A Study of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit

In Acts 2 and Acts 10

By

G. Glen Gray

Chattanooga, Tennessee

INTRODUCTION

            It will be the purpose of this paper to examine the event in Acts, chapter 10, the receiving of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles, which some have said was a “baptism with the Holy Spirit.” This paper seeks to bring into the discussion another view which I don’t think has been considered. The events in Acts, chapter 10 at the household of Cornelius, the speaking in tongues and prophesying, was not a “baptism with the Spirit,” but were gifts from the Spirit which only brought to remembrance the “baptism with the Spirit” which took place in Jerusalem at Pentecost. I will state that the “baptism with the Spirit” was a one time giving of the Holy Spirit to indwell all believers. To do this I will briefly suggest what I believe is consistent and logical meaning of the “baptism with the Spirit.” I will then move to Acts, chapter 10 and the household of Cornelius. I will examine what the baptism is not and then move to what I believe the baptism is. 

What the “promise of the Father” and the “baptism with the Spirit” is and is not.

            The promise of the coming of the Spirit into the world starts back in the Old Testament and is not limited to the New Testament.  

            The “baptism with the Spirit” has been variously described to “initiate the individual into the new age and covenant, to ‘Christ’ (anoint) him, and in so doing to equip him for life and service in that new age and covenant.”[1] The early Pentecostals came to refer the “baptism with the Holy Spirit” as “a second experience distinct from and subsequent to conversion which gives power for witness (Acts 1:8), that speaking in tongues, … is the necessary and inevitable evidence of the ‘baptism’…”[2] Barth distinguishes between baptism with the Spirit and baptism with water. For him, baptism with the Spirit is "effective, causative, even creative action on the human being and in the human being. It is, indeed, divinely effective, divinely causative, divinely creative" (p.34). Baptism with water, on the other hand, is an obedient response to baptism with the Holy Spirit.[3]

Van Iersal suggests that “baptizw en pneumati agiw most likely refers to the effect on Israel of the coming of the Spirit-endowed Messiah rather than the Messiah bestowing the Spirit on Israel. In other words, rather than interpreting pneuma as a gift, it seems more preferable to understand pneuma as the means by which the Messiah will act towards Israel. In this case, en should be taken instrumentally, meaning "with" or "by means of". Hence, the Spirit is expected to be the means by which Jesus will cleanse people and reveal God.” [4] While Cornelis Bennema states that "[t]o ‘baptize with Holy Spirit’ refers to Jesus’ programme of cleansing people through revelation by means of the Spirit.”[5] However, not every one holds to the opinion that “baptism with the Spirit” is the process of cleansing. Fredrick D. Bruner states that most “Pentecostals believe that the Spirit has baptized every believer into Christ (conversion), but that Christ has not yet baptized every believer in the Spirit (Pentecost).”[6] This makes the Spirit the Agent of conversion while Christ would be the Giver of the Spirit. Bruner is correct when he states that the “promise of the Father” or “baptism with the Spirit” is not just to “some” individuals, but to “all.”[7] This point will be clearly established later in this paper. He misses the point, however, by saying stating that there are “subsequent” “baptizing(s)” of the Spirit. In his view, every time there is a mention of the gifts in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, this constitutes a “baptizing with the Spirit.” I believe he has mistakenly identified the “gifts” which the Spirit gives with the “baptism with the Spirit” which is the giving of the Holy Spirit to all believers by Christ.    R. A. Torrey does basically the same thing by equating several expression of the Spirit’s power with the “baptism with the Spirit.” [8]

            Within the fellowship of the “churches of Christ” which form a large part of the “Restoration Movement,” it has been held that the “baptism with the Spirit” happened twice in the history of the mankind; once on Pentecost and again at the household of Cornelius. We also have mistakenly concluded that the “baptism with the Spirit” was the giving of miraculous power, equating it with the speaking with tongues and prophesying. Gus Nichols in a series of lessons published about the Holy Spirit states that “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (his term) was a promise only to the apostles. He goes into great length to prove his point[9] but misses it entirely. Basically, he presents the opinion of a majority of the ministers of the Church of Christ during that time. Foy Wallace writes, “It is evident, therefore, that the Spirit baptism was a promise to the apostles alone, and pointed to Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit’s dispensation.”[10] He goes on the state that “the Holy Spirit baptism was the clothing with power which comes to the apostles on Pentecost.”[11] Franklin Camp takes this same position[12] equating the “baptism of the Spirit” (his term) with miraculous power. Thus, with this position, would limit the “baptism with the Spirit” to only the apostles. Such an opinion or interpretation was influenced by that generation’s debate with the fervent and aggressive stance taken by the Pentecostal Movement during that period. To those individuals in the restoration heritage their reasoning seemed logical and their syllogistic diagrams and charts presented powerful arguments. These were “picked up” and taught by preachers and teachers throughout the Restoration Movement and used as the final argument against the error of those in the Pentecostal Movement. 

