Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Anthony D.Palma

• Publisher: Gospel Publishing House
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781607315254
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Baptism in the Holy Spirit examines the biblical evidence for the Pentecostal experience from Old Testament promise to New Testament fulfillment, drawing from the original languages and thorough research. Palma affirms the truth that believers today have the same privilege as New Testament believers -- being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Chapter 1

Introductory
Matters

This part of the book explores aspects of the Pentecostal teaching on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It will necessarily deal with the two related issues of the experience as subsequent to salvation and also its accompaniment by speaking in tongues. The purpose of Spirit baptism¹ will also receive attention. The focus will be on the biblical basis for the experience.²

This chapter covers basic hermeneutical considerations, the Old Testament promise of the Spirit, and alternate terminology for Spirit baptism.

Hermeneutical Considerations

Serious attention must be given to hermeneutical matters as they relate to the doctrine of Spirit baptism, for two reasons: (1) The burgeoning movement that comprises Pentecostal, charismatic, and “third wave” elements is not unified in its understanding of Spirit baptism. (2) Serious challenges from three sources have been directed at the doctrine from a hermeneutical standpoint: (a) cessationists, who argue for the discontinuation of extraordinary gifts after the first century; (b) noncessationists (continuationists), who allow for the continuation of extraordinary gifts, but who are not part of the broad movement and who reject the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism; and (c) some exegetes within the movement who question the hermeneutical validity of the doctrine.

The following presuppositions and key hermeneutical points have guided the writing of this work. They are given briefly to provide a background and framework for understanding the treatment that follows.³ Allusions to some of these matters will be made at appropriate points in the chapters that follow. These points are not listed necessarily in order of importance or in a strictly logical order, and there is some overlapping and shading of one into another.

1. All Scripture is divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit, the divine Author, will not contradict himself in Scripture. Therefore one biblical writing or writer will not conflict with another.

2. A proper understanding of the discipline of biblical theology must control the exegesis of Scripture. Definitions of biblical theology vary, but its essence is that teachings must emerge from the biblical text and not be read into it.

3. A specific biblical writer must be understood on his own terms. A Pauline grid must not be superimposed on Luke, nor Luke’s on Paul. Since the Bible is not a work on dogmatic or systematic theology, different biblical writers may sometimes use similar terminology but with varying meanings. For example, the expression “to receive the Spirit” may have different nuances in Luke, Paul, John, etc. What does each writer mean by his use of the term?

4. Different biblical writers often have different emphases. John’s Gospel, for example, highlights the deity of Christ; Paul emphasizes justification by faith; Luke (in both his Gospel and the Book of Acts) concentrates on the dynamic aspect of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Since Luke focuses on this aspect of the Spirit’s work, it is important to understand what he says about it.

5. After a biblical writer is first understood on his own terms, then his teachings should be related to those of other writers and the whole of Scripture.

6. Complementariness, not competition or contradiction, usually characterizes seemingly irreconcilable differences. What is the perspective of the particular writer? For instance, does James really contradict Paul on the relationship between faith and works? Or are his statements guided by his reason for writing on the matter, and so need to be interpreted in that light? Do Paul and Luke really contradict each other on the Spirit’s ministry?

7. Luke’s writings belong to the literary genre of history. But the Book of Acts is more than a history of the primitive Church. Recent scholarship, especially, credits Luke with being a theologian in his own right, as well as a historian. He uses history as the medium for presenting his theology.

8. Within the framework of the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture, the discipline called “redaction criticism” has gained wide acceptance in recent years. Its basic premise is that the biblical writer is an editor, and that his writing reflects his theology. He may take the material he has at hand and shape it in a way that will present his predetermined theological agenda. In its basic thrust, redaction criticism is a legitimate and necessary undertaking. But in its more radical form, it allows for the author to alter and distort facts, even to create and present a story as factual, in order to advance his theological purposes. To illustrate how a radical redactionist might reason: Paul could not have asked the Ephesian men, “Having believed, did you receive the Holy Spirit?” (Acts 19:2, my translation), because he teaches in his letters that the person who believes does indeed receive the Spirit at that time. Luke therefore either created the incident, or else altered the meaning of Paul’s actual words, in order for the narrative to reflect Luke’s own understanding of the Spirit’s work. This radical form of redaction criticism is unacceptable to those who hold a high view of biblical inspiration. The superintending Holy Spirit would not permit a biblical writer to present as fact something that did not actually happen.

9. Related to the preceding point is the fact that by nature the writing of history is selective and subjective, being influenced by the viewpoint and predilections of the writer. It is so with the Book of Acts, but with the proviso that Luke’s historiography is ultimately not his own but that of the Holy Spirit.

10. Narrative theology is a relatively recent approach to hermeneutics. One aspect of it is called “narrative analogy.”⁴ This “analogy” aspect of narrative theology has affinities with the traditional Pentecostal approach of understanding Spirit baptism on the basis of the Acts narratives.

