In recent months I’ve become very good friends with the book of Acts, for a variety of reasons. I am a dyed-in-the-wool, more-dogmatic-than-diplomatic evangelical Christian of Chinese descent sympathetic to the Sydney Anglican style of doing things, and would shudder at being labelled “charismatic” or “Pentecostal” with the stigma implied therein.
That being said, now I’m friends with Acts I’m not scared of the book at all.. .. ..let me share some findings, bit by bit, about the Holy Spirit, His work, involvement and focus as recorded in Acts.
All provided chapter:verse references are only from Acts.
1. The Spirit is involved with words.
He spoke Scripture (e.g. 1:16 and 2:17-18, also 4:25 and 28:25); through the Spirit Jesus gave instructions to the apostles (1:2); the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak God’s Word boldly (Peter’s first talk in 2:14-40, all in 4:31, Stephen from 6:10 through to his death after 7:55); He spoke through Agabus the prophet to predict what would happen so that the Christians might appropriately respond (11:27-28 and 21:11); by the Spirit, Paul rebukes a sorcerer (13:9-11); through Him the disciples of Tyre urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem (21:4).
All in all, 13 references to the Spirit working through words.
This to me becomes even more interesting when you compare it to how many times prophesying and speaking in tongues are mentioned - I couldn’t find any more than 3:
(i) at Pentecost the Spirit fills the believers - apostles? - giving them the ability to speak in tongues that all visitors to Jerusalem understand (2:4-11)
(ii) the God-fearing uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius, and all his household too, receive the same ability through being filled with the Spirit (10:44-47)
(iii) disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus also speak in tongues and prophesy when the Spirit comes on them (19:6).
So far, 3 times only where prophesying/speaking in tongues is recorded, compared to 13 times where the Word of God is spoken. So I guess that maybe having the gift of tongues or prophecy may not be quite as necessary as speaking God’s word.
Something else I noticed:
In their preaching as recorded for us in Acts, neither Peter, nor Stephen, nor Paul, emphasised the Spirit above all else.
Peter mentions Him only 3 times in his Pentecost speech (2:17-18, 2:33 and 2:38), and only once in subsequent speeches - each to mainly Jewish listeners (4:8, 11:12, 15:8) with the exception of Cornelius’ household of Gentiles (10:38).
Stephen makes just one reference to the Spirit when speaking to the Sanhedrin at trial (7:51).
Paul talks of the Spirit to the Ephesian church elders during his farewell speech in chapter 20 (3 times - v22, v23 and v28) - and to Roman Jews (28:25).
But Paul’s not recorded as emphasising the Spirit in any of the following places - not in Pisidian Antioch (13:16-41), nor in Lystra (14:15-17), nor Athens (17:22-31), nor Jerusalem (22:1-21) - AND not to Felix (24:10-21), nor before Agrippa (26:2-29).
In the letter to the believers at Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, the Spirit is referred to only once (15:28).
Seems like there isn’t a lot of preaching centred on the Holy Spirit. There’s a lot more pointing to Jesus.
That’s all I can get through tonight. Comments and corrections for inaccuracies welcome. (Hopefully I didn’t get too many Bible-passage addresses wrong!)
In recent months I’ve become very good friends with the book of Acts, for a variety of reasons.......
Seems like there isn’t a lot of preaching centred on the Holy Spirit. There’s a lot more pointing to Jesus.
Tia Z.
Hi Tia,
Thank you for your review through Acts - it’s a great book indeed.
In 1 Corinthians 1: 23 Paul declares:
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
Regarding the date of 1 Corinthians :
Time and place :
The epistle was written from Ephesus (16:8). According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:10-17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD.
Just before I read Tia’s post , I saw this on the “Protestant beliefs- Catholic beliefs” thread :
There is no foundation for the claim of the Roman Church that Peter was Bishop of Rome for twenty five years, from 42 to 67 AD. Had Peter been there before 61 AD, Paul would have mentioned him in the letters he wrote from that city prior to that date.
Thanks to Tia’s post, this got me thinking that if Peter was the ‘Bishop of Rome’ at that time, why would Paul NOT have mentioned it somewhere in his many letters - unless it wasn’t so. ( That’s an aside to Tia’s question - but is also an example of how cross-pollination of threads can add to our thinking. )
The spirit comes in four stages, to the Jews in ch 2, the Samaritans in ch 8 (you seem to have missed this one), the gentiles in ch 10 and the time warp people in ch 19. It seems to be accompanied by great miracles and gifts each time, though tongues isn’t specifically mentioned with the Samaritans.