            One major problem with the arguments presented by those in the Restoration; they took the as their definition of the “baptism with the Holy Spirit” that given by Pentecostal teachers rather than searching the Scriptures to discover a truer meaning of the phrase. Thus, most of the Restoration arguments were based on a false meaning of terms. This lead to a path that eventually led to a rejection of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit entirely. It didn’t seem to matter that this placed numerous passages in direct conflict with clear and plain passages that emphasized a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God.

            It is important to understand what the “baptism with the Spirit” is not in order for us to understand what the “baptism with the Spirit” is. 

            It should not be connected with anything that took place before the Day of Pentecost. John 7:39 Jesus promises a future giving of the Holy Spirit. The giving of the Holy Spirit would be after Jesus was glorified (A reference to His Ascension - Acts 1:9-12). Therefore, anything that took place before the Day of Pentecost was not the ““promise of the Father”.” Jesus told the disciple to wait for what the “Father had promised.” Therefore, it was still future (Acts 1:4-5).   

            It should not be connected with the “power” to perform miracles which the Spirit gives. There was power to perform miracles before Pentecost. One only has to review the lives of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha to see that God was already doing before the Spirit was given.   One only needs to go to the concordance and look up the terms “fell upon” or “come upon” to see where the expressions are used in Scripture. These terms depict the Spirit giving an individual power (Judges 11:29; 14:6; 15:14-15) to do something God wants done, but it is not a “baptism with the Spirit”. Of particular interest is Ezekiel 11:5 where the Spirit “fell upon” Ezekiel. This was a giving of power to Ezekiel for the purpose of prophesying to Israel. Coupled with this are the dreams and visions he was to receive. The same expression is used of the giving of power to the apostles on Pentecost, the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) and the Ephesians (Acts 19), for the power to prophesy and speak in tongues. Yet in Ezekiel this term “fell upon” is used well before the promise of the Spirit was given. Therefore, “fell upon” cannot have the same meaning as “baptism with the Spirit.” This is significant when we examine the events at the household of Cornelius in Acts, chapter 10.

            “Clothed with power” is another expression that implies the “power” from the Spirit and not the “baptism in the Spirit” (cf. Judges 6:34-35; 2 Chronicles 24:20). It is worth noting that the “promise of the Father” is something entirely different from miraculous power. Even the twelve disciples demonstrated miraculous power before the Day of Pentecost (Luke 10:17-20).  

            It should not be connected with the “gifts” of the Holy Spirit. Gifts are given by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11). The “promise of the Father” is given by Jesus (Acts 2:33). Gifts vary in kind and function and can be given to individuals at different times. Gifts from the Spirit could be non-miraculous and miraculous. To equate the “promise of the Father” or the “baptism with the Spirit” with the speaking in tongues is to equate one of the gifts with the Giver of the gifts. The gift of tongues is from the Spirit and listed in First Corinthians (12:8-11). As a matter of emphasis, all gifts of power are given by the Holy Spirit. “The fact is that the phrase ‘baptism in Spirit’ is never directly associated with the promise of power, but is always associated with entry into the messianic age or the Body of Christ.”[13] I would agree with Dunn concerning the gift, but would alter the second part of what he says to be a “sign” that different groups of peoples were to be included in the reception of the “promise of the Father.”

            It should not be connected with the “filling with the Holy Spirit.” Individuals were “filled” with the Holy Spirit before the Day of Pentecost (Exodus 31:1-5; Luke 1:15, 41, 76). Since the promise of receiving the indwelling was not received until Pentecost, then “filled with” the Spirit cannot be the same as the “baptism with” the Spirit, or the “indwelling.” Individuals who have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:19). Since this was after Pentecost and after the Ephesians had received the indwelling of the Spirit, then the “filling” and the “baptism with the Spirit” are not the same. 

            “Filling” with the Spirit can have both miraculous and non-miraculous meanings. From looking at the passages where the term is used, it seems to mean the influence of the Spirit in the life of the believer. In any case, the “filling” should not be given the same meaning as the “pouring out” or “baptism with the Spirit.” They are terms used to express different functions of the Spirit. The “filling” with the Spirit is an activity of the Spirit. The “promise of the Father,” “baptism in the Spirit,” or “pouring out” of the Spirit are terms which define the one time giving of the Spirit by the Messiah, Jesus Christ, to indwell all believers. In Acts 2:1-4, when the disciples were “filled with the Holy Spirit” they began to speak in languages which they had never learned. In this passage, the “filled with the Holy Spirit” has reference to a miraculous gift given by the Spirit and calls attention to the fact that Christ had “poured out” the Spirit upon all mankind just as was promised (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4, 16-18; 33, 38-39).