11. One objection to the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism is that it is based on “historical precedent” which, it is said, cannot be used to establish doctrine. According to this view, it may be true that Luke recorded an experience of the Spirit subsequent to His work in regeneration, and even that the experience included glossolalia, but it is improper to formulate doctrine from this record. In other words, the narratives are descriptive, not prescriptive, since there is no propositional statement that says either that the disciples’ experiences are for all believers or that tongues will accompany the experience of Spirit baptism. Induction, however, is a legitimate form of logic. It is the forming of a general conclusion from the study of particular incidents or statements. How else can one justify the doctrine of the Trinity or of the hypostatic union—that Christ is both fully human and fully God, yet one person? The New Testament has no propositional statement about either of these doctrines.

One objection often raised by critics is that if Pentecostals insist on historical precedent for a postconversion experience of the Spirit, they should consistently follow historical precedent by, for example, pooling all their financial resources or casting lots to make decisions. But nowhere was the Early Church told by God or actuated by Him to do these things, nor is there even a recurring pattern of them. They were activities people thought up and did on their own initiative. But being filled with the Spirit is a divinely initiated activity and is furthermore commanded by God.

12. Another objection to the Pentecostal position is based on “authorial intent.” The question is raised, What was Luke’s purpose or intent in writing Acts? The answer given is that it is to record the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman world, not to teach Spirit baptism. Yet how can the spread of the gospel be understood apart from the impetus behind it—the power of the Holy Spirit? Acts 1:8 is often regarded as the key verse, an encapsulation, of the Book of Acts. The two main clauses in the verse are closely interrelated and cannot be divorced from each other: “ ‘You will receive power’ ” and “ ‘You will be my witnesses.’ ” If the mandate to go into all the world still holds true, then the enablement to do so should be the same as what Jesus promised the disciples.

13. Related to the previous objection is the idea that only representative groups in Acts had a special initiatory experience of the Spirit, to show the spread and inclusiveness of the gospel: Jews in Jerusalem (chap. 2), Samaritans (chap. 8), Gentiles (chap. 10), disciples of John the Baptist (chap. 19). But there are several objections to this position: (1) Very often Saul’s postconversion, personal experience of being filled with the Spirit (9:17) is ignored or overlooked. It was not part of a group experience. (2) Did the early preachers not encounter any of John the Baptist’s disciples during the twenty-five years between Acts 2 and Acts 19? (3) Furthermore, were those men really disciples of John? Or were they disciples of Jesus needing further instruction?

The Old Testament Promise of the Spirit

The Old Testament is an indispensable prelude to a discussion of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The events of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) were the climax of God’s promises made centuries before about the institution of the new covenant and the inauguration of the Age of the Spirit. Two passages are especially important: Ezekiel 36:25–27 and Joel 2:28–29.

The Ezekiel passage speaks about being sprinkled with clean water, and so being cleansed from all spiritual filthiness. It goes on to say the Lord will remove the heart of stone from His people and give them “ ‘a new heart’ ” and “ ‘a heart of flesh,’ ” and will also put within them “ ‘a new spirit’ ” (36:26). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the means by which this change will take place: “ ‘I will put my Spirit in you.’ ” As a result, the Lord says, “ ‘I will … move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws’ ” (v. 27).

The promise is clearly related to the New Testament concept of regeneration. Paul speaks about “the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5), echoing Jesus’ statement about the need to be “ ‘born of water and the Spirit’ ” (John 3:5). The transformation that takes place with the new birth results in an altered lifestyle, made possible by the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Spirit dwells within all believers (Rom. 8:9,14–16; 1 Cor. 6:19); therefore the idea of a believer without the Holy Spirit is a contradiction in terms.

Joel’s prophecy is quite different from Ezekiel’s. It does not talk about inner transformation, a changed lifestyle, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Lord says, “ ‘I will pour out my Spirit on all people’ ” (2:28). The result will be very dramatic—the recipients will prophesy, dream, and see visions. This prophecy recalls Moses’ very intense desire: “ ‘I wish that all the LORD’S people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit on them!’ ” (Num. 11:29). The narrative highlights, and foreshadows, the emphasis in Joel and the New Testament that the outpouring of the Spirit is not restricted to selected individuals or to a particular locale. The parallels between Joel’s prophecy and Moses’ wish are unmistakable.

In Joel the results of the Spirit’s activity are quite different from those in Ezekiel; they are dramatic and “charismatic” in nature. The term “charismatic” has come to mean special activity of the Spirit of a dynamic nature, and will be so used in this work. It is understood, however, that the Greek word charisma has a wider range of meanings in the New Testament. Nevertheless, current usage determines current meaning. In Joel’s prophecy, the Spirit comes upon God’s people primarily to empower them to prophesy. This is evident in Peter’s quotation of Joel in his Pentecost address (Acts 2:16–21). On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4); they were not regenerated by that experience.

Must we conclude, then, given the substantial differences between Ezekiel’s and Joel’s prophecies, that there were to be two separate historical comings of the Holy Spirit? The answer must be no. It is better to speak of one overall promise of the Spirit that includes both His indwelling and His filling or empowering of God’s peopl...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Introductory Matters
• Chapter 2: Subsequence and Separability
• Chapter 3: Initial Physical Evidence
• Chapter 4: Purposes and Results of Spirit Baptism
• Endnotes
• Selected Bibliography