Special Study: The Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts

1. Joel 2:28-32 "all flesh"
   1. Reception of Power Promised in Act 1.
      1. Outpouring of H.S.
      2. Baptism of H.S.
      3. Number one concern of H.S. in Acts? Establishment and Expansion of church.
      4. Book of Acts concentrates on the charismatic side of the H.S. from a historical perspective.
      1. General Outline: Outpouring, presence, and purpose of H.S. in Acts.
      2. Luke builds up in chapter one of Luke, the Coming Messiah in Luke two. He does the same with the H.S. in Acts as he sets out to build up in chapter one of the coming H.S. in chapter two.
      3. After chapter 21:11, the remaining 11 chapters contain no reference to the H.S. Is this significant? Does this indicate a change in the role of the H.S.?
         1. No. The remaining chapters flow from the H.S. revelation of Paul's future/shipwreck.. In fact, the remaining chapters demonstrate what I believe is behind the narrative; underlying protectiveness and continued help of the H.S. of God.
      4. Acts provides evidence of the gift of the indwelling, examples of being filled with and comforted with the H.S.
      5. H.S. is involved in establishment of leadership.
      6. Acts reveals the necessity of H.S. in matters of ethics and moral issues.
      7. H.S. is involved in reception of gifts both miraculous and otherwise.
      8. Christians were filled with joy and with the H.S.
      9. Boldness and power were results of the H.S. in Acts.
      10. Acts sets the tone for the duration of the miraculous through the H.S. by establishing limitations on who had the ability to transfer such gifts.
      11. Acts sets the tone on the question of "speaking in tongues."
      12. Acts sets the tone on the question of what is meant by "baptism of the Spirit."
      13. Acts is a showcase of what God designed His Spirit to accomplish in His kingdom.
      14. The kingdom of Israel was a shadow of what God desires to accomplish through the H.S. in the inward man. Isaiah 63:10-13 and Haggai 2:5.
   2. Basic Outline Of Acts Of Holy Spirit
      1. Outpouring (Joel 2:28-32)
         1. Acts 1-2, 10:17-48, 11:12-16, and 15:8.
         2. Fulfillment of OT prophecy.
         3. Reception of power AFTER the H.S. was poured out.
         4. Spirit given to ALL who would obey.
      2. Presence
         1. H.S. concern was for the expansion and establishment of church.
         2. Immediately and directly involved in affairs of the church.
         3. From creation to regeneration-Titus 3:4-7 (John 3) chaos to order.
         4. 3000 souls saved-Acts 2.
         5. 8:29-39, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2, 15:28, 16:6, 21:11, 20:23-28
         6. Ethical implications- 5:3-9, 7:51
         7. Miraculous gifts- 8:17-18, 19:6
      3. Purpose
         1. Vast and Comprehensive.
         2. Ezek. 36:25-27 Unique and Special
         3. Jesus delivered on Promise of Father and Power.
         4. Providential Active! H.S. is never inactive! Life of Paul!
   3. Appendix on "Poured out or forth"
      1. Definition of the two words under consideration:
         1. ( 1 ) EKCHEO
         2. ( 2 ) EKCHUNO
            1. Thayer states that the meaning of these two words is identical, page 201.
               1. "To Pour out, b. Metaph, to bestow or distribute largely. The Passive, is used of those who give themselves up to a thing, rush headlong into it."
               2. "To pour out, to shed as blood, to gush out, to spill, splatter; Metaph. to give largely, bestow liberally; pass. to rush headlong into anything, be abandoned to" Bagster.
      2. Liddell-Scott on pace 526-527
         1. Pour out, pour away, hence spill a vessel; to be drained.
         2. Of words-pour forth, utter.
         3. Pour forth like water, squander, waste.
         4. Spread out
         5. Throw down
         6. Shed, shake off
         7. Passively-to stream out or forth
         8. Metaph. to be cast away or forgotten
         9. Give oneself over to any emotion, to be overjoyed.
         10. Poured forth, unconfined.
      3. In everyone of these the idea is that of unlimited outpouring.
