be completed. Now there are many temples in the New Testament. One temple is the temple of our spirit, soul and body with which we make this earthly sojourn. Another temple is the temple of the Body of Christ. So individually we are a temple and corporately we are also a temple. In verse 4 Paul says that when we speak in tongues we build up our personal temple:

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;"

It is clear that God has a way of building up the individual temple. When it comes to building up the individual temple it may be done in one of two ways:

1. We may build up others individually through the love that we show unto them (1.Cor.8: 1); and

2. We may build up ourselves individually through speaking in tongues (v.4).

Outside of the two listed categories there is not a whole lot of information in the Word that tells us how we may be built up. This fact creates something of a problem. If tongues legitimately became redundant in 95 AD then ever since that date the only scriptural way in which we may be built up is via the input we receive from others. There would be no legitimate scriptural way of edifying ourselves.

Am I saying that speaking in tongues is the only way that we will reach spiritual maturity outside of receiving ministry from others? Yes and No. The Holy Scripture is perfectly clear as regards to how we grow. For example it is through the Holy Scriptures themselves that we "may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2.Tim.3: 17). So the Word of God can also bring us to maturity. Unfortunately, when this verse from 2.Timothy is pondered with reference to its historical setting one begins to see that being brought to maturity came more through hearing the Word taught than through personal daily reading (as we would do). The reason for this is due to limited availability of New Testament Manuscripts to the average Christian. The vast majority of "Word" input would have come via the regular attendance of fellowship. The same situation would have been observed countless times over the centuries with Christians who were too poor to own their own copies of the Holy Bible. This being the case we are left with the only remaining scriptural way of edification of the self as being speaking in tongues. There may be many other things that we can do for ourselves spiritually but when it comes to edification we are left with only one selection from which to choose.

You may think that this one selection scenario is unfair and narrow-minded. It is neither unfair nor narrow-minded because there are other areas that belong to the purposes of God where we are only given one choice; for example:

1. There is only one way of Salvation. (Jn.14: 6)

2. There is only one name under heaven given to men whereby they might be saved. (Acts 4:12)

3. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". (Eph.4: 4-6)

4. There is only one to whom we must pray. (Mt.6: 6)

5. There is only one way for spiritually edifying oneself: Tongues.

Paul now shifts his focus from the individual temple to the corporate temple:

"But he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying" (v.4-5).

Is prophecy more important than tongues? Yes and no! As far as the building up of the individual temple is concerned it is obvious that tongues are more important but as far as the building up of the corporate temple is concerned prophecy is more important.

There is, however, one exception to this rule. This is where tongues Type 2 enters into the picture. It, too, is a man-ward communication from God. If the tongue is given with an interpretation then prophecy is not greater than that tongue (with its interpretation). Why? It is apparent that if the tongue is interpreted and is given at least equal authority with that as prophecy then that tongue must be considered to be "man-ward" (from the Lord to His people). This would definitely place this tongue in a different category to the "God-ward" tongue thereby showing that there are at least two purposes for tongues:

1. God-ward communication or prayer in the spirit to edify oneself.

2. Man-ward communication: sent to edify, exhort and comfort the church.

So why does Paul focus on the edification of the church? Why doesn't he just stop with the believer being edified? I think that the reason behind this is that Jesus put an emphasis on the importance of the church in its mission to reach the lost, teach or disciple those who believe and finally to prevail against the gates of hell. A sugary, fairy floss church would not be able to achieve any of the purposes that God placed in front of it. The Corinthian Church certainly hadn't reached the proper stage of maturity which Paul thought was necessary and so he delivers a teaching on how it should attain that maturity in either one of two ways: prophecy or a tongue with an interpretation.

Many other verses in the Holy Bible talk about how we should develop our Christian walk but I do not know of many verses in the Holy Bible (outside of this chapter) that tell us of how we should be built up in our gathering together as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. One particular verse in Heb.10 talks about how we should not forsake "the assembling of ourselves together" and even there the directive is to exhort one another when we do gather together. You will agree with me when I say that there is no clear difference here between this exhorting (Heb.10: 25) and that exhorting which is a definite aspect of prophecy (v.3)!

