Sunday, September 19, 2010

The Plunge Part II: A Look At Acts

Much of modern theology and doctrine is built upon the Acts of the Apostles and it is used as a major underpinning of current and popular doctrines within the modern church. Many groups today operate under the premise that Christendom lost its way early in the second century and God has been trying to get us back on track from that time until now. Some groups that hold to this ‘Restoration’ position claim that God is in the process of restoring His church back to its original form and power as it was in the beginning – and even more so presently because as they refer to it, it is the time of the Latter Rain (this references the book of Joel).

The point being is that the Acts of the Apostles is used widely to set such doctrines as the baptism of the Holy Spirit (in the Pentecostal sense –an emphasis on spiritual gifts being manifested), forms of church government, ‘accurate’ forms and patterns for Holy Spirit baptism and lastly, water baptism. Because the latter is the focus of this series, the Acts of the Apostles will be studied in order to get a proper and objective position on the forms and patterns of water baptism as they are illustrated in Acts. Here is where we will begin.

Water Baptism: A Statistical Perspective.

It is very easy to get subjective when it comes to the subject of Water Baptism. What might help is to observe, tally and group the scriptures in the Acts regarding this subject.
The following is an objective analysis of the scriptures in a very topical fashion.

Before looking at the chart, there are a few details of the chart below that you need to know. First, the order of events is noted by the sequence of numbers provided:

The number 1 – denotes the presence of repentance or faith being exercised.
The number 2 - denotes the presence of water baptism.
The number 3 – denotes the presence of the Holy Spirit in the sense of spiritual manifestations being present. (tongues, prophecy, healings, etc)

An Example: Let’s use Acts 2:27-28 in the below table. For this scripture, the ‘order of events’ column below, shows the sequence: 1,2,3. This means that repentance was observed first (1), secondly, Water baptism was then observed (2) and then Spirit baptism in the sense of the Holy Spirit ‘falling’ on the particular subjects (3). Lastly, if a ‘0’ is present in a position (e.g. 1,2,0), then this indicates there was no mention of the Event. For example, taking the Ethiopian Eunuch, there is recorded a 1,2,0. This means that repentance came first then water baptism but there was no evidence of spirit baptism explicitly noted in the text.

Also, the following superscripts are provided so that additional information where present can be noted.
ǂ - denotes the baptismal formula of ‘in Jesus’ name’, ‘in the name of Jesus’, ‘on the name of Jesus’
∞ - denotes the presence of chrismata accompanying the event with the manifestation of glossolalia and/or prophecy.

Name/Group

Scripture Ref.

Name of Jesus

Invoked

Spirit Baptism

Noted

Order of Events - 1> Faith/Repentance, 2> Water Baptism

3> Spirit Baptism. A value of 0 denotes absence

2000 Converts

Acts 2:27-38

Y

Y

1,2ǂ,3

Adding Daily

Acts 2:47

N/A

N/A

0,0,0

Multitudes

Acts 5:14

N/A

N/A

0,0,0

Samaritans

Acts 8

Y

Y

1,2ǂ,3

Ethiopian Eunuch

Acts 8:30-39

N

N

1,2,0

Paul

Acts 9:1-19

N

Y

1,3,2

Cornelius and His company

Act 10:19-44

Y

Y

1,3,2ǂ

Proconsul

Acts 13:12

N

N

1,0,0

Gentiles in Perga

Acts 13:48-49

N

N

1,0,0

People of Iconium

Acts 14:21

N

N`

0,0,0

Lydia at Philippi

Acts 16:14-15

N

N

1,2,0

Jailer at Philippi

Acts 16:30-34

N

N

1,2,0

Synogogue at Thessalonica

Acts 17:11-12

N

N

1,0,0

People at Mars Hill

Acts 17:34

N

N

1,0,0

Crispus and the Corinthians

Acts 18:7-8

N

N

1,2,0

Apollos

Acts 18:24-28

N

N

1,0,0

John’s Disciples @ Ephesus

Acts 19:1-7

Y

Y

1,2ǂ,3

Believers @ Ephesus

Acts 19:18

N

N

1,0,0



Tallying the Results:

Number of Accounts: 18
% where there is no information: 16%
% where there is faith or belief recorded: 83%
% where baptism is noted but no formula: 28%
% where baptism is noted and formula present: 22%
% where Spirit baptism with accompanying chrismata present: 18%

The findings while somewhat cryptic, do offer a global perspective. What is very remarkable is not what is there, but what is not there. Only a minority of the conversion accounts have detail associated with them. Does this mean it was not important? That we cannot say with any degree of objectivity. What can be said is there is much latitude for determining what is essential and what is not. This is the cold hard fact of it. What can we say about the detail accounts? Why was information provided for those and not others? We cannot leave that to chance. It must be concluded that the detailed accounts are there for very important reasons. Yet, within them, when compared, there is no consistent pattern in the operation of the Spirit of God on those that responded to the gospel being preached. This very fact proves the description of the ministry of the Holy Spirit that Jesus describes in the gospel of John chapter three – i.e. the Holy Spirit will move as He sees fit and will not be limited to any method or pattern. In essence while we all know God is a God of order, we border on presumption when we believe we know exactly what that order fully is. If anything the Acts of the Apostles illustrate it is that the Apostles did not know. Of the detailed accounts, what is common about them? There are four commonalities:

1> Where detailed accounts are recorded, those who responded were either Jewish or were followers in some fashion of the God of Israel and so followers of Judaism or a variant.
2> Water baptism was ordered or commanded.
3> The name of Jesus was invoked over them in the baptismal pool.
4> Manifestations of the Spirit were in the final analysis present.

These are very significant and appear are the only commonalities among the diverse groups that responded to the gospel especially where detailed accounts are provided. However, exactly how these groups responded to the message and the Spirit’s ministry to them has no clear identifiable order or pattern. Now in the four commonalities above, what can we say is perhaps the ‘glue’ that holds them together? Invariably, it is the reference to Judaism. Each had a degree of experience with the Jewish religion – some more than others, but this is the main joining fact. As such, what is the importance of this fact? In its essence this reality explains a significant part in the role of water baptism, the name of Jesus and even the Spirit’s manifestations that have been recorded in the detailed accounts. Let’s take the commonalities in order:

1> All were Jewish or were followers in some fashion of Judaism. To take them in turn, the Samaritans were at enmity with the Jew over who practiced the true form of worshiping the Lord God. Secondly, Cornelius was well thought of as a believer by the local synagogue and as it is stated he was a prominent man in their eyes. There is little doubt he had embraced the Jewish faith and perhaps was even a proselyte although this is not completely clear from the text. Third, The disciples of John. These were at least at one time practicing Jews although their knowledge of exactly what John preached and what they believed about it are sketchy from what is recorded – all cases are to be explored in their own section below. Why is this important? Because of the fact that ritual cleansings were a part and parcel to their way of life and they more than likely understood the implications of water baptism as far as perhaps their future life (both Jews and proselytes) and service to God.
2> Water baptism was ordered or commanded – Given the above, this is no surprise at all. It resonates from the baptism of John and is consistent with Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus. In the time/space of the Acts of the Apostles, the Jewish religion had to be repudiated in the life of the Jew, proselyte or practicing person who became a believer in Jesus. From the prior post, it is understood that this act itself was to fall from an old life and rise to a new one. This conceptually was very familiar with the society surrounding Jewish culture and its religion at that time. This is the main reason why baptism was ordered by the Apostles of those in the detailed accounts. It was to ensure their obedience to the gospel that had been preached by them and a witness of their reception of Jesus as Messiah. A Jew that did not believe would not be baptized because the cost of following Christ was extremely high for the practicing Jew at that time: it could even cost them their lives and often did.