      4. The Parsing of "hath poured forth" in Acts 2:33. Third Person, Singular Number, First Aorist Tense, Indicative Mood, Active Voice.
         1. Third Person-The subject is being spoken of.
         2. Singular Number-Only one is under consideration.
         3. First Aorist- "The function of the aorist there is a matter of tremendous importance. The time of action is past. The kind of action is punctiliar." Summers. "The aorist these expresses action in its simplest form, undefined; it does not distinguish between complete or incomplete action. The aorist treats the action as a point . . . But time is expressed by the augment-punctiliar action in past time, generally. In narrative the difference between the aorist indicative and the imperfect indicative is just this: the aorist indicative expresses punctiliar action in past time, while the imperfect indicative expresses durative action in past time" David.
         4. Indicative-the action is real, not potential.
         5. Active-the subject is doing the acting.
      5. Grammatical Exegesis of Acts 2:33
         1. Jesus poured out upon all flesh (vv. 16-17) the Holy Spirit in one point of time in the past by the time of Acts 2:33.
      6. Application of this Exegesis.
         1. Thus Jesus' action was a one-time, point action in the past by the time of Acts 2:33.
      7. Comparison with other passages having the same construction.
         1. John 2: 15-At one time and point in the past Jesus poured out the money-changers' money (all of it).
         2. Titus 3:6-At one time and point in the past the Spirit was poured out for Paul and Titus (and all men, Acts 2:33, 39). (All of it.)
         3. Rev. 16:1-4, 8, 10, 12, 17-At one time and point the bowls of wrath (all that they contained) were poured out upon Rome bringing about its total destruction.
      8. The parsing of "was poured out" in Acts 10:45. Third Person, Singular Number, Perfect
         1. Tense, Indicative Mood, Passive Voice.
         2. Third Person-The Subject is being spoken of.
         3. Singular Number-Only one is under consideration.
         4. Perfect Tense-
            1. This is the Greek tense of "completed action" i.e., it indicates a completed action resulting in a 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, its coming to a point of culmination, its existing as a completed result Ray Summers.
            2. The tense in Greek called perfect is really a present perfect. The perfect presents the action of the verb in a completed state or condition . . . The perfect expresses the continuance of completed action. It is then a combination of punctiliar and durative action . . . The perfect indicative generally expresses the present result of a past action . . . (examples) gegrapha-I wrote and the statement is still on record. elalutha-I came (punctiliar) and am still here (durative). Davis.
         5. Indicative-The action is real, not potential.
         6. Passive-Subject is being acted upon, not acting.
      9. Grammatical Exegesis of Acts 10:45.
         1. The Holy Spirit had in the past been poured out (punctiliar, Acts 2:33) and was still present and available (durative) for the Gentiles. This-was proven by the tongue-speaking going on (v. 46; cf. 1 Cor. 14:22).
      10. Application of this Exegesis.
          1. Thus Acts 2: 17-39 teaches that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a promise for all men. Thus Acts twice (2:38 and 10:45) says God gave the Holy Spirit for all men. So Peter wants to know how could he withstand God in not being the baptizer so they might receive what God had promised and given-the Holy Spirit.
      11. Comparison with other passages having the same construction.
          1. Only one, Ro.5:5. The love of God had in the past been shed abroad in their hearts and was still abiding having the result of giving them hope.
      12. A listing of every time these words are found in New Testament.
          1. Matt. 9: 17-Spilled wine from old wineskins.
          2. Matt. 23: 35-Shed righteous blood.
          3. Matt. 26:28-Poured out Jesus' Blood.
          4. Mark 14:24-Ditto.
          5. Luke 5:37-Spilled wine from old wineskins.
          6. Luke 11:50-Shed prophet's blood.
          7. Luke 22:20-Poured out Jesus' blood.
          8. John 2:15-Poured out money-changers' money.