What then is the “promise of the Father”?

            The “promise of the Father” is the “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4-5).

Simply stated, the “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is the one time giving or pouring forth of the Holy Spirit by Jesus on the Day of Pentecost upon all mankind. It is the making available the Spirit to indwell the child of God. The “baptism with the Spirit” was never meant to be “power” from the Spirit, but the gift of the presence of God in the believer. Those who believe, repent and are baptized will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (as the third person of the Godhead) to indwell the believer. This blessing is the “promise of the Father.”

The “promise of the Father” in The Old Testament

            Because the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:18), He has always been in existence (Hebrew 9:14) and active with the Godhead even before the foundation of the world. He was constantly present in the Old Testament and on occasions empowered Moses, Bazaleel, Gideon, Samuel, and all the prophets. Yet at the same time His presence and power are but occasional and special. There was a conscience incompleteness and limitation of His presence during the Old Testament period. Therefore, God, through the prophets foretold of a day when the Spirit would be “poured out” for all flesh making His presence permanent within the saints. 

            In the Old Testament, He was “with” and “in” individuals and yet did not dwell within them. The context of Ezekiel’s prophecy is Messianic. The restoration of Israel from Babylonian captivity will take place under a new King and Shepherd (Ezekiel 37:22, 24), the Messiah. Amidst the blessings listed in Ezekiel 36:24-28 and 37:14, 26-28 are unity, cleansing, regeneration, indwelling of the Spirit, confirmation of ownership, and the establishment of an everlasting covenant of peace. It takes little effort to see that the promise of the Spirit for the remnant would take place under the reign of the Messianic King, and that the Spirit is not limited to a few select apostolic disciples. 

            In the same context, Ezekiel prophecies that there will be close fellowship when “I shall have poured out my Spirit on the house of Israel” (Ezekiel 39:29). The phrase, “I shall have poured out” is the prophetic perfect tense. Prophetic –meaning it will take place in the future; while the Perfect - expresses a present state which has resulted from a past action.   As one reads this passage with that in mind it seems to state that God will pour out the Spirit sometime in the future and that the pouring out of the Spirit will happen only one time, but would have continuing results. 

            The prophets continue in promising the Spirit to be for all the faithful of Israel (Isaiah 44:4), as well as “all flesh” (Joel 2:28-29). Joel’s prophecy closely resembles the prophecies of the “baptism of the Spirit and fire” in the Gospels. In the days of the Messiah the Spirit will be given to “all flesh,” not just a few select members of the kingdom of God, not to those who have a special faith to receive Him, but to “all.” Note that “all flesh” is defined as including sons and daughters, young and old, servants and handmaids. Irrespective of race, sex, age, or social standing (Gal 3:26-4:6), God gives His Spirit to every person in who is saved. The tense of the verb “will pour out” is the imperfect of progressive duration. This denotes that the Spirit will be ever-renewed on generation after generation. He will be made available at all times.[14] It would seem from this passage that the pouring out of the Spirit could not be limited to a special few (the apostles), but to every one. Nor could He be confined to a specific time period, but every age and generation. 

            It is not the miraculous power that is promised by God through the Old Testament prophets. It is the presence of the Spirit in them that would give the children of God power.

The “promise of the Father” in The Gospels

            All four Gospel give the statement of John the Baptist concerning the baptizing “with” the Spirit.   The following are the gospel passages on the “baptism with the Spirit”: Matthew 3:11-12 [Context: 3:1-12]; Mark 1:7-8 [Context: 1:1-8]; Luke 3:15-18 [Context: 3:1-17]; John 1:33 [Context: 1:20-34]. As we examine the text, we need to realize that there are slight differences in the texts. This is not unusual for the gospel writers. Their “witness” to the events was from different perspectives and purposes.

            John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness proclaiming the kingdom of God under the personal reign of the Messiah. John’s announcement generated widespread interest (Mark 1:5). Individuals were willingly submitting to John’s baptism, and thus preparing themselves for the coming of the Lord. His ministry seems to have gained an immediate following, for Luke recorded that crowds came out to be baptized by him. (Luke 3:7-14). John’s message not only included a scathing denunciation of sin and urgent exhortations to repentance but also a message of hope and promise (Luke 3:15). They knew that John’s message was messianic. He stated that he was not the Messiah, but the Messiah’s servant and unworthy to even to stoop down to untie the Messiah’s sandals (Mark 1:7).