3> The name of Jesus was invoked. Personally, I think too much is made of this and in the light of the text, and the context of each passage, this is made clear. From the last post, Beaseley-Murray is quoted that the ‘in the name of’ phrase as used in Jewish culture was to set the person in the role in which they were being prepared for in their life from that point forward. The example he gives is a person that is baptized in the name of slavery. This was to set forth in their baptism what they had become: a slave. In this context of usage, the Jew was submitting to the Leadership of Christ, it was their preparation for service to the Lord. This is the accurate context and I believe personally, the reason why the name of Jesus was invoked. It was not for the authority of the name of Jesus in a sacredotal sense but to orient the Jewish believer into a life of service to His Lord as their Messiah (and ours). To the believing Jew of that time this would have made perfect sense and they would have had complete understanding of what they were doing. This is minimally what can be gleaned. Anything else that we would spiritually attach here to water baptism has little foundation and exegetical support. In the context of this explanation, Jesus’ Great Commission, it is clear that the disciple’s baptism was to indicate preparation for service and perpetual allegiance from that time forth. So what about today and the formula for Baptism? Stay tuned, it will be in my next post. In summary, the name of Jesus was called over these for the most part because they were of the Jewish faith (or a variant of it) and because they were undergoing an entire re-orientation in their lives from being baptized unto Moses (that is following the Mosaic law or Samaritan Law) to being freed in Christ. What is in a name for these especially? Everything.

4> The manifestations of the Spirit were recorded. This is perhaps the most controversial of the four commonalities. Simply put, it is proof by the Lord’s Spirit that they had been accepted by God and that their conversion was authentic. This was especially necessary for those who were exiting the Jewish faith and embracing Christianity for themselves as well as those who brought them into the faith from Judaism or its variant.

A Deeper Dive of the Three Accounts
I think it is essential that a detailed analysis be provided of the accounts that give significant information in the Acts of the Apostles. This is required because much is made from these accounts that lead to very precarious conclusions. Let it be said that one that builds on an incomplete or inaccurate conclusion will stand on a shaky foundation for the most part and perhaps lead others into mis-application, error and even heresy.

Please be advised, I am not answering the question of the purpose of Water Baptism, I am simply pointing out the foibles of certain interpretations and attempting to reach objective conclusions so to present them. I readily admit that this builds nothing but at least it does not build in error and allows one to reach one’s own understanding of the subject. In any case, please hear me out. If you disagree, then fine but be able to know why you disagree and that you can defend your position in a consistent and cogent manner – “This is the way I have always believed…” is not good enough.

Let me take them in turn:

The Samaritans: . We see the Petrine approach (Acts 2:37-38) also replicated in this pattern but with a twist. Philip preaches Christ to the Samaritan people. They receive his message and are baptized in Jesus’ name. Yet the Spirit is not manifested in their midst. This is a serious consideration for Philip because he does not, obviously, see his work as complete: effective but not finished. He sends for the Apostles to come and help out. They come and the Spirit falls on the Samaritans. What are the extraordinary conditions here? There are three.

1. The Samaritans’ relation with the Jew was at best adversarial. They did not accept one another and yet they claimed to worship the same God. The enmity had only become strengthened by the Jews’ destruction of the Samaritan Temple in 128 B.C. The Holy Spirit, in His wisdom, declined any manifest of His presence to the Samaritans that was standard and expected when it came to the preaching of the Gospel. Please remember that at this juncture the Gospel had only been preached to the Jewish people of which the Samaritans were peculiarly related. Had the Spirit been poured forth, questions would have ensued much like the second case below (Cornelius). What was required was an operative reconciliation between the Jewish and Samaritan believers. What better vehicle than Peter and John to perform such reconciliation. What had been desired by God was a unity not just in the heavenlies but in the church terrestrial. After all, as Jesus said: A house divided against itself cannot stand.