          9. Acts 1:18-Gushed out-Judas' bowels.
          10. Acts 2: 17-18-Poured out Holy Spirit.
          11. Acts 2:33-Poured forth what you see and hear (Holy Spirit).
          12. Acts 10:45-Poured out-the gift of the Holy Spirit.
          13. Acts 22:20-Shed Stephen's blood.
          14. Rom. 3:15-Shed martyr's blood.
          15. Rom. 5:5-Shed abroad-Love of God.
          16. Titus 3:6-Poured out-Holy Spirit.
          17. Jude 11 (Margin)-Gave themselves away through Error of Balaam. Ran riotously in.
          18. Rev. 16:1-4, 8, 10, 12, 17-Poured out Bowls of Wrath.
          19. Rev. 16:6-Poured out saints' blood.
      13. In all of these the idea is a total, complete, absolute, unlimited operation!!!
   4. Appendix on John 3:30-36
      1. Notice the pronouns.
         1. 30 "He must increase"-i.e. Jesus
         2. 31 "He that cometh from above"-i.e. Jesus
         3. 32 "He hath seen and heard and bears witness"-i.e. Jesus
         4. 33 "His witness"-i.e. Jesus'
         5. 34 "He whom God sent"-i.e. Jesus
         6. 34 "He giveth not the Spirit by measure"-i.e. Jesus
         7. 35 Father hath given "all things into his hand"-i.e. Jesus'
      2. Notice tense of verb "Giveth."
         1. The Parsing of "Giveth." Third person, Singular number, Present tense, Indicative mood, Active voice.
            1. Third Person-the person spoken of (he, she, or it).
            2. Singular-only one person acting.
            3. Present tense-Going on at the time under consideration.
            4. Indicative mood (or mode)-
               1. "Only in the indicative mode in Greek do the tenses show time absolutely. The main idea of tense is the 'kind of action,' the state of action. Even in the indicative, time is a secondary idea. Continued action, or a state of incompletion, is denoted by the present tense-this kind of action is called durative or linear. The action of the verb is shown in progress, as going on." Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Wm. Hershy Davis, page 25.
               2. "Tense is the quality of the verb which has to do with action, i.e., time of action and kind of action. As to time of action there are three possibilities: past, present, or future. As to kind of action there are (for present consideration) two possibilities, linear or punctiliar. Linear action is action regarded as a point (.), i.e. action contemplated as a single perspective. The present tense indicates progressive action at the present time- e.g. "he is loosing." Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers, page 11.
            5. Active Voice-The Subject of the Sentence is doing the acting.
         2. Application of the above grammatical analysis. At the time that John wrote the book, the Spirit was being continually given not by measure (by Jesus or God). Compare Acts 2:33; 38-39; 5:32; John 7:38-39; 14:16-17, 26;15:26; 16:7; Gal. 3:14; 4:6; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 1 :21-22.
      3. Notice King James translation.
         1. "Unto him" is not in the Greek text at all.
         2. "God giveth"-"God" is not in four out of seven authorities cited by Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, and is not even inserted in Nestles' Text. But, even if it is the original text, the verse would read that God continually gives the Spirit not by measure.
      4. Notice various translations.
         1. Revised Standard Version: "For it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit."
         2. New American Standard Version: "For He gives the Spirit without measure."
         3. New English Bible: "So measureless is God's gift of the Spirit."
         4. Wuest's Expanded Translation: "for not by measure does he give the Spirit."
         5. Helen Montgomery, The New Testament in Modern English: "God does not give the Spirit sparingly."
      5. Application of verse.
         1. Not too many believed the testimony of Jesus but John the apostle, writing several years after the glorification of Jesus, claims the giving of the Spirit by Jesus to all believers to be one of the proofs of his claim to be God's own Son and Prophet. See John 7:38-39 and Acts 2:33, 38-39.