In recent months I’ve become very good friends with the book of Acts, for a variety of reasons.
Hi Tia. I can’t imagine any Christian not being amazed by the story in Acts - where Luke describes how the Christian faith began, starting with those first few disciples filled with the Holy Spirit, and how they endured persecution and death for Jesus and his promised Kingdom.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool, more-dogmatic-than-diplomatic evangelical Christian of Chinese descent sympathetic to the Sydney Anglican style of doing things, and would shudder at being labelled “charismatic” or “Pentecostal” with the stigma implied therein.
It’s helpful to acknowledge the world-view through which we interpret scripture. (This isn’t to say that truth is relative, but it does help us avoid dogmatism.) I’d describe myself as being loosely aligned with the Reformed tradition of Protestantism (and Sydney Anglican simply by place of worship). I’d also say I lean towards charismatic theology (perhaps in the Gordon Fee mould) but not in the sense of believing that speaking in tongues etc should be common let alone normative, nor do I believe that miraculous events are common.
In their preaching as recorded for us in Acts, neither Peter, nor Stephen, nor Paul, emphasised the Spirit above all else.
Am I to understand from this comment that you think that Charismatics or Pentecostals do emphasise the Spirit above all else? (It’s been a very long time since I’ve been in a Charismatic or Pentecostal church but I’d be somewhat surprised if they did believe this.)
Seems like there isn’t a lot of preaching centred on the Holy Spirit. There’s a lot more pointing to Jesus.
I guess it’s a question of balance but all orthodox Christians believe in the trinitarian Godhead. Acts 8:14-17 seems an interesting passage in this context (and happened to be one of our readings in church today). Please don’t think I’m trying to be argumentative, but I’m simply trying to present another perspective.
The spirit comes in four stages, to the Jews in ch 2
Hi Dannii. Forgive me for being somewhat pedantic but the Spirit was present from the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2). Also, in Acts the Spirit was mentioned before Ch 2 - ie prior to Pentecost the Spirit was instructing the apostles (Acts 1:2).
Holy Spirit also in Acts 16:6-10 where Paul et al are ‘kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia...tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.....During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.’....we got ready at once ...concluding God had called us to preach the gospel to them.’
I always assumed the Holy Spirit was also the agent of the vision.
Hi Dannii. Forgive me for being somewhat pedantic but the Spirit was present from the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2). Also, in Acts the Spirit was mentioned before Ch 2 - ie prior to Pentecost the Spirit was instructing the apostles (Acts 1:2).
Sorry, I meant the spirit came to dwell in humans in four stages…
Sorry, I meant the spirit came to dwell in humans in four stages…
Hi again Dannii. The Spirit was active and indwelling in some OT Jews pretty much from the beginning (Ex 31:1-3; Deut 34:9; Micah 3:8; Psalm 51:11). The way I understand Pentecost is that the Spirit was no longer limited to prophets and some leaders of national Israel, but from Pentecost he was indwelling in all believers.
Yes that’s correct, but probably the bigger distinction is that the spirit dwells permanently in believers. Before Pentecost a person could be filled with the spirit temporarily for a specific task - the spirit might visit a human, but his dwelling place was with the father. But now the spirit’s dwelling is the church.
Incidentally, I think those lovely Christian songs based on Ps 51:11 are completely wrong for this reason.
Yes that’s correct, but probably the bigger distinction is that the spirit dwells permanently in believers. Before Pentecost a person could be filled with the spirit temporarily for a specific task - the spirit might visit a human, but his dwelling place was with the father. But now the spirit’s dwelling is the church.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that though I’ll admit that I haven’t given this a lot of thought. All faithful OT Jews must have had the Spirit otherwise they wouldn’t have remained faithful. To me the differences between pre and post Pentecost appear to be more to do with quantity in the sense that post Pentecost the Spirit is lavishly poured out on believers to the point that we’re all equipped to be priestly representatives of God.
Great to see people’s responses in the last 12 hours.
Dannii Willis - 06 October 2008 12:06 AM
the Samaritans in ch 8 (you seem to have missed this one)
Hah! Knew I’d miss one, it was only a matter of time! Thanks Dannii for picking up on it.
Roslyn Gai Burgess - 06 October 2008 01:01 AM
Holy Spirit also in Acts 16:6-10 where Paul et al are ‘kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia...tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.....During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.’....we got ready at once ...concluding God had called us to preach the gospel to them.’
That brings me to the 2nd major thing I noticed:
2. The Spirit often actively or directly guides the early Christians into knowing what He wants for them - and especially into situations where unreached peoples hear about Jesus.