"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak unto you by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" (v.6)

The only time that tongues have ever been of any value to the corporate temple of God has been when an interpretation has followed. As he did in verse three, Paul outlines the exact criteria into which the interpretation of the tongue must fit. If it does not bring revelation or knowledge or prophecy or doctrine then it is not of God.

At this point it should be noted that any information that is presented to a gathering of believers should never contradict Holy Scripture in its content. It is sacredly held in the mainstream Pentecostal churches that whatever is revealed by the Holy Spirit should be in perfect harmony with the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God. If we were to hear, for example, a prophesy or an interpretation of a tongue that said, "Thus says the Lord, you are to stop praying and concentrate entirely on praise from now on!" it would be thrown out of the church as rubbish. And so it should be.

Paul further develops his point. In verses 7-8 he speaks of the necessity of understanding distinctions in sounds so that all will be able to respond appropriately to the same trumpet sound. He is, of course, pointing to the ludicrous practise of many at an assembly speaking out loudly in tongues as if they were competing to be heard over the others. It is equally ludicrous if there is no interpretation to the tongues. In a sense, in verses 9-12, Paul is saying, "This is useless unless there comes an understanding of the significance of the tongue to that gathering of people. If you think that all there is to being a Christian is developing your personal spiritual walk then you are missing it entirely. God wants you to realise that you are your brother's keeper and that you should regard others as more important than yourself. So, when those others are gathered together with you, seek to edify them. If you love them you will do this". I have been in some meetings where the loud behaviour of some Pentecostals was so insensitive and inappropriate towards others nearby that it shows a distinct lack of love. Perhaps that is why Paul mentioned this first in 1.Cor.13: 1.

The argument can now be condensed into two simple truths:

1. In the spirit we may speak mysteries to God (v.2).

2. A tongue with an interpretation has an equal standing with prophecy.

Therefore we can state other reasons why we may confidently lay hold of the Word of God and claim the blessed promise of the baptism in the Holy Spirit:

16. AS TONGUES ARE CLEARLY A CATEGORY OF PRAYER TO GOD "IN THE SPIRIT" (1.COR.14: 2) WE MAY NOT ONLY USE THEM BUT WE MUST USE THEM FOR THE HOLY SCRIPTURE SAYS THAT WE MUST BE "PRAYING ALWAYS, WITH ALL PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION IN THE SPIRIT (EPH.6: 18) (SEE APPENDIX)

and;

17. AS PROPHECY IS FOR THE EDIFICATION, EXHORTATION AND COMFORT OF THE CHURCH IS IT NOT REASONABLE THAT THE CHURCH STILL RECEIVE THAT SAME EDIFICATION, EXHORTATION AND COMFORT TODAY?

If you accept the preceding argument then it is only logical to conclude:

18. IF THE CHURCH CAN RECEIVE PROPHECY THEN WHY SHOULD IT NOT RECEIVE THOSE GIFTS WHICH (WHEN OPERATED TOGETHER) HAVE AN EQUAL STANDING WITH PROPHECY?

These two gifts are the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues. It is obvious that this is Paul's intention here because of the inclusion of the word "except" in verse 5. The exception to the rule, that the one prophesying is greater than the one speaking in tongues, is introduced in the presence of an interpretation to the tongue.

"Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" (v.13).

Moffatt's Translation says, "Thus a man who speaks in a 'tongue' must pray for the gift of interpreting it". Once again the emphasis that is being stressed by Paul is the good that this will do for the assembly.

"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also" (v.14-15).

Dear reader, do you pray with anything other than your understanding? If you do not then, according to Holy Scripture, you are not praying with all of the prayer resources that Almighty God has given to those who are called to be His children.

Dear reader, do you sing with anything other than your understanding? If you do not then, according to Holy Scripture, you are not singing with all of the songs that God has given to those who would be worshippers of Him.

What is interesting about the context of this portion of the letter to the Corinthian Church is that it deals specifically with issues that relate to their meetings. Some people think that tongues (Type 1: God-ward prayer) should never be used in a church meeting. They glean from this chapter that Paul is emphasising the need for interpretations to follow all tongues (Type 2: man-ward communication) expressed in a meeting.