2. Upon the arrival of Peter and John, the Holy Spirit manifests His presence in the lives of the Samaritans. So, what can we say about their previous state? It has been conjectured that the following is plausible:

“…Can it be therefore, that he [sic Luke] regarded these Christians as not being without the Spirit but without the spiritual gifts that characterized the common life of the Christian communities? There is no doubt that Luke was particularly interested in the charismatic phenomena connected with the gift of the Spirit. Paul clearly distinguished between the charismata and the possession of the Spirit as such…(1 Cor 12:11)…Here we see an example of Spirit being used in an ambiguous manner not dissimilar from that in Acts 8. It suggests that Luke may have been describing a Church in which the Spirit was not unknown but in which the Spirit’s gifts were not yet manifest…It is freely admitted that this interpretation can only be tentatively put forward, but it does seem to make sense otherwise an incomprehensible situation without resorting to drastic emendation of Luke’s narrative {sic Beasley-Murray’s end note states: ‘It is not to be excluded that the historical facts may have been as outlined above and that Luke did not realize their precise import, assuming that the spiritual gifts so imparted an initial giving of the Holy Spirit but his hints of the Spirit’s working in Samaria through the agency of Philip, before the arrival of the Apostles seem to me to favour the interpretation here offered’}”

There is not enough material evidence to refute totally that the Spirit Baptism in this passage is a separate event from the preaching of the gospel and the reception of the water baptism yet Calvin reaches a similar position as that above:

“…Therefore, we must not deny but that the Samaritans, who had put on Christ, had also his Spirit given them; and surely Luke speaketh not in this place of the common grace of the Spirit, whereby God doth regenerate us, that we may be His children…To conclude, forasmuch as the Samaritans were already endued with the Spirit of adoption; the excellent graces of the Spirit are heaped upon them…and [so] testify that his Spirit shall be always the governor and director of the faithful.”

Thus the act that seemed discrete was more like a conclusion to a continuum started with Philip’s gospel presentation. But what can be said is that the episode itself is unique to the biblical record. Given the boundaries of the Church at that time were being pushed outward, it is in the character and good form of the Holy Spirit to ensure each part of the body was in step with the others – especially as it was bringing life to those not fully acquainted with the former Way of the Jews. At the very least what can be said is that the Spirit was not without operation at that time.

The burning question is “Is the Spirit able to, when it comes to His person, be divided concerning the work of salvation?” At this juncture we might as well broach the subject of the Spirit baptism in a topical fashion ( I will do so in detail ina future post). It must be said, He is not an element to be subdivided but a person. As such, having brought faith and repentance and leading the Samaritan people to water baptism, can we say His influence was limited to leading alone? If so, the question must be posed “If one being baptized into the body of Christ, how could he not have the Spirit?” If one does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. You cannot have one without the other if this is the position held otherwise a separation between Christ and His Spirit must be made which is theologically impossible. In addition, if a separation of the gospel message (as a three-fold process that is taught by some) be made of the Petrine approach (Acts 2:38) be applied to the Samaritan example, then the sovereignty of God concerning Cornelius must be addressed – Cornelius manifested spiritual gifts before he was water baptized. Therefore violating the ordered pattern used up to that time. The only plausible answer I offer here is that the ‘baptism’ of the Spirit must be uncoupled from His charismata. In this modern time, we link the baptism of the Spirit with His manifestations. What needs to be understood is: first, the charismata recorded in the Acts is only detailed for very significant advances of the church: it’s birth, it’s expansion to the Samaritan people and then to the Gentiles, then to the closure concerning ‘disciples’ of John who had no real experience with the gospel of Christ. Secondly, a majority of the conversion episodes are silent on the matter. The link we make today is perhaps a contrived one and does not hold in all instances under objective application of the records available. If one continues to press that Spirit baptism cannot be unlinked with Spiritual gifts, then the ‘incomprehensible’ scenarios Beaseley-Murray cites are all in play. In essence, one has a solution in which a problem must be constructed from ‘patterns’ that are incongruous i.e. they do not fit or mesh well together.

3. Finally, we address the subject of baptism in Jesus’ name. This formula makes full sense given that the Samaritans were steeped in their own variation of Judaism as twisted and mal-formed as it was. They were still those to whom it would have been required to repudiate their former allegiance by being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ by invoking His name. This would signify their breaking with the old ways entirely much as an orthodox Jew had done on the day of Pentecost when they had received baptism in Jesus’ name.

The Cornelian Experience – The sequence of events are as follows: Preaching of the gospel is received by the gentile hearers, who had been prepared by their own vision from the Lord. Having experienced faith and repentance, the Holy Spirit sovereignly falls upon Cornelius and his company that is signaled by charismata. Having received the Spirit of God indicated by such evidence, Peter is compelled to baptize the Gentiles in the name of Jesus. The sequence of events is not anticipated by Peter nor the Jewish believers who had accompanied him. There are two is points here concerning the order of events and they are most likely why the ‘pattern’ of repentance, water baptism and then the reception of the Spirit was not experienced:

1. First, they were Gentiles and as such, there would have been reticence from Peter but most especially from the Jews that accompanied him. If God had not shown his sovereign acceptance of the Gentiles by the outpouring of His Spirit, it would have left Peter and those with him having to explain (which they had to do anyway) why they had baptized the Gentiles and so accepted them within the Church as legitimate members. Because God miraculously emphasized His approval and acceptance of them (to which Peter had received no less than three visions regarding how the Lord viewed them), he was compelled to baptize them.
2. Secondly, the name of Jesus was invoked in their baptisms for a very significant reason. They had aligned themselves with practicing and orthodox Jews. By being baptized in Jesus name, they were repudiating their former alliance with traditional Judaism much like their Jewish counterparts were required to do.

In essence, the radical departure of the gospel message being opened to the Gentiles called for extraordinary circumstances and procedures. Otherwise, the Way may never have been opened to the Gentiles as it was. This is a demonstration that God will not be limited by patterns of operation…the Spirit blows wherever He wills. We must always allow Him latitude. If we do not understand , that is our limitation not His inconsistency.

The Disciples At Ephesus. In this situation, Paul replicates the pattern found in the Petrine approach of Acts 2:38. Paul preaches Faith and Repentance that is followed by Water baptism in Jesus Name and laying on of hands for the reception of the Spirit. This scripture is often used to indicate the separation of the giving of the Spirit to one who has merely repented and accepted Jesus as their Lord. In Pentecostal and Charismatic circles as well as some fringes, this is the explanation given that Spirit baptism is not ‘automatic’ but must be sought. After all, these were ‘disciples!’. Peering a little deeper into this, we can begin to understand Paul’s approach and actions which were approved by the Spirit. First, let’s take on the idea of these being ‘disciples’. Paul meets them and right away becomes concerned. They confess that they are disciples. Yet in his conversations with them, Paul is a little uncomfortable. He asks them at some point ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ This is a very interesting question. Paul is probing to understand exactly what these disciples understood or had experienced. We must ask the question of them as their status as ‘disciples.’ – apparently Paul did.

It is plausible and suggested here that these ‘disciples’ had been baptized by those who had come from Jerusalem and had spread John’s message – not necessarily were they baptized by John or his immediate disciples –Remember, the account takes place in Ephesus a city in modern Turkey not Jerusalem. The reason for this plausibility is that they had no reference to the Holy Spirit, yet John’s ministry was all about the coming of the Messiah who would baptize in the Holy Spirit – this fact is interwoven through the gospel accounts of John’s ministry. It is conceivable that if they had been baptized by John or those immediate to him (his attending disciples) at the very least they would have had some notion of the Holy Spirit. They openly confessed that they had not ever ‘heard’ of a Holy Spirit. Regarding them being disciples of Christ must be scrutinized closely. The accounts in Acts concerning Paul where other disciples were present prior to his Paul’s first arrival (e.g. Antioch), there is no record of re-baptizing. Simply put, Paul and Barnabas in their time with the Church at Antioch give no indication that re-baptisms were performed during their tenure – ergo nothing was lacking as they perceived it in the disciple’s lives at Antioch. This is clear proof that while the Apostle could have re-baptized believers, he did not when there was no need to do so. This evidence throws a dim light on the definition used by some that these were disciples and therefore believers in Christ. This was confirmed by these disciples themselves in their own admission ‘we have not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.’ Again a clue as to their experience was not at all as what the Apostle would expect.

Finally, as a side note, if the baptism of John is to be called into question as not being adequately preparatory, one must answer the case of Apollos who had received the baptism of John and yet there is no record of his re-baptism or subsequent Spirit baptism in the Pentecostal sense, yet it is well documented that he was a very key factor in the cause of the gospel from that time forward.

The conclusion must be reached that the experience of the ‘disciples’ here in Acts 18 was malformed. They had received something but Paul being the master builder, would have left nothing to chance. Paul instructs them as to the purpose of John’s baptism initially -ask yourself why this instruction was necessary to a legitimate disciple of John. It is as if Paul perceived that they did not have the impression as to why they had been baptized! He then further instructs them pointing them back to the purpose of John’s ministry, which was to be the forerunner of Christ – again a clear point of John’s purpose. Paul thought it important to re-emphasize this point to ensure a proper foundation and perspective. Paul then shares that the mission of John was to present the Christ. He does so and then baptizes them in Jesus’ name and lays His hands upon them for the reception of Spirit baptism. The final point here is that it was doubtful at all that they were legitimate disciples of John. As such, Paul left no stone unturned but preached to them as if they were like all the rest, lost and in need of a Savior.

Many from the Pentecostal/Holiness tradition, would say that the accounts above detailed exemplify the genuine manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit – that is tongues and the like. This conclusion is historically a very recent conclusion. For some good reading on the historical roots of modern theology on Spirit Baptism, Vinson Synan has a watershed work entitled “The History of the Holiness and Pentecostal Movement in the United States. In this work, it is shown that John Wesley was the originator of the ‘second blessing’ or ‘double cure’ that those who walked the trail he blazed would further develop into the “Pentecostal version” of Spirit baptism. To be honest, I think Wesley would be appalled at where others have taken it. Shortly after his death, those who followed his teachings preached the concept that if the ‘second blessing’ was not present in the life of the believer, their entire spiritual state and eternal future was a stake. And so it goes until the present.

Conclusion

Given what has been presented thus far, the whole definition of the true meaning of the word ‘baptism’ as it is applied to water or Spirit baptism should be re-examined. It could be said that the cases detailed above provide detail enough for us to follow what happened and yet they reach no real conclusion as to pattern and order. In addition, the detailed accounts presented are concerned with those to whom Hebrew law, traditions and practices were familiar. I cannot conclude other than this fact is very significant and so helps to explain the required baptism, in what name they were to be baptized and the confirmation by the Spirit of God – that is His witness to the conversion of the hearer. To the Jew, proselyte or Samaritan this would have been essential not only for themselves but for those who had preached to them. It echoes the spirit of John chapter 3 that puts on those that aligned themselves with the Jewish faith a greater sense of their responsibility concerning the Messiah.

As I stated, I offer no real answers as to what the role of water baptism plays in the believer’s spiritual life. To be honest, it is shrouded in mystery to a great extent. What I have tried to do is dispel any pattern or teaching that would present water baptism as having any ex opera operato quality to it. We must know what it is not so that our understanding of what it is, when that does come about, is clear. If anything, we need to separate a sound and perhaps bare foundation regarding water baptism that can be experienced in spite of all the wood, hay and stubble that has been built upon it in the last century or so. Let the fire of the Spirit of God reveal what He has established and what He has not. That is my prayer.