For example.. .. ..
~ Philip is directed by the Spirit to a certain chariot where a certain Ethiopian just happens to be reading Isaiah 53 (8:29) and is ready to receive the gospel preached by Philip; after this incident the Spirit then takes Philip to Azotus for more preaching all the way to Caesarea (8:39-40).
~ Peter is sent by Him to Cornelius (10:19) - moreover, the Spirit indicated that Peter was to have “no hesitation” (11:12, NIV) in going with them (rendered “making no distinction” in ESV) - and as Peter preaches the gospel to them, Cornelius & Co. believe.
~ The Spirit makes clear who shall be set aside for His work at certain times (Paul & Barnabas, 13:2) and sends them on their way (13:4).
~ He makes the believers aware of what seems good to Him (15:28).
~ He decides where the Word will be preached {or, in the case of 16:6 and 16:7 (thanks Roslyn!), where it will not, for whatever reason - instead of Bithynia and Asia, the Word goes to Macedonia incl. Philippi, and the rest is history - see Acts 16:6-34}.
~ The Spirit compels (constrains, ESV) Paul to Jerusalem from Miletus (20:22) and warns him of the suffering he must expect (20:23) - on the plus side, going to Jerusalem meant that Paul ended up testifying to the gospel of grace to (a)the Jewish crowd, (b)Felix, (c)Agrippa and Festus, and (d)those in Rome.
~ Paul acknowledges the Spirit as the One by whom the Ephesian elders were made overseers of the flock (20:28).
Therefore in Acts are recorded for us more than 11 instances of the Spirit directly influencing what the early Christians should be doing or where they ought to go.
Acts 8:14-17 seems an interesting passage in this context (and happened to be one of our readings in church today). Please don’t think I’m trying to be argumentative, but I’m simply trying to present another perspective.
I guess it depends on the conclusions drawn about that portion of Scripture, and how those conclusions were drawn. We have the chapter 8 passage
(14)when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
(15)who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
(16)for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(17)Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
and also in 19:1-7 when Paul meets 12 of John the Baptist’s disciples
(1)Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
(2)And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
(3)And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
(4)And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
(5)On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(6)And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
(7)There were about twelve men in all.
In ch.8, Peter & John are sent by the other apostles to Samaria - where Philip had preached the Word after Stephen’s death and Saul’s persecution-scattering.
Philip was not one of the apostles - like Stephen, he was a Hellenistic Jew (ie. of Greek descent). Both Philip and Stephen had been among the 7 men appointed by the Twelve (ie. apostles, see 6:1-6) to help manage food distribution (among other things, I’m sure) in the growing church of Greek and Hebraic Jewish Christians.
Seems like Philip took the Word to Samaria, and Peter and John the apostles in following up were able to see that the Spirit came on Samaritan believers just the same as it had done for Jewish ones at Pentecost. The “no distinction” thing emphasised - again. And as apostles, Peter and John would have taken this news of what they saw & heard in Samaria back to the other 10 apostles still in Jerusalem (you can see in 8:25 that they returned there).
Then we have the ch.19 account. I thought this was quite intriguing.
Paul - the 13th apostlle - meets some disciples of John the Baptist. Paul, not being of the Twelve, may not have personally encountered John the Baptist before - definitely not in the way that Andrew the brother of Simon Peter would have done (Andrew had followed John the Baptist but joined Jesus when John the Baptist identified him as the Lamb of God - see John 1:35-41).
All right, let me drag myself back out of context and refocus. So Paul has met these people in Ephesus, and they had been baptised by John (this was before Jesus took over preaching the Kingdom - after his cousin’s imprisonment by Herod). They knew only John’s baptism of repentance, so Paul filled their knowledge gaps about the One who was after John - ie. the Lord Jesus.
In what happened to these Ephesian disciples who’d followed John the Baptist, what he had said about himself and about Jesus was proven to be fulfilled:
As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ,
(16) John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
(17)His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
(18)So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people.
This was a unique event, and as such, I’m actually not convinced that we can equate this experience as noted in ch.19 to our personal experience of the Spirit in light of available Scripture, since we weren’t following John the Baptist in the pre-Jesus days the way these Ephesians were. (As in, we can’t say, “Oh, the Spirit happened that way for those 12 Ephesians, so it’s got to be exactly the same experience for us.")
John had previously baptised these Ephesians with water. Then through Paul, Jesus’ 13th apostle, came the news of Jesus who had baptised with the Spirit and with fire, at Pentecost, to Jews, Samaritans, Cornelius and the Gentiles - just as John himself had foretold Jesus would. To verify Paul’s words to the Ephesians at that time, the Spirit came to them as they were baptised in the name of Jesus.