         2. This passage categorically states that Jesus (or God if the variant is accepted) does not give the Spirit by measure. This forever buries the measure theory. Furthermore, how could one have a "measure" of the Holy Spirit, a person? One either has the Holy Spirit or he has not ( Rom. 8: 9) ! The reply usually is, "I really mean a 'Measure' of his power. '' But if this is what we mean, let us say what we mean! There is enough confusion in the world without using expressions which are misleading, especially when we can just as easily leave them alone. There are those who confuse the power given by the Spirit and the Spirit himself. Let us seek to determine when the scriptures speak of the Spirit as a gift and when it speaks of the gift of the Spirit.
   5. "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit" Acts 1:4-8
      1. Question- What is this promise and what does it mean?
         1. Some believe:
            1. This promise was just to the twelve apostles and that it was a special "measure" of the H.S. guiding them to all truth (miraculous, inspiration, etc...), others contend it was a special anointment enabling them to speak in tongues, prophecy, have visions, and do other miraculous deeds, still others contend that (Calvinism) one must be "baptized with the H.S." (i.e. testify in the heart) before he/she can ever begin to look in the direction of God for salvation. What is the truth?
         2. Let's look at some things that it is not:
            1. Not anything administered by anyone other than Jesus.
            2. Not anything that took place before Pentecost- New and Unique.
            3. Not to perform miracles-Lk.10:17-20 OT prophets did.
            4. Not for inspiration-Mt.10:19 OT prophets.
            5. Not specifically to speak in tongues- 1 Cor.12:11 (Spirit Himself determines this!) Balaam's ass could speak but was he baptized with the H.S.?
            6. Not to be filled with the H.S.- John the Baptist Lk.1:41,67.
            7. Not to be "clothed" with the H.S.- Lk.24:49. (with power!) 2 Chron.24:20.
            8. Not to make one a "son" of God- Gal.4:6, Eph.1:14, and Acts 2:38.
         3. Note the passages that deal with this subject:
            1. Mt.3:8-12 (Who was he addressing?), Lk.3:13-17, and John 1:31-34.
         4. Note also that an additional promise in Acts 1:8 was given- Power, after the H.S. would come upon them!
            1. H.S. would come upon them.
            2. 2. They would receive Power. (John 14:26 and 16:13).
            3. The Spirit is the power-giver not the power itself.
         5. Compare:
            1. Acts 1:4-5 with Acts 2:16.
            2. Acts 1:4-5 with Acts 2:33.
         6. The pouring is not the immersion. The apostles were immersed as a result of the pouring out! (coin in glass).
            1. Mt.3:7-12 with Acts 2:33.
         7. The baptizing and outpouring were different ways to refer to the same event!
      2. Acts 10?
         1. This is another occurrence of what happened in Acts 2 (Baptism of the H.S. (See Acts 11:15-17). Here, it acts as a sign to the Jews that Gentiles are received into the Kingdom as well as Jews!
   6. Notes on Miracles:
      1. Purpose of Miracles in the Bible demonstrates they were temporary in nature:
         1. Miracles of Christ-
            1. John 10:32-38
            2. John 11:11-16, 20:30-31.
         2. Apostolic Era-
            1. served as credentials-Acts 2:43, 5:12, 2 Cor.5:18-21, and 12:12.
            2. tool for message to be delivered unerringly-2 Peter 1:21, 1 Peter 1:10-11, and 1 Cor.2:6-13.
            3. confirm word spoken-Mark 16:15-20, and Heb.2:1-4.
         3. N.T. demonstrates by example and command that miracles were temporary
            1. Acts 8:5-25
            2. Acts 19:1-6
            3. 1 Cor.13:8-13.
   7. Tongues
      1. First instance of tongue speaking: Acts 2:8-11
      2. Second: Acts 10
      3. Third: Acts 19:1-6
      4. Only other passages are found in 1 Cor.12-14!
         1. Tongue speaking began on Pentecost- special function.
         2. Not a test of salvation- 1 Cor.12
         3. Not a sure indication of spirituality- Corinthians were the most carnal minded people Paul met!
         4. Love, faith, and hope are permanent elements of God's People!