            Baptism in water for remission of sins was in preparation for what was to come, the “baptism with the Spirit,” which is the true internal identifying seal (Luke 3:16). The One who would give the Spirit is the true Messiah (John 1:20-34). This is significant. Any external sign could be duplicated by anyone seeking to pass themselves off as Messiah.[15] Miracle workers and sign givers were abundant before (and after) Pentecost. But the work which the Messiah would do in giving the Holy Spirit to believers could not be duplicated by men. Such a gift would identify the true Messiah and be a true identification of those who belong to Him.

            Notice the things that are said concerning the “baptism with the Spirit” as stated in the gospel accounts:

1. The Administer of the baptism is to be the Messiah. John the Baptist preached that the Messiah (The One on whom the Spirit remains -John 1:33) would baptize with the Holy Spirit. 
2. The “baptism with the Spirit” is for “you,” the “all” who were listening to the message of John. This included the multitude, the disciples, and even the unbelieving religious teachers. Jesus later declares that anyone who believes were to receive the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39). Here then is the “qualifying arena” for the reception of the Spirit: belief or faith. That is, only the believer is to receive the Spirit; the unbeliever is excluded from those receiving His indwelling. 

            The next passage to be considered contains the words of Jesus to the apostles in the Gospel of John, chapters 13-17. These words are to the twelve chosen disciples alone; Judas having already departed.

            In the conversation with the disciples Jesus promises two wonderful gifts. (a) His (and the Godheads) indwelling presence through the Holy Spirit (14:16-18; 20, 23). (b) The gift of inspiration and revelation (or a power) from the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13-15). The first is the “gift of the Holy Spirit,” the Holy Spirit as a person, and the other is one of the many “gifts from the Holy Spirit” that of the miraculous power of revelation and inspiration. The first (a) is the results of the “baptism in the Spirit.” The other (b) is the power which the Spirit gives. This is also the way it is stated in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8. “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you…” This is the “baptism with the Holy Spirit,” as Jesus said in Acts 1:4-5. “…but you are to stay in Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.” That is, the Spirit would give them power to witness (Acts 1:8), and miraculous power to confirm the word’s they speak (Mark 16:20), after they receive the indwelling seal of the Holy Spirit.

The Fulfillment of the “promise of the Father” as found in Acts Two

            There is a danger which we must first recognize - the danger of “reading back” into Acts from the Epistles, rather than “reading forward” from Acts to the Epistles. For example, the terms “fell on” and “filling” are being used in the text to describe the miraculous power given by the Spirit. This power is the evidence that the Spirit which was promised had been given (Acts 2:33). These are not terms to describe the giving of the Spirit, but the power given to the apostles. This is important. Remember that we have already determined that these expressions were used to describe the power the Holy Spirit gives and not the “baptism in the Spirit.” 

            “Poured out” is the expression used in the text and not ““baptism with the Spirit”.” The reason such a term is used is because it is from the perspective of heaven or God in heaven. It is Jesus who “poured out” the Spirit on “all flesh.” But from the perspective of mankind we received the “immersion” with the Spirit. To illustrate the point of what is being said, “poured out” and “immersion,” we can use a coin in a glass. If one put a coin in a glass and pours water over the coin, the coin would be immersed. From the perspective of the one dispensing the water on the coin, it would be a pouring. But from the perspective of the coin (if we allow the coin to have a perspective for this illustration) this would be an immersion or baptism. This is what happened in a similar way with the “baptism with the Spirit.” We are the in the world and Christ is “at the right hand of the Father.” From heaven, the perspective of Christ, the giving of the Spirit is viewed as the Spirit is “poured forth.” However, from our perspective it is an “immersion” or “baptized with the Spirit.”

            The phenomenon of Pentecost was spectacular. First, there was a loud sound, like the sound of a mighty, rushing wind, but only “like” it. This perhaps “tornado-like” sound seems to be that which drew the large crowd to the place where the apostles were gathered. The sound of their speaking in tongues was probably not that loud. There was also the sight of the fire-like tongues which divided themselves among those present in that room. This sight was surely seen by those present in the room. It is not so certain whether or not the spectators who were attracted there by the great sound saw it—but they may have (cf. verse 33).

            These two things were the external evidence that the Spirit had indeed been “poured out.” It was not what was poured out, but was a manifestation that a wonderful event had occurred. The next thing that happened is that the Holy Spirit “filled” the believers present in the upper room (though a case could be made that only the apostles received the filling). The most significant gift from the Spirit was the speaking in tongues. These “tongues” were languages, the native tongues of those who had gathered. No other gifts or manifestations are mentioned (2:6). This is, in my estimation, the first instance of “tongues” in the Bible. Baalam’s donkey might have been the first. I am not trying to be flippant with that statement. The tongue gift given to the donkey was the ability to communicate to a human in his known language. Only God’s Spirit could give such a gift.

Peter’s Explanation of Pentecost

            The question has been asked of Peter and the other apostles: “What does this mean?” (verse 12). Peter will now take his stand, along with the rest of the apostles, and give them the explanation of Pentecost, its meaning, and its implications. Peter quickly turned their attention to the prophecy of Joel and specifically to his words recorded in Joel 2: 28-32. The phenomenon of Pentecost was not the result of “spirits” (alcohol), but the Spirit. The prophet Joel foretold of the time when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all mankind. The Spirit of God had never been poured out in the Old Testament times. Here, the Spirit is for everyone, “all mankind” (Acts 2:17). Peter was thus claiming that what these Jews had witnessed was the outpouring of the Spirit which Joel foretold.

            In the next few verses Peter lays the charge against the people who put Christ to death on the cross, defends the resurrection and spells out its implications, and states that Christ is now at the “right hand of the Father” as the rightful heir of David’s throne. When David spoke of resurrection in this psalm, Peter pointed out, was not speaking of his own resurrection but of his Son’s resurrection. David’s tomb was still there, and it was occupied--with David! The empty tomb was that of Jesus. David was speaking of Jesus in Psalm 16, and the empty tomb was proof of that. The Old Testament taught both the necessity of the death of Messiah and of His resurrection.

            If prophecy was one line of evidence, pointing to the resurrection, Pentecost was another. Pentecost was not just a fulfillment of God’s promise, it was the pouring out of the Spirit as proof that Jesus had risen from the dead and was seated at the right hand of the Father. John the Baptist had said that Jesus would pour out the Spirit, that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit. And he was absolutely right! Having been raised from the dead, He was also ascended into heaven. The outpouring of the Spirit was from above, where Jesus is now seated, at the Father’s right hand. Thus, both prophecy and Pentecost were proof of Jesus’ resurrection and the fact that He was indeed both Lord (Jehovah) and Christ (the Anointed).

            No wonder Peter’s audience is cut to the heart (verse 37). They need no prompting, no persuasion, to ask what it is that they must do to be saved. The answer is short, but profound. They must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Jesus the Christ, the anointed One, the Messiah). If they did, here is the result: Their sins will be forgiven and they will be saved from God’s wrath. The second blessing after the removal of sin is that they will receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit which was poured out, the results of the “baptism with the Spirit.” Verse 39 is a further clarification of the promise made by God. “The promise” refers back to “the promise of the Holy Spirit” in 2:33. It was the “promise” that was “poured forth” by Jesus. The “promise” was for “all mankind” (“all flesh”) (2:17), or for “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” (2:21). The “promise” is the “promise of the Father,” a results of the “baptizing with the Holy Spirit” (1:4-5). It is that same promise seen in other passages in the New Testament (Acts 5:32; Galatians 3:14; Ephesians 1:13-14). 

            The significance of this promise cannot be minimized. The presence of God within the believer is the most important event of mankind. It was the fulfillment of all that Christ came to give: salvation and a permanent relationship with God. It is of such significance that Paul writes in Romans that anyone who does not have the Spirit is none of His (8:9).[16]

            The application for Peter’s audience was simple and straight-forward. The day of God’s judgment was near. These Israelites were guilty of rejecting Jesus of Nazareth, who had the testimony of God that He was Israel’s Messiah. They had crucified Him on the cross and were found guilt. If they repented and were baptized, they would be saved from God’s coming wrath, and better yet, they would enter into the promised kingdom. If they did not, judgment was imminent. 

Acts, chapter 10 concerning Cornelius

            The gospel message of salvation in Christ is proclaimed by Peter to the Gentile family (10:34-43). The same message of salvation preached on Pentecost is now being proclaimed to Cornelius and those gentiles present. While Peter was speaking (really at the beginning of the discourse) the Spirit “fell upon” the hearers (Acts 10:44). 

            As we discussed earlier, the expression “fell upon” does not referring to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, but to an endowment of power from the Spirit. In this instance the endowment of power is the gift of speaking in tongues. On other occasions it may be another power (prophesying, healing, miracles, etc.). In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit “fell upon” Ezekiel (11:4). On that occasion the particular gift from the Spirit allowed Ezekiel to prophesy in the name of the Lord.   If “fell upon” meant the baptizing with the Holy Spirit, then Ezekiel was baptized with the Spirit while the Israelites were in Babylonian Captivity. This is a position that no one is willing to take. Except possibly those who do not understand the meaning of baptizing with the Holy Spirit.

            The Jewish Christians and Peter were amazed. The reason for their amazement was because the gift of the Holy Spirit “had been poured out on the Gentiles also.” In Acts, chapter 2, when the Spirit was poured out on all flesh, Peter and the rest of the apostles mentally understood that the Spirit was given for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. At least Peter said that the “promise of the Father,” the “gift of the Spirit,” was for all who are baptized - including the Gentiles (all flesh). But it took a direct command from God to Cornelius (10:1-7), a vision from God to Peter (10:9-16), emissaries from Cornelius (10:5, 8, 17-18), a direct revelation from the Spirit (10:19-20), and a miraculous gift of tongues and prophecy from the Spirit to convince the Jewish believers and Peter that the Gentiles should be recipients of the “promise of the Father,” the indwelling of Spirit.

            Peter and the Jewish brethren are amazed because the “gift of the Holy Spirit,” the Holy Spirit as a person, the indwelling that God had promised, “had been poured out” - (Third person, singular, perfect, indicative, passive.) on the Gentiles as well as the Jews. 

            I believe it is necessary to understand just what is being said. However, if one just uses the English grammar to define the tenses of the verbs in the verse under scrutiny, one can get the proper sense of the passage. Yet at the same time, the Greek language is more precise and pointed. The perfect tense is the tense for “completed action” i.e., it indicates a completed action resulting in a state of being. Ray Summers, a biblical commentator says, “This is the Greek tense of ‘completed action,’ i.e., it indicates a completed action with a resulting state of being. The primary emphasis is on the resulting state of being. Involved in the Greek perfect are three ideas: an action in progress, it’s coming to a point of culmination, it’s existing as a completed result. Thus it implies a process but looks upon the process as having reached a consummation and existing as a completed state.”[17] James A Brooks and Cariton L. Winbery in their work on Syntax of New Testament Greek, state “The perfect tense expresses Perfective action. Perfective action involves a present state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state; the past action is a completed action. Therefore the perfect combines linear and punctiliar action.”[18]  To be more specific, this is a Consummative Perfect (usually translated with the auxiliary “has/have” plus the past tense). This use approaches the meaning of the aorist tense or a one time action/event. The punctiliar element is the more pronounced. The emphasis is on the past, completed action. [19] A similar definition is give by Dana and Mantey.[20]

            All the above is saying that at one point in time the Holy Spirit was poured out. It was a completed, never to be repeated act. The result of that one time act was that not only the Jew, but also the Gentile, have/has received the Holy Spirit - at that one point in time. When was that time? It was the Day of Pentecost. Salvation through the gift of the Spirit was for all mankind. Salvation and the indwelling of the Spirit happen at the same time. One cannot be saved without the Spirit – Romans 8:9. Therefore, to receive the results of the “poured out” Spirit, both Jew and Gentile needed to do the same thing: believe, repent, and be baptized (Acts 2:38; 5:32). This is an act of faith to receive the promise (Galatians 3:14) of the Spirit from God.

            I am in disagreement with James Dunn for he states that there are many “baptisms with the Holy Spirit.” He states, “To talk of becoming members of the Spirit-baptized Church as a means of maintaining that there was only one Baptism in the Spirit is a hopeless device. It was not a structure or institution which was baptized in the Spirit at Pentecost, but people, and others became (spiritually) one with that group only by themselves being baptized in Spirit (Acts 11.16; 1Cor. 12.13).”[21] He misses the point of the purpose of the “baptism with the Spirit.” The “baptism” was to make the indwelling possible. Certainly it was upon “people,” but the people make up the body of Christ, the Church. If it is the indwelling, then both can and are inhabited by the presence of God. He also makes the mistake of believing that the baptism is the work of the Spirit; thus the term Spirit-baptism. Nor does he take into consideration the tense of the verbs being used to describe the “poured out” Spirit and the “baptism with/in the Holy Spirit.” 

            There are several passages which are related to “had been poured out” in Acts 10. The Hebrew writer, in speaking of the shedding of the blood of Christ, says, “so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,” emphasizes the one event in the past that was for every person (Hebrews 9:28). Again, “by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. … But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. … For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14). These passages, along with others, simply state that Christ died and made one sacrifice for sin. Here is the point, even though it was one sacrifice, Christ’s blood still continues to cleanse one from sin (1Jno 1:7). This continued action of cleansing no “believer” will deny. 

            In like manner, the Holy Spirit was given through/by Jesus only one time, but with continuing results. Paul writes in Titus 3:6 “…by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior…” It is “…the gift of the Holy Spirit” Who had been poured out for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. This “pouring out” of the Spirit was a one-time-never-to-be-repeated event which happened on Pentecost. This is graphed out in the following table:

One must go back to Act 2 to pinpoint the time when the Spirit was “poured out” (Acts 2:1-2; 2:33). What happened on Pentecost, the “pouring out of the Spirit,” or the “baptizing with the Spirit,” was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. (Note the contrast is not the apostles and this household, but the Gentiles and the Jews.) This is the argument that was made in Acts 15 when Peter defended what had happened (15:6-11.)

            The giving of the gift of tongues was to witness or convince the Jewish believers (and those later) that salvation and the indwelling are for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Tongues are a gift separate and apart from the indwelling of the Spirit.

            Peter, being convinced, turns to those with him and says, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we” (10:47). Note also that Peter includes these Jewish brethren in the “we.” The argument by those insisting that baptism is not essential rests on this passage. If the Gentiles “have received the Holy Spirit just as we did” then they were Christians before baptism. That particular point would be contrary to other passages of Scripture. However, is this what happened?   Here are some questions that need to be considered.

Did the six Jewish believers and the apostles receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Yes, on the Day of Pentecost when He was “poured out” for all mankind.  

Did Cornelius and his household receive the gift of the Spirit on their acceptance of what Peter preached, the gospel of Christ? It does not seem so. What Cornelius and his household received were gifts from the Spirit, the speaking in tongues and the ability to prophesy. The Spirit’s falling upon them was “while he [Peter] was speaking.” These gifts from the Spirit do not need to come or to be included with the indwelling.

So when did Cornelius and his household receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? The same day that all flesh received the Holy Spirit, on the day it was “poured out.” Just as the gifts were signs to those on Pentecost that the Holy Spirit had been given; so also these miraculous gifts given to Cornelius were to confirm to the Jewish believers that the Gentiles were to be included in the “all flesh” who were baptized with the Spirit by Christ at that particular time, on that particular day. It never happened again. However, because of that event of the “pouring out” or the “baptism with” the Spirit, then the Gentiles, Cornelius and his household, could be recipients of salvation and the indwelling. 

            Peter then ordered Cornelius and his household to be baptized in water (10:48). This baptism was for the remission of sins and to receive the “promise” of the Spirit to indwell (Acts 2:38-39; 5:32; Ep 1:13-14). They could not stand in God’s way; the Gentiles were to be saved as well as the Jews.

The sequence of this conversion might be outlined as follows:

1. The Holy Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. This promise was the Holy Spirit for all flesh which would include the Jews and the Gentiles. 
2. Those who heard Peter’s sermon repented and were baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit (indwelling). (cf. Acts 2:37-41)
3. Peter resists taking the gospel to the Gentiles and God has to convince him to do so by visions, dreams, and sending men from the Gentiles to summons him. 
4. There is further confirmation of the Gentiles when the Spirit gives Cornelius and his household the gift of prophecy and tongues.
5. Cornelius and his household are commanded to be baptized.
6. On being baptized Cornelius and those hearing the message receive the indwelling of the Spirit. What they potentially received at Pentecost was realized and received when they were baptized.

The Discussion in Act, chapter 11      

            In Acts 11:1-18 Peter reports to the church in Jerusalem what had taken place among the Gentiles; and he does so in an orderly sequence (11:4). Our focus is specifically the statements in 11:15-18.

            The Holy Spirit fell upon them (Cornelius and his household) just as he did upon us (apostles) at the beginning (Pentecost). This would have been understood by those of the Jerusalem church, for they had been there “at the beginning” and had “seen and heard” the apostles speaking in tongues. They had also observed the baptism of the three thousand Jews. 

            Peter says that the Holy Spirit “fell upon” Cornelius which is a term meaning the giving of a gift from the Spirit. In this case, tongues. What they had witnessed was the “promise of the Father” had been poured out for all mankind. The tongues spoken by the apostles were audible and visual evidence of that fact.

            Peter then remembers the “promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4-5), which Jesus said was the baptism with the Holy Spirit (11:16). The “baptism with the Spirit” was the making of the Spirit’s indwelling available to all mankind and had little, if anything, to do with miraculous gifts. 

            If God gave to them, the Gentiles, the same gift, the Spirit, as He gave to us, the Jews, after believing, then salvation has come to all men. Just as the blood of Christ was shed for all men, so the Spirit was given for all men. But both of these gifts were only given potentially. One must have faith and be baptized to receive the gifts: forgiveness and life. The Gentiles only received the indwelling Spirit after they believed. The gift of tongues was only a sign to these Jewish Christians that the Gentiles were also to be included in salvation. Therefore they were not saved when the Spirit “fell upon” them for that was only a gift or miracle of tongues. It took something else. 

            How could Peter withstand God? How could he stand in God’s way? He could not stand in God’s way by stopping the speaking in tongues. That was a direct gift from the Spirit of which Peter has no part. It was not the “baptism with the Spirit” that took place at Pentecost and was a matter of fulfilled promise. Jesus did that, and Peter had no part in that event either. Besides, Peter was just remembering what had taken place at Pentecost and it finally soaked in that the Spirit was given for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The tongues caused him to remember.

            In this case, the only way that Peter could withstand God would be to withhold the message of the gospel from them. It was for this reason that Peter was sent to Cornelius (11:12-14). It would have been a direct violation of a command, vision, and sign from God for him not to have accepted the Gentiles. It would be opposing God!

            What are the conclusions we draw from the above? The Hebrew Christians had limited their preaching to only the “house of Israel.” The meaning and message of Pentecost, that salvation and the Spirit were to be given to “all flesh” (2:17 and 2:38-41), was not being understood by the newly formed body of believers. Therefore the gospel presentation was limited to only those of Hebrew descent. God had to intervene by sending a vision to Cornelius, a vision to Peter, sending men to get Peter, a direct command and revelation to both Peter and Cornelius, and finally Peter proclaims the message of salvation to the Gentiles. The tongues came just as Peter began to speak, confirming that he was doing the right thing. Therefore, Peter could not stand in the way of God and commands the Gentiles to be baptized. They were baptized in water to receive the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Spirit. Faith, repentance, and baptism are the prerequisites of salvation in Christ. This was not another “baptism with the Spirit”, but it was a reminder to the Jewish saints that the Gentiles were to be included in the wonderful salvation through Christ. Cornelius and his household were not saved until they heard the message and were baptized in water.

CONCLUSION

            The event in Acts, chapter 10 is not another “baptism with the Spirit”. The “baptism with the Spirit” took place only one time for all mankind, and that was at Pentecost. The Gentiles at that time received exactly what the Jews received, “the promise of the Holy Spirit” to indwell the believer. The “baptism with the Spirit” was the giving of the Spirit by Jesus after His ascension. It is a wonderful blessing given to us by Christ. 

            After the day of Pentecost, salvation of both Jew and the Gentile are the same. It has never changed. There is no distinction. Faith, repentance and baptism are to receive the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the indwelling Spirit. It is not until this happens that God says He will save. There is no subsequent baptism with the Spirit or no baptism in water after the Spirit has already entered into the believer to indwell. 

WORKS CITED

Bennema, Cornelis. "Spirit-Baptism in the Fourth Gospel. A Messianic Reading of John 1,33." Biblica 84 (2003) 35-60.

Brooks, James A and Winbery, Cariton L.. Syntax of New Testament Greek. University Press of America, Inc.: Lanham, MD, 1979.

Bruner, Fredrick D.. A Theology of the Holy Spirit, The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977.

Camp, Franklin. The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption. Roberts & Son Publication: Birmingham, Alabama, 1974.

Dana, H.E. and Mantey Julius R.. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 2d., ed.. MacMillan Company: Toronto, Ontario, 1957.

Dunn, James D. G.. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching. John Knox Press: Westminster, 1977.

Kasper, Walter. "Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of Baptism," The Ecumenical Review 52.4 (2000): Questia, 27 Sept. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001167388>.

Laetsch, Theodore. Bible Commentary, The Minor PropheT. Concordia Publishing House: Saint Louis, Mo., 2d.. 1965.

Nichols, Gus. Lectures on the Holy Spirit. Nichols Brothers Publishing Company: Waxahachie, Texas, 1967.

Summers, Ray. Essentials of New Testament Greek. Broadman Press: Nashville, Tn, 1950.

Torrey, R. A.. The Holy Spirit, Who He Is and What He Does.  Fleming H. Revell Company: United States, MCMXXVII.

Van Iersel, B. M. F.. "He will Baptize you with Holy Spirit (Mark 1,8): The time perspective of bapti/sei", Text and Testimony. Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A.F.J. Klijn eds. T. BAARDA et al.. Kampen, 1988.

Wallace Jr., Foy E.. The Mission and Medium of The Holy Spirit. Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, Noble Patterson, Publisher: Fort Worth, Texas, 1967.