And I never reflected on that before, so I’m marvelling. I love seeing fulfilment of OT and JtB prophecy!!
Acts 8:14-17 seems an interesting passage in this context.
I guess it depends on the conclusions drawn about that portion of Scripture, and how those conclusions were drawn.
...
Hi again Tia. My point was that there needs to be balance in our preaching and that a proper understanding of the role of the Spirit is essential for a healthy (and presumably lasting) faith as illustrated by those verses. I’m not sure from your following comments if you were agreeing or disagreeing with that point (or perhaps I wasn’t clear in making it). Anyhow, while Charismatics tend to over emphasise the role of the Spirit, we need to make sure we don’t react by under emphasising the Spirit which is something I think our diocese tends to do (and was one of the observations Mark Driscoll made about us recently too).
a proper understanding of the role of the Spirit is essential for a healthy (and presumably lasting) faith as illustrated by those verses.. ..
.. ..we need to make sure we don’t react by under emphasising the Spirit which is something I think our diocese tends to do (and was one of the observations Mark Driscoll made about us recently too).
I am in complete agreement there - which is why I’ve been sharing my findings. If I were under-emphasising the Spirit I wouldn’t have started this discussion thread at all!
At the same time, as you’ve put it, a “proper” understanding is the key. My concern for my church (a 15-35 age range evening congregation of mainly Chinese-background believers) is that most people 2 or more years my junior (that’s basically anybody between 15 and 29, seeing that I’m age 31) have little or no understanding of Scripture about the Holy Spirit at all. Or how to read & apply the Scriptures they do know of. Not that I’m an expert - never even been to Bible college!! (Not as a student, anyway - though I’ve happily gate-crashed lectures on the Spirit & on penal substitutionary atonement before!)
As for the Sydney Anglican diocese, well, Peter Jensen has spoken on the Holy Spirit in Moore lectures (one which I gate-crashed as a non-Moore student back in ‘04) and in a series of 3 night talks back in February this year.
Apart from that, it’s true there ain’t a lot of emphasis on it. Yet. From time to time, in their Bible talks, if the Spirit gets a mention in the Bible text they’re using, they seem always able to expound on it. In wider evangelical circles it’s also done - I understand the 2004 Katoomba Easter Convention covered the topic of the Holy Spirit over their weekend of talks.
The diocese may be behind the times as far as Driscoll is concerned, but compared to my evening Chinese church in its current format.. .. ..
Evening meeting at my church hasn’t had anyone speak in detail on the Holy Spirit in quite a number of years. That worries me a bit. If my young people don’t know what’s Biblically true of the Spirit, how will they discern that truth from falsehood?
Now, to think of how I’ll broach that with my pastor. .. ..or I could wave it at Derek Cheng, who could then wave it before the pastor on my behalf.. .. ..please note that old-covenant sacrificial language I just used was purely coincidental..!!
I am in complete agreement there - which is why I’ve been sharing my findings. If I were under-emphasising the Spirit I wouldn’t have started this discussion thread at all!
OK. Evidently I misunderstood your original post. Somehow I got the impression that you thought that the Spirit didn’t feature too prominently in the preaching of the apostles (and Stephen) in Acts. I thought that you were making a defence of “Spirit Lite” rather than “Spirit Regular” :).
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that though I’ll admit that I haven’t given this a lot of thought. All faithful OT Jews must have had the Spirit otherwise they wouldn’t have remained faithful. To me the differences between pre and post Pentecost appear to be more to do with quantity in the sense that post Pentecost the Spirit is lavishly poured out on believers to the point that we’re all equipped to be priestly representatives of God.
Angus, this sounds reasonable, but it is not supported by the Scriptures. God was present with his people through the Holy of Holies, not individually, except where his Spirit came on his prophets & some leaders. (Some references to consider… Exodus 31:3, Numbers 11:17, 1 Sam 10:6, Ezekiel 36:27, Joel 2:29) One of the unique features of the new covenant was the presence of the Holy Spirit with all God’s people, so that each one became a temple of God, even as we were being living stones built in the temple of God (individual (eg 1 Cor 6:19) and communal (eg 1 Cor 3:16-17) use of that image).
The Old Testament sees God’s presence as mainly being in the Tabernacle or temple (eg Lev 9:24, 1 Sam 2:21, with occasionally found elsewhere (like on Mt Sinai in Ex 33:14ff)
If you want to read something I have written see here and look at the pdf named The Holy Spirit in the Bible Studies section.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