LARD'S QUARTERLY. Moses Lard started a paper in September of 1863 in which many essays | on the Holy Spirit and his influences in the world were discussed. This paper had an excellent spirit of controversy in the attitude of love. Several essays in this publications are worthy of quoting.

Moses Lard: "Being now through with stating preliminaries, I proceed to make an application of them to the position or doctrine which it is the more especial object of this article to defend. That position is this: That the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians. (He then cites as proof Romans8:11 and 1 Corinthians6:19, RR) . . . In what sense must we take the clause, "which dwelleth in you?" To this inquiry we have two different replies involving two opposite theories.

The first is, That we are to take the clause literally; and hence to hold that the Holy Spirit actually and literally dwells in Christians.

The second is, that we are to take the clause not literally but figuratively; and hence to hold that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians not actually and literally but representatively or through the truth.

But what kind of dwelling is this last? Let the language be understood. When it is said that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians not actually and literally, but merely through the truth or representatively, the implication clearly is, that the Spirit itself does not dwell in them at all. On the contrary, the truth only dwells in them, and this stands for or is in the place of the Spirit. This unquestionably is the meaning of the language. Which now of these two theories are we to accept as the correct one? Of course the answer must depend on the acceptation in which we take the clause, "dwells in you." In what sense are we to take it?

The rule by which the answer to this question is to be determined is this: A word, whenever met with, is to be taken in its common current sense, unless the subject-matter, the context, or a qualifying epithet forbids it. This rule is universal and imperative. What the phrase "dwells in" means is perfectly clear; namely, to live in or inhabit as a home. This, then, in the sense in which we must take the clause, unless prevented as the rule requires. Now, as to a qualifying epithet there is none; and a glance of the eye at the context is enough to satisfy us that there is nothing in it to prevent the clause being taken in its common acceptation. The only item, then, remaining to be considered is the subject-matter.

But what is this? The subject of the sentence in hand is, the Holy Spirit; the thing said of it, that it dwells in Christians; and these together constitute the subject-matter or the thought presented in the sentence for consideration. Now if the subject-matter involves anything to prevent the clause being taken in its ordinary sense, it must be the Spirit itself. Does the Spirit itself, then, prevent it? and if so on account of what?

1st It cannot be on account of anything in its nature, For of the nature of substance of the Spirit, strictly speaking, we know nothing. Of course, then, we cannot affirm that it is such as to prevent the Spirit dwelling in Christians. From this source, therefore, nothing can be deduced forbidding the clause being taken in its usual sense.

2nd It cannot be on account of its inability or want of power. Surely no one will deny that the Spirit dwells in Christians on the score it cannot. We know of no limits to its power; hence we must use no language which implies any.

3rd Nor can it be because it will not To assert this would be presumptuous indeed. We know nothing to justify it; neither does the word of God teach it...It is hence inadmissible.

4th Neither can it be owing to anything in the office of the Spirit in the work of redemption. For all we know of office we learn from holy writ; and it is simply certain that we learn nothing there against the notion that the Spirit dwells in Christians; and hence nothing to forbid the clause being taken in its usual sense.

But without being more lengthy, I feel safe in concluding that we know of nothing respecting the Spirit to prevent the clause in question being taken in its common current acceptation. Of course an arbitrary meaning is out of the question. I hence decide that the clause, "dwells in you," is to be taken it its ordinary literal sense. To this conclusion we are absolutely tied down by the preceding law of exegesis. We could not reject it if we would.

From all of which it follows that the assertion: "the Spirit dwells in you," cannot be taken in any other than a literal current sense. Therefore that the Holy Spirit actually and literally dwells in Christians is indisputably affirmed in the word of God; and hence cannot be rejected.

But in reply to all this we shall be told that God is said to dwell in Christians (2 Corinthians 6: 16), that this is not a literal, but representative indwelling, that is, a dwelling "through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:22); and that consequently in this sense must we regard the Holy Spirit as dwelling in Christians.