The matter can be easily resolved through the study of one word in verses 14-15. The word is "pray". At no time is that word ever used of communication from God to His Church. God does not pray to us, nor does He sing to us. God receives our prayer. God receives our songs of worship. This tongue, then, is a Type 1 tongue.

It is also interesting that, when one considers the same context, Paul never rebukes the believers for praying in tongues or singing in tongues. He does say that they should pray and sing with understanding as well but this in no way infers that what they are expressing with their understanding is an interpretation of what they have expressed in the spirit. He does say that when one is giving thanks to God in a tongue then one should be prepared to give thanks to God in an understandable way so that others may add their "amen" of agreement (See verses 16-17).

As far as Paul was concerned praying and singing in the spirit was entirely acceptable as long as there was a priority on the gifts being clearly understood by all. For example, if an amazing miracle was worked in the name of Jesus Christ or if a saint was healed of a crippling illness in the name of Jesus Christ an explanation would not be necessary. The ability of people to observe and conclude the matter would be enough. But when it comes to miraculous words being aired it is absolutely necessary for these words to measure up to the standard of the Holy Scriptures. Hence Paul says,

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue" (v.18-19).

As far as prayer tongues were concerned Paul excelled in them. As far as having an interest in seeing the church mature was concerned Paul would rather say one small sentence. That would have been enough for him.

Paul then lays the biblical foundation for speaking in tongues. You will observe that he is not quoting Joel 2:28. He uses a reference from Isa.28: 9-11.

"In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear Me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe" (v.21-22).

The conclusion, which is often drawn from reading verse 21, is: This verse is talking specifically about Israel because of the usage of the term "this people", so tongues are only for a sign to the Jews. Certainly in the context that Isaiah was using this is true. But as with Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost the context is divinely broadened. Notice in verse 22 how Paul is referring to "them that believe not". This must surely be inclusive of all unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. In the Word there are only ever two classes of people. There are those that believe and those that do not believe. Paul makes this even clearer in Rom.10: 12, "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him".

And what is the sign? It is an attesting miracle that God has given us a heavenly prayer language so that we may perfectly express needs that human words cannot capture. It is also the public manifestation of God supernaturally speaking to His people. This is why the sign is for those "that believe not". If ever the world needed to know that they could pray to God with divine assistance it was certainly made evident through these saints "who turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6).

Since the first century church meetings were almost exclusively believers only one would hardly expect that the man-ward (Type 2) tongues were being referred to here as they are clearly for believers. We may proceed from this position and establish another scriptural reason why we may lay hold of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

19. TONGUES ARE A GIFT TO CHRISTIANS AND A SIGN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE NOT. AS LONG AS THERE ARE BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS LIVING SIDE BY SIDE TONGUES SHOULD CONTINUE AS THAT SIGN.

Jesus said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt.12: 38-39). The solitary sign for those in Jerusalem at that Passover was the public execution of Jesus Christ, His high profile burial (with armed guards insuring that He stayed buried) and His resurrection from the dead three days and three nights later. This was their only sign.

What sign or signs are given to those generations that followed? From the text currently being studied it is apparent that tongues are "a sign" but not necessarily the only sign. I am not saying that tongues are a sign totally by themselves. I am saying that tongues are the initial sign. Let me remind you that the meaning of this word "sign" is "an attesting miracle" (Wuest's Translation). Speaking in tongues is an introduction to the miraculous manifestations of God. Healings, miracles etc. follow closely behind and since they are all signs or miracles they serve as power evidences to assist believers in witnessing.

It should be understood, then, that when unbelievers are witnessing these signs there should be something inherently in the tongue that convinces the hearer that it is a miraculous sign from God. If unbelievers were to hear the (Type 1) prayer tongue only, without there being a knowledge that something miraculous was taking place, of what use would that be? And we have already discussed how that a tongue (Type 2) with an interpretation falls under the same category as prophecy; i.e. a message to the church.

What then is the solution? I believe that a solution can be found in the miracle of the day of Pentecost. It was those who were believing who received the gift of the Holy Spirit and went out to the multitude speaking in tongues. I do not think that any one would argue with me over this issue. The believers were actually speaking in languages unknown to them. We are not told if they understood what dialects they were each using. They may have used one dialect each or they may have used more. We are not told and therefore we cannot be conclusive. But we can draw from the text the following facts:

1. All the believers spoke in tongues.

2. They did not disperse to the various people groups, who had gathered in Jerusalem, speaking the tongue of that people group.

3. Each people group came to where they were so that there was a mixed crowd gathered around the believers that numbered in excess of 3,000.

4. Each people group in this mixed crowd could not have possibly been organised in such a way that the disciple closest to their hearing spoke only in their language and not in the language of another foreigner who happened to be also standing nearby.

My point is this. Disciple John wouldn't have said, "Now I want you Parthians to stand over here. I'm going to speak to you in your own dialect. You Medes should follow Thomas here. He's going to speak to you in your own dialect etc. etc." I really do not believe that it was that organised. I believe that what happened on the day of Pentecost was a combination of two miracles. The first miracle was the miracle of tongues. The second miracle was a miracle in hearing. The hearing no doubt came through each person hearing this crowd of Christians lifting up their voices zealously to Almighty God and in the midst of that heavenly anthem each person could hear the sounds that were familiar. These were the sounds of their own language.

I liken it to being in a foreign country where much of the language is meaningless to me, so I psychologically tune out to the sound. But when some one calls out, in a typical Australian tone, "G'day mate", there is something in me that tunes in on that sound instantaneously. Suddenly I'm actively listening. I can only imagine that it must have been something like this for those who witnessed the events on the day of Pentecost.

Paul continues his argument showing the stupidity of all doing nothing but speaking out in tongues. Keep in mind that he has already given tacit approval to them praying and singing in the spirit so he is not about to say, "don't speak in tongues".

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" (v.23).

Can you imagine what it would be like to walk into a meeting to find people all majoring in speaking in tongues without any interpretation? It would certainly not minister anything to me. In fact I would have to agree with the unlearned and the unbelievers that madness was prevailing.

I might take this opportunity to comment on the word "unlearned". The Greek for this word is "idiotes" which is derived from a word that signifies a person who has no insight into the events that he is witnessing. It does not mean that this person is so ignorant that he is incapable of insight. It means that the necessary information that is needed to engender insight has not yet been supplied. In the case of the person who is unlearned about acceptable behaviour within the context of a church meeting the onus should be upon those that are learned to supply that necessary information. It is not enough to defend the legitimacy of the baptism in the Holy Spirit by saying, "Listen mate, this experience is real because it feels good" or "this experience is right because nice people prayed for me and I spoke in tongues (with a little bit of coaching").

Dear Pentecostal brethren, that is simply not good enough. It is high time that we, as a movement, put more of a priority on being people not only of the Spirit but also of the Word. This has been, perhaps, the Achilles heel of the Pentecostal movement. There has, in many circles, been a feast in absorbing the blessings of the Holy Spirit but a famine in digesting the deeper aspects of the faith.

Certainly there have been great men of God in the Pentecostal movement who have done a great job in steering Pentecost back into the middle of the road. There needs to be, however, a revival, within the masses of Pentecostal laity, in the area of balancing the spiritual life with the Word of God. Until that is achieved there will be little headway made in bringing the "unlearned" to a deeper, experiential knowledge of the very things that are promised in the same Holy Word that they treasure.

"But if all prophesy, and there cometh in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth" (v.24-25).

On the surface it seems that Paul is saying that every church member who is at the meeting may prophesy at that meeting. Later on he will limit the number of prophesies to three. Now unless there were only three members to the Corinthian church we have a seeming contradiction. The key to the interpretation of these verses lies in verse 25 where we are told that the one who is an outsider hears such things that he falls on his face worshipping God and announcing "that God is in you of a truth". There is one main cause for such behaviour and it falls under the category of conviction of sin. Certainly the words "convinced of all.... judged of all" denote a divine disclosure, to those at the meeting, of details relating to one person who has come into their midst. That the disclosure is an open one is revealed in the words "and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest".

The question remains, "Does this constitute 'prophecy' in terms of the criteria used in verse 3?" This can only be answered in the affirmative if one is to apply the term "exhortation" to an act of God calling a sinner to repent. This answer doesn't really sit well with me for the following reasons:

1. It doesn't clear up the apparent contradiction of Paul approving of "all" prophesying yet later limiting the number of prophecies to 3.

2. It takes quite a deal of licence to apply the word "exhortation" to the act of God convicting a sinner of his sin.

3. The conversion of a sinner, although a wonderful event, is hardly the focus of prophecy; i.e. the edification of the church.

I believe that the term "prophesy" in this context is referring to words used by believers in the church meeting that are divinely given to them as "words of knowledge" and these words are aired publicly. If they are words of knowledge then they are not prophecy in the strict 1.Cor.12: 10 sense but they would broadly fall under the meaning of prophecy in so much as they are spoken out deliberately and volubly.

So then, do unbelievers come into our meetings? If they do then there is a strong case for us to be involved in this level of prophecy. Therefore:

20. IF, BY USE OF PROPHECY, A SINNER CAN COME TO REPENTANCE IN OUR MEETINGS THEN WOULD THAT NOT MAKE THE GIFT USED AT THAT TIME TRULY SENT FROM GOD?

Which of us would dare say to such a repentant person, "That which was revealed came not from God?" What? Is Satan now in league with God to imitate God's gift so that a sinner will be let loose from his grasp? Or do we dare question the salvation experience of a person who outwardly says and does things that are according to true biblical repentance?

"How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying".

Once again Paul puts the focus on the edification of the body of believers gathered together. Naturally if there is a group of believers who have been walking close to the Lord all week there would be something within each of them that they would feel would be of benefit to the church. Brother Peter was really blessed by something from the Holy Scriptures that the Lord showed him so he believes that God wants him to share it with his spiritual family. Another believer feels that a teaching from a particular section of Holy Scripture is in order. And so each has something which they believe is from the Lord. No doubt what they received was from the Lord but it is not always in God's will to take what He has shown you and to make it public domain. This is where Christian maturity and sensitivity is warranted. Paul knows that these Corinthians are fairly immature in the area of Church order so he, like all good teachers, re-emphasises his main theme: Put the needs of the Body of Christ first when you come together.

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God". (v.27-28).

The order that Paul says should be in the church meeting is this: 2 or 3 tongues at the most with one interpreter. The person giving the tongue should be already praying that he may interpret. In my experience the miracle has occurred this way:

1. Initially there was a deep conviction from within my spirit that I must speak out in a tongue.

2. Before I spoke out I prayed that the Holy Spirit would give me the interpretation.

3. As I was speaking the Holy Spirit gave me a complete understanding of the utterance.

4. The Holy Spirit also gave me knowledge of who else had the interpretation.

5. That other person gave the interpretation and it was identical to that which the Holy Spirit gave unto me. So when it came to judging that which was said I was able to bear witness to the authenticity of the tongue.

One of the mistakes that is often made by Pentecostals when discussing the "interpreter" issue is assuming that one knows if an interpreter is present on the basis of the presence in the meeting of people who have given interpretations in the past. Just because a person has given interpretations in the past is no indication that an interpreter is present in the meeting. The reason for this is that the gifts are divided "to every man severally as He will" (1.Cor.12: 11). No one person is the sole custodian of any single gift in the church meeting. The Holy Spirit decides and divides the gifts as He wills. So it is folly to assume that Brother Jack will give the interpretation just because he is present or conversely that there will be no interpretations today because Brother Jack is not present and therefore there should be no utterances in tongues. This sort of thinking undermines the authority of the Holy Spirit and verges on quenching the Holy Spirit who will in no way overrule the will of man.

But how does one resolve the problem of knowing if there is an interpreter in the church meeting? Paul's recommendation is that the one speaking in a tongue pray that they may interpret. I believe that this prayer should be prior to the utterance. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit so suddenly falls upon a believer that they have no choice but to immediately speak in tongues. If this were the case it would present more of a picture of divine dominance then divine co-operation with the believer.

I also believe that the Holy Spirit gives intuitive knowledge to those that are in prayer about giving an utterance that there will be an interpretation. The words in verse 28 indicate this. How else, but via divine revelation, would one know if there was an interpreter present? And if there is not the knowledge that an interpreter is present it would be better to keep quiet to begin with.

"Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted" (v.29-31).

This is the second time that Paul has placed a limit on the amount of times a divine revelation can be spoken out in the church meeting. Why 2 or 3? Why not 1? Why not 4 or 5? The simple answer for placing a limit on the larger number is that the church meeting would get too bogged down in a multitude of messages that there would be little time for the other activities that are necessary in church meetings. The simple answer for not being content with one prophecy is that a witness on its own is not scripturally good enough. In 2.Cor.13:2 Paul says "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Although the context I'm quoting from here is quite different the scriptural application is none the less quite valid.

My belief, then, is that there should be, inherent in each group of 2 or 3 utterances (whether they be tongues or prophecy), a witness and a unity endorsing and confirming the messages.

There should also be a time set aside for reflection and assessment of what the Lord has spoken to His people. If God has spoken then His words should not be taken lightly.

If you read verse 30 you will see again the Holy Spirit working a revelation gift in the "first" person. This person is being informed that the Holy Spirit has given the same revelation to others and that he should not speak out. Why?

The answer is simple. When it comes time for the word to be assessed and judged the first person will be able to give open witness to the prophecies that were uttered.

And so it is that they may all be involved in giving prophecies one at a time but they must know that what they have received is from the Lord and that it is consistent with what God is saying to the Church at that time. For example if the utterances are calling the church to a time of fasting and seeking God for a breakthrough in the area of soul winning it would be incongruous for a prophetic utterance to indicate that the church should find some time of rest and find pasture in the Lord.

Verses 32-36 have little relevance on the task at hand so I will move on to verse 37. Why this verse is not emphasised more in dialogue with those who oppose the baptism in the Holy Spirit I don't know. Paul says that the spiritual person will acknowledge that the things that he has written "are the commandments of the Lord". Let us not take the commandments of the Lord lightly. What do we know about the commandments of the Lord?

"He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself unto him" (Jn.14:21).

"If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love" (Jn.15:10).

"And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in Him" (1.Jn.2:3-5).

"And whatever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight" (1.Jn.3:22).

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (1.Jn.5:2-3).

Now what commandments of God are there for us to obey in 1.Cor.14? Let us list them:

1. Follow charity or love (v.1).

2. Desire earnestly the spiritual gifts especially prophecy (v.1) so that the church may receive edification.

3. All should desire to speak in tongues and prophesy (v.5).

4. All can pray and sing in the spirit as much as they do in their native language (v.15-17).

5. Tongues with an interpretation should be limited to 2 or 3 each church meeting if an interpreter is present (v.27-28).

6. Prophetic utterances should be limited to 2 or 3 each church meeting (v.29-31).

7. Women must keep silent (v.34-35). This obviously excludes those women operating spiritual gifts. eg. the prophetess. As prophecy was for the church where do you suppose the four daughters of Philip the evangelist did their prophesying? It could only have been within the context of a church meeting and that clearly illustrates that the command for women to keep silent was not all encompassing.

8. Let those that want to be ignorant remain in their ignorance (v.38).

9. Do not forbid any person, their right, to speak in tongues (v.40).

10. Everything must be done "in a seemly manner and in a right order" (v.41) (Wuest's Translation). This means that there has to be such sensitivity to the needs of others that whatever one does, by way of operation of the spiritual gifts, love for others and a sense of propriety are manifest.

Would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to write that these words are no less than "commandments of the Lord" and then put them in the redundant basket shortly afterwards? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit would make the signs of His presence in the church of so little importance that they would historically become a) the shortest surviving signs in the church and b) the shortest surviving "commandments" in the church? The Holy Spirit certainly has more regard for the term "the commandments of the Lord" than to do that!

This then assists us greatly in laying yet another scriptural foundation upon which we may place our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to baptise us in the Holy Spirit.

21. I CAN RECEIVE THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (WHICH INCLUDE THE GIFT OF TONGUES) BECAUSE THEY FALL UNDER THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD (WHICH I MUST OBEY).

Beloved brothers and sisters, let us obey His commandments.

(17) The word "gifts" does not occur in the Greek. The term is literally "spirituals" with the inference being that the gifts of the Spirit of 1.Cor.12:7-11 are being cited.

(18) It is interesting that Jude 20-21 mentions the same three themes that occur in 1.Cor.14:1-4 : i.e. praying in the Spirit, love and edification.

(19) This message can be predictive and personal as were some of the prophecies of Agabus. It would be expedient for some modern day prophets to take note of the fact that the recorded prophecies were made before witnesses (they were not private). It would also be expedient for modern day critics of the ministry of the prophet to take note of the fact that, though we recognise the prophetic ministry of Agabus, God felt that those things revealed to him in this ministry did not warrant being kept as a permanent record for the Church.

*****

Appendix

In the re-establishment of our relationship with God the Father through the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary a way was made open for us to communicate with Father God as His children. Naturally our heavenly Father did not leave us in the dark as to how we were to communicate with Him. Not only did Jesus teach us how to pray but also the Holy Spirit gives us prayer in unknown tongues. (1.Cor.14:15).

It seemed to me for this to be entirely of God then there must necessarily be a definite unity and agreement in both styles of prayer. By this I mean that the prayer with the understanding should not differ from the prayer in the spirit even if the prayer in the spirit still left my reasoning or "understanding ... unfruitful" (1.Cor.14:14).

What shall follow is, what I believe to be, a succinct overview on the topic of God-ward communication taken directly from the Holy Scriptures:

"I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,

For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty". (1.Tim.2:1-2)

The criteria then for God-ward communication is that it must fall under these categories:

1. Supplication: The expression of ones needs.

2. Prayer: General communication to God.

3. Intercessions: standing in the gap on the behalf of others.

4. Giving of thanks.

My inquiry prompted me to search out, if it were possible, if there was any link between these categories of God-ward communication and the miracle of praying in the spirit. Please take note of the following parallels:

1. 1.Cor.14:14-15 clearly demonstrates that to pray "in an unknown tongue" is to pray with ones spirit or in the spirit. This prayer is not in ones native language. Yet Eph.6:18 talks about "all prayer and supplication in the spirit". So supplication may be expressed in the spirit.

2. Prayer in tongues (1.Cor.14:2) and prayer in the spirit (1.Cor.14:15) are one and the same things. If praying in the spirit builds us up then this must surely parallel with Jude 20,"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost". Prayer is definitely in tongues.

3. Romans 8:26 clearly demonstrates the involvement of the Holy Spirit in our prayer life in terms of intercessory prayer. See Chapter 8. Intercession can be, therefore, in tongues.

4. 1.Tim.2:1 speaks of thanksgiving being an aspect of prayer; so too does 1.Cor.14:16-17 where Paul describes a giving of thanks in tongues in these terms, "For thou verily givest thanks well". Thanksgiving can also be in tongues.

Every aspect of prayer is matched by at least one verse showing that praying in tongues is indeed scriptural. I should think that it is sufficient to focus on the fact that we are admonished to be "praying always with all prayer....in the spirit" (Eph.6:18)

*****

Bibliography

HOLY BIBLES USED

THE KING JAMES VERSION.

MOFFATT'S NEW TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.

THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION.

KENNETH S. WUEST'S "THE NEW TESTAMENT, AN EXPANDED TRANSLATION.

YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY BIBLE.

OTHER REFERENCES

CLARKE, ADAM. Commentary on the Holy Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982.

DAKE, FINIS JENNINGS. Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Dake Bible Sales Inc. 1978.

GESENIUS, DR. WILLIAM. Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

STRONG, JAMES. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.

THAYER, JOSEPH H. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

UNGER, MERRILL F. Unger's Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody, 1985.

VINE, W.E. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Iowa: Riverside.

WIGRAM, GEORGE V. & WINTER, RALPH D. The Word Study Concordance. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1978.

WILLMINGTON, DR. H.L. Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1984.

WIMBER, JOHN. Signs & Wonders & Church Growth (Vol.1).

*****

Last Page

Soon To Be Released:

HOW TO DEFEND THE HOLY TRINITY

by

James Joseph Doyle IV