This is the strong, and I believe regarded as the decisive, refutory argument of those who deny a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is proper therefore to subject it to a severe examination. In the first place, then, I admit its premises and deny its conclusion. In other words I admit, first, that God dwells in Christians; and, second, that this dwelling is not literal but through the Spirit. But on what ground is this admission made? Simply on the ground that the word of God actually asserts what is admitted. But can we grant so much respecting the case of the Holy Spirit, and on the same ground? Not at all. For though the Holy Spirit is certainly said to dwell in Christians; it is not said to dwell in them through something else. Hence one of the things which is said of God is not said of the Holy Spirit, and this is the very thing in issue. The difference, therefore, between the two cases is the difference between an actual assertion of holy writ, and in a mere inference of the human mind. If it were anywhere asserted in the Bible that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians through the truth, through faith, or through anything else, no one need contend for a literal indwelling. An epithet qualifying the phrase, "dwells in," in one place, might, I think, be fairly assumed to qualify it in every place.

But such an epithet we have not; and certainly it would be a most dangerous procedure to assume it.

Had the Bible said that God dwells in Christians, without an epithet qualifying the phrase, dwells in, then by every law of interpretation known to the learned world should we have been compelled to assert a literal indwelling. Now what in that case we should have been compelled to do, I hold that in this we are compelled to do. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians; and this indwelling is no where qualified by an epithet. We are thus compelled to believe it literal. But why? Can this question be answered on any other ground than this: That inspiration itself designed to make a difference between the indwelling of God and that of the Spirit? One thing is certain, a deep difference is inscribed on the verbiage of the two cases; and this with me is conclusive that a corresponding difference exists in the facts described.

But the proposition, that God dwells in Christians not literally but through the Spirit, instead, it seems to me, of disproving that the Spirit dwells literally in them, establishes it. For how can God dwell in Christians through the Spirit if the Spirit itself does not dwell in them? When men say that the Spirit dwells in Christians through the truth, they claim for the truth a literal indwelling; yet when God is said to dwell in them through the Spirit, they deny of the Spirit a literal indwelling. Are they consistent?

But why should any one doubt that the Holy Spirit dwells literally in Christians? It cannot be on the ground that it is not clearly enough asserted. Still by some it is doubted, and we repeat, why? Is it on the ground of our inability to comprehend and explain the fact and mode of such indwelling? We fear that this has much to do with the case. But is this a legitimate ground of doubt? In some case it is, I grant, but not in this. Such is the nature of the fact asserted that we cannot comprehend it. This we are compelled to confess. Now instead of this inability being a just ground of doubt, it seems to me that it should be just the reverse. For the more sensible we feel that we cannot and do not comprehend a fact, the less reason we have to question what the Bible says concerning it. Of all the possible grounds upon which a doubt might be founded, this should be last.

Surely a literal indwelling is not doubted on the ground that we have no sensible evidence of the Spirit's presence. For neither a priori nor from the Bible have we any reason to conclude that such evidence would be afforded us. And gratuitously to assume it, and then make the assumption a ground on which to doubt the indwelling, is most unwarrantable indeed.

But it is perhaps doubted on the score that we have no conscious evidence of any emotions excited within us by the Spirit. I cannot admit it. I am distinctly conscious at this instant of the presence in my mind of a love, joy, and peace, or exquisite sweetness, as I am of the purpose to end the sentence I am now writing; and these are called in the word of God "the fruit of the Spirit." But as a rejoinder to this we may be told that men who are acknowledged not to have the Spirit, are no less vividly conscious of the same emotions. I positively deny it. That they have at times a love, a joy, a peace of a certain kind, I grant; but they are not the broad love, the ineffable joy, and the deep unperturbable peace of the Christian. Only one thing more need be added here, that we are never conscious of an emotion as from the Spirit. Consciousness avouches only the emotion, the Bible announces whence it is.

From all of the foregoing, therefore, it appears that we have no just ground on which to deny the literal indwelling of the Spirit. Hence such indwelling must be accepted as the clear authoritative teaching of holy writ. If this conclusion be not legitimate and fair I confess my inability to conceive the circumstances which could render it so."

Comparison Chart Of H.S. In Acts

Notes: