Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

One of the charges frequently made against Jesus was that he received and ate with sinners. The charge was made when he attended a feast at the house of the publican Matthew (Matt. 9:9-12; Mark 2:16-17). Some charged that he was a “friend of publicans and sinners” at the same time they said he was a winebibber and glutton (Matt. 11:19). When he went into the home of Zacchaeus, his enemies charged, “That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner” (Luke 19:7).

The occasion for the three parables in Luke 15 was this: “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:1-2). In response to this charge, Jesus gave the three parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (the prodigal son) to show how the loving God searches for and seeks the ones who are lost.

The Conduct of the Pharisees

Why were the Pharisees upset by Jesus’ association with sinners? What were they charging him with when they criticized him? To answer this, one must know how the Pharisees treated sinners. The Pharisees were the “separated ones” because they refused to associate with sinners.

We get a glimpse of how they treated sinners from several allusions in the Gospels. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, she was astounded and said, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9).

When Jesus went into the house of Simon the Pharisee, an immoral woman washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and put ointment on them. Simon thought, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). Again, we see how the Jews treated sinners.

Lenski explains that the Pharisees’ practice of washing one’s hands before they eat was “for fear that the hands had brushed against a Gen-tile or against something belonging to a Gentile” (Matthew 582).

A Sinful Separation From Sinners

There is a sinful kind of separation from sinners of which the Pharisees were guilty and which saints must avoid. There is a separation from sinners born of self-righteousness, contempt for others, and condescension. This is what the Pharisees had. We must guard our hearts from feeling a similar superiority to the lost. Sometimes, a person feels morally superior to others as if he is what he is through human achievement  through works. The temptation to be self-righteous and show con-tempt for others may occur when one sees a homosexual suffering from AIDS, an alcoholic, a homeless person, or other socially contemptible sinners. We should have the same mind as Paul when he said, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

Several years ago, I drove my a homeless person in Nashville, Tennessee. The woman did not look like she had taken a bath in months. Her hair was matted worse than any dog’s hair that I have seen. Suddenly, the thought flashed through my mind, “Some mother gave birth to this person. She was her precious little baby. I must remember that her soul is just as precious as mine.” Let us guard ourselves from viewing sinners like the Pharisees did.

A Sinful Association With Sinners

There is a sinful kind of association with sinners. The Scriptures command a certain kind of separation in such passages as the following:

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33).

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:

Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:

We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:

Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path (Prov. 1:10-15).

Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away (Prov. 4:14-15).

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor. 6:14-17).

Whenever a man associates with sinners in such a way as to (a) participate with them in that which is sinful or (b) condone their sinful activity, he has been guilty of sin! Jesus never was guilty of doing either of these.

The Charge Against Jesus

When the Pharisees charged Jesus with associating with publicans and sinners, they were charging him with having fellowship with sin and sinners. We have an adage that says, “Birds of a feather flock together.” This is basically the Pharisees’ charge against Jesus. The Pharisees charged that Jesus associated with publicans and sinners because he was a sinner.

Why Jesus Associated With Sinners

Jesus associated with sinners for the express purpose of saving their souls. He compared his association with sinners to that of a physician associating with the sick saying, “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17). Again he said, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

What Jesus Did

Jesus ate with sinners. When he was invited into their homes as a guest, he went for the express purpose of trying to save their souls. I wonder how we would view Jesus’ actions today.

If one of our faithful members went to a restaurant with one who had a vile reputation, would we think of him like the Pharisees thought of Jesus? If one invited one with a vile reputation into his home or went to their home would someone criticize him or worry that he may be “slipping” because some of his best friends were non-Christians?

Conclusion

We must have enough association with sinners to reach them with the gospel. If we withdraw ourselves from all contact with sinners, we can never save their souls. The monks and nuns have withdrawn their association from sinners to such an extent that they dwell in a convent. We may have acted in a similar way by our lack of association with lost. How can we ever convert someone with whom we do not associate?

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 2
March 7, 1996

By Johnny Stringer

Introduction

There has been some discussion of the question of whether Romans 14 applies to congregational activities or is limited to individual, non-congregational practices. I am convinced that the principles of Romans 14 apply only to individual, private practices and are not applicable to congregational activities.

When I speak of an individual, private practice, I do not mean that the practice cannot be done with other people; most anything that can be done, can be done with other people. I mean that it is not a congregational practice  that is, it is not a practice that the congregation engages in together so that all who are in the congregation participate. In a private, individual practice, no one else in the congregation is forced to participate.

Neither Issue Paul Discussed Involved Congregational Activity

Paul discussed two matters about which brethren differed: (1) eating meats and (2) observing days. Whether one eats meats or abstains is a decision he makes and observes as an individual. Eating meats was not a collective activity of the congregation in which all active members of the congregation would necessarily be involved. Rather, those who could eat in good conscience were able to do so without involving those who could not eat in good conscience. Similarly, the observance of days was some-thing that one could do without involving the one whose conscience would be violated by the practice.

It has been argued that the chapter has little application if it is limited to individual activities. Yet, Paul expected the Romans to apply the teachings to practices that were individual in nature. In fact, the only things Paul mentions in his discussion were things individual in nature  that is, things not involving the collective activities of the congregation.

Impossible to Apply Romans 14 to Congregational Activity

According to Romans 14, brethren who differed were to accept each other while each one practiced his own belief (v. 3). In the matters discussed in this chapter, each one could act in accordance with his own conscience without involving the other

In matters of congregational activity, however, this is impossible. Suppose, for example, someone in the congregation believes it is wrong to use multiple cups in the Lord’s supper. Is it possible to apply Romans 14  that is, for the brethren to accept one another while practicing their different beliefs? No! Brethren in a congregation cannot differ in their practice on this matter. Either all have to use one cup or all have to participate in using multiple cups. It is impossible for each one to practice what he believes without involving anyone else. Romans 14 deals with matters in which brethren may differ in what they practice; hence, it does not deal with congregational activity.

Verse 22 teaches that if a person chooses to eat meat, he should quietly practice it without trying to induce others in the congregation to do so. This concept does not apply to congregational activity; in congregational activity, all in the congregation are required to do the same thing.

Instructions to the Strong Should Not Be

Applied to Congregational Activity

The “strong” are those who are able in good conscience to engage in a practice. The “weak” are those who cannot in good conscience engage in a practice. Paul instructed the strong not to put a stumbling block in the way of the weak brother (v. 13). You would be doing this if you encouraged the weak brother to engage in a practice that violated his conscience. As one exercises his right to eat meat, he must not do so in a way that would encourage another to do so in violation of his conscience. The teaching in Romans 14 implies that it may be possible to exercise one’s liberty to eat meat, yet not to encourage the vegetarian to violate his conscience (vv. 3, 22). This is true because eating meat is not a congregational activity.

But what about congregational activities? Let us return to the case of person who does not believe in using multiple cups. Is it possible for a congregation to use multiple cups without encouraging the weak brother to violate his con-science? No! If a congregation used multiple cups, the weak brother would be forced to participate if he continued to worship with the congregation. Suppose the brother is the kind who would not press his views on others but would be disposed to go along with the use of multiple cups even though it violated his conscience. In that case, if the congregation used multiple cups, they would be encouraging him to violate his conscience, hence, they would be a stumbling block to him.

Consequently, in order to obey Romans 14:13, they would have to quit using multiple cups if this passage applied to congregational activity.

The one who can eat meat is to forego that practice when it would encourage a weak brother to violate his conscience, thus causing him to stumble (Rom. 14:21; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:13). If the same principle applied to congregational activity, a congregation would have to forego using multiple cups if it would encourage a weak brother to use them in violation of his conscience.

It may be replied that the one who is opposed to the use of multiple cups does not have the right to bind his opinions on others. But remember, we are not talking about one who is trying to bind his opinions on others; we are talking about one who is likely to go along with the practice of others even though it violates his conscience.

Do you not see that if we apply the instructions to the strong to congregational activity, then a congregation will be obligated to abstain from any practice that would violate the conscience of anyone in the congregation? Someone, for example, may think it is wrong to use Bible class literature. If the church’s funds (to which he contributed) were used to purchase literature, his conscience would be violated because he would be participating in something he believed to be wrong. To avoid being a stumbling block to him, the church would have to abstain from purchasing Bible class literature  just as Paul said he would abstain from eating meat if his eating were a stumbling block to a brother.

I see no way around it. Paul taught that if the exercise of one’s liberty would be a stumbling block to the weak brother, he should forego the exercise of that liberty. If Paul’s teaching applies to congregational activity, then the congregation must forego the exercise of any liberty that would be a stumbling block to those who cannot in good conscience engage in the practice.

Romans 14, however, does not deal with congregational activity; hence, it is a mistake to apply this teaching to congregational activity. Teachings that are designed for application in matters of private practice are not necessarily suited for application in congregational matters.

To abstain from using literature or multiple cups, for example, could be a hindrance to the congregation’s influence and function. A congregation could be seriously handicapped if it yielded on every matter about which some member had scruples. Congregations, however, are not required to do that because Romans 14 does not apply to congregational activities. (Do not misunderstand. I do not mean that a congregation should never yield to a brother’s scruples even when to do so would be harmless; I only mean that Romans 14 does not require it. Good judgment is required in this matter.)

Next Article

In my next article I plan to present an overview of what I believe to be the Scripture’s teaching concerning differences among brethren. I will show where I believe Romans 14 fits into that teaching.

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 3-4
March 7, 1996

By Elmer Moore

I am fully aware of the diversity over what the statement “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 means: “And Peter said to them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Much has been said and written about the prepositional phrase, “unto the remission of sins.” If this phrase was not even in the text one would know why they were to be baptized. The Jews asked a question in verse 37 and said, “What shall we do?” They had been indicted as the murderers of the Divine Son of God. They were in a lost condition and wanted to know what to do to be saved. Peter answered their question saying, “Repent and be baptized.” This is what they were to do in order to have their sins forgiven. The honest and good heart would know this even if the prepositional phrase “unto remission of sins” had not been uttered. I can only ask that you consider this presentation with an open and honest heart.

However, our study will have to do with the statement, ” … and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” What were they promised? Were they promised the Holy Spirit himself or were they promised a gift from the Holy Spirit? Was the Spirit himself the gift or was he the giver? We will endeavor to answer this question.

Cannot be Answered on the Basis

of the Grammar Alone

Brother Franklin Puckett wrote that, “Grammatically it may be either the Holy Spirit Himself, or it may be that which the Holy Spirit gives. The grammar does not determine whether the Holy Spirit is the gift or the give?’ (The Holy Spirit 12-13). On pages 13 and 14 he cites Greek authorities and shows that they conclude “that the distinction between the Subjective and the Objective Genitive depends, not on grammatical, but upon doctrinal reasons, and that these are to be carefully deduced from an accurate comparison of parallel passages” (Winer Grammar of the New Testament Diction, Part III, Sec. 30, 199). I am not willing to allow denominational scholars to determine doctrine for me. Are you? Let us determine the meaning, from the New Testament, by looking at some parallel passages.

Comparison of “Gift of ” Passages

In John 4:10 Jesus said, “If thou knewest the gift of God .. thou would have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” In Ephesians 4:7 Paul wrote, “Unto each … was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” In Acts 2:38 Peter said, “Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In each of the above passages you have what God, Christ and the Holy Spirit would give. God was not the gift but the giver; Christ was not the gift but the giver; and likewise, the Holy Spirit was not the gift but the giver. A gift implies a giver. One cannot have a gift without a giver and a receiver. If the Holy Spirit is the gift, then who is the giver? The concept that the Holy Spirit is the gift and not the giver actually makes the gift and the giver one and the same. But how can that be? The gift of God was not God but living water that he would give. The gift of Christ was not Christ, but the gifts named in the text. Likewise, the gift of the Holy Spirit was not the Holy Spirit himself, but the salvation promised in Acts 2:21. I am not aware of any other circumstance where men would argue as they do about the gift and giver of Acts 2:38. If one reads about the gift of the Ford Foundation he would not think that the Ford Foundation was the gift, but that it was the giver.

Gift of the Holy Spirit in the Immediate Context

The text of Peter’s sermon was this: “And it shall be, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). In this sermon he identified the Lord they were to call on, he explained the reason they should call on him, and he explained how they were to do it. The emphasis in this passage is on the whosoever which is comparable to “all nations” in similar passages. Paul wrote there was no distinction between Jew and Greek and that Jesus is “Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call on him: for, whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom.10:12-13). Thus, he indicates that Joel was showing that both Jew and Gentile would have the right to invoke God’s blessings by doing his will. Notice what Peter says, “For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). What promise is Peter talking about? I submit that he is talking about the promise in Acts 2:21 which involved “whosoever”; i.e., both Jew and Gentile (see Rom. 10:12-13). Who are the recipients of the promise of Acts 2:39? It says the promise is to you (Jews) and to your children (Jews) and to all that are afar off (Gentiles), (see Eph. 2:13). In Acts 2:21, salvation is promised to both Jews and Gentiles. After Peter stated that the baptized would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, he stated the reason in verse 39 when he said, “For to you is the promise,” referring to the salvation of verse 21. This is not being redundant because salvation is sometimes used to indicate a state or condition resulting from the remission of sins (see Luke 1:77).

The salvation of Joel 2:32 is the equivalent of the promised inheritance through Abraham (see Gal. 3:7-14). In Galatians 3:15 this inheritance is said to be the “promise of the Spirit” or that which the Holy Spirit promised through Abraham.

Look at the Immediate Context, Acts 2:33

Peter declares that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promise of the Holy Spirit. He did not receive the Holy Spirit himself but he received that which the Holy Spirit promised. The promise was that he would sit on David’s throne (Acts 2:34-35). This statement was made just five verses before Acts 2:38. The promise of the Spirit is what the Holy Spirit promised and the gift of the Holy Spirit is what the Holy Spirit gave.

Now Look at the Remote Context, Acts 26:16-18

Jesus said to Paul, “. . . to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive the remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:16-18). This is a commentary on the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul was not directed to teach some-thing different from what Peter preached. The promised inheritance that resulted from their receiving the remission of sins was the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How Can This Salvation be the

Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Peter wrote to the elect of God and said they had been “begotten again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled and fadeth not away reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3-5). These brethren were called “children of obedience” (v. 14). They had been redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus (v. 18), having purified their souls by obeying the truth (v. 21). They had been begotten again by the word of God that liveth and abideth forever (v. 21). This is a description of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Begotten again by the word of God. Obedient children have a living hope based on a living Savior, are promised an inheritance that would not fade away, and are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Peter declares, “Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time and manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified the suffering of Christ and the glories that should follow them. To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angels desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:10-12).

Please consider that the Holy Spirit enabled men to prophesy concerning this salvation (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Holy Spirit enabled men to preach this message of salvation (1 Pet. 1:12). The Holy Spirit validated the message of this great salvation by signs and wonders (Heb. 2:1-4). This is why the salvation of Acts 2:21 can be and indeed is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

Salvation was prophesied by the Holy Spirit. Salvation was announced by those who preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit. Their message of salvation was validated by the Holy Spirit. The promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 was not only to those present but for all who would truly repent and be baptized. Everyone who complies with the conditions of Acts 2:38 receives the gift of the Holy Spirit and that gift is salvation. Those in Acts 8:16 by being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, complied with the conditions of Acts 2:38 and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, they had not received the Holy Spirit himself (Acts 8:17). I believe that this shows that to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily to receive the Holy Spirit himself, but is that which the Holy Spirit gives.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 18-19
February1, 1996

By Daniel R. Vess

The conversion of Cornelius and his household is a great mile marker in the progress of the gospel. In Acts 10 we not only find the first Gentile converts, but the visible signs of the middle wall of partition separating Jews from Gentiles coming down (Eph. 2:140. The portals to the kingdom were opened to the whole Gentile world. Compared to Acts 2, this chapter exemplifies the “Gentile Pentecost.”

This glorious event is not without controversy. A total of five times the household is said to have received some kind of manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Many have referred to this as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Others have seriously questioned this conclusion, such as, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. in his book, The Mission and Medium of the Holy Spirit.

First, consideration will be given to the various lines of argumentation against Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 10. Next, evidence will be put forth to affirm that Cornelius’ house-hold experienced Holy Spirit baptism.

Arguments Against

1. The gift of the Holy Spirit poured out upon Cornelius’ house was not for the same purpose as the apostles’ Holy Spirit baptism. In the case of the apostles it was to enable them to reveal and testify the truth of God (John 16:13; Acts 1:8). The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 was indeed for an entirely different purpose. However, a difference in purpose does not prove the Gentiles did not experience Holy Spirit baptism.

Although Peter preached the universality of the gospel (Acts 2:39), it was not until his vision and the sudden speaking in tongues by Cornelius’ household that he realized that neither he nor the six Jews present could forbid the Gentiles water baptism. In defense of taking the gospel to the Gen-tiles, Peter told the Jews in Jerusalem that if he had refused to accept the Gentiles he would have been withstanding the will of God. Peter’s words convinced those at Jerusalem that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (11:17, 18). Again, Peter stood before those in Jerusalem declaring that God chose him to preach to the first Gentile converts to purify “their hearts by faith” saving them “in the same manner as” the Jews (15:9, 11). Furthermore, to refuse the Gentiles equal access via the Gospel would be to provoke God (15:10). Three times Peter used the manifestation of the Holy Spirit upon these Gentiles to prove God “acknowledged” (15:8) the Gentiles could become Christians without keeping the Law of Moses. Thus, this divine demonstration of Holy Spirit baptism of the Gentiles was to convince the Jewish brethren and fulfill what had always been a part of God’s eternal purpose (Gen. 22:18; Isa. 2:2, 3; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:39).

2. The Holy Spirit did not bestow the same power upon Cornelius’ household as it did upon the apostles. This distinction is also based upon assumptions. Does the same degree of power demand the same abilities? Were the first century Christians who received the gift of interpretation of tongues less blessed by the power of the Spirit than the one who received the gift to speak in tongues? It is further assumed that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what enabled the apostles to impart gifts via laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19; 19:1-7; 2 Tm. 1:6). Yet, where is the passage(s) that demands such a conclusion? The apostles were commissioned to do a specific work. Therefore, they were given various abilities that the first Gentile converts did not need (John 14-16). What took place in Cornelius’ home did not remind Peter of the promised power to the apostles (Acts 1:8), but the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1:5). The purpose of these Holy Spirit baptisms was for distinct reasons, thus the manifestation and extent of this outpouring could also be distinctive.

3. Holy Spirit baptism was never promised to Gentiles, but only to the apostles. Frequently, prophecies are also divine promises. The prophecy of Joel 2 was quoted by Peter in Acts 2 in order to explain the manifestation of the Holy Spirit upon the day of Pentecost. If it took the baptism of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the promise to the Jews in Joel, then would it not follow that the same was required to fulfill this promise in relationship to the Gentiles? True, other promises were made in relationship to the apostles’ baptism of the Holy Spirit, yet it was certainly promised to the Gentiles.

4. In the case of Cornelius it is never referred to as baptism, but merely as a gift. If this manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s power in Cornelius and those accompanying him was not Holy Spirit baptism, then was it the “gift of the Holy Spirit” promised by Peter in Acts 2:38? No! The gift mentioned there was predicated upon the recipients’ obedience to the gospel. They had to repent and be baptized in order to receive this gift. At Cornelius’ house the gift came prior to their baptism in water. Furthermore, what they received could not have been one of the “gifts” of the Holy Spirit. In Bulwarks of Faith, even Foy Wallace Jr. explained: “Holy Spirit baptism was from God, not from man; it was received directly from heaven  not by importation of hands” (191). Again, if “gift” merely refers to the ability to speak in tongues, then where did this ability come from? All others who had this ability were those who received it by the laying on of the apostles hands. Also, why did Peter make reference to the apostles “gift” and the “beginning”? Was this the only other case of speaking in tongues up to that time? The only logical explanation can be found in the mind of Peter as he paralleled what he saw in Acts 10 to the words of Jesus in Acts 1:5: “John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (11:16).

5. What happened in Cornelius’ house is not identical to that of the Pentecostal experience. Certainly, these two cases are not identical, but they are similar. No two cases of conversion are identical in every detail. For example, an angel appeared to Cornelius, but not to the Philippian jailor or the eunuch. If all cases of conversion must be the same in every peculiarity, then the baptism experienced by the household of the Philippian jailor is not the same water baptism as that of Cornelius’ household. Reasoning like this proves too much.

Evidence For

1. What happened with Cornelius’ household is similar to the apostles’ reception of the Holy Spirit. The language consistently points to the Jews in general and the apostles specifically as parallel recipients of this type of Holy Spirit manifestation: “the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also” (10:45); “received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47); “the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning” (11:15); “God gave them the same gift” (11:17); and “giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us” (15:8).

2. Only Pentecost could be referenced as a parallel to what happened in Cornelius’ house (11:15). When refer-ring to the Holy Spirit falling upon them, Peter went back to the “beginning” as a analogous incident. In the years following Pentecost there wasn’t a single manifestation of the Holy Spirit comparable to what he saw at Cornelius’ house. Exactly what Peter meant by going back to Pentecost is made clear in verse 16 when he remembered Jesus’ words concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

3. Peter mentioned Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit baptism in explaining what had happened in Cornelius’ house (11:16). The first promise of a baptism with the Holy Spirit was made by John the Immerser (Matt 3:11). Later, this promise was recounted by Jesus a few days before his ascension (Acts 1:5; Luke 24:44-49). Inspiration ties both the apostles and Cornelius to the promise Christ made in Acts 1:5.

4. The power of the Holy Spirit was administered directly from heaven (11:17; 15:8). The gifts of the Holy Spirit were not conferred by the normal means, that is, the laying on of the apostles’ hands, but straight from heaven. This is compatible with the scriptural teaching that only Christ would administer the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist could not administer it (Matt. 3:11) nor any of the apostles, but only Christ was to administer it (Acts 1:5).

5. It was the “same gift” as that of the apostles at the beginning (11:17). The corresponding word for “same” is translated in Philippians 2:6 as “equal,” that is, Christ “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.” This “same” gift is mentioned as “the gift of the Holy Spirit” that was poured out on them (10:45). Thus, whatever the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit was in relation to the apostles on Pentecost is the same thing or equal to the outpouring years later at Caesarea.

6. It demonstrated “no distinction” between Jews and Gentiles (15:9). How did Peter know that no distinction existed between Jew and Gentile? Because they were given the same gift from God. If they really didn’t receive the same outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit then Peter’s argument is unsupported.

7. The event fulfilled the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32. Ac-cording to Joel’s prophecy all flesh would receive the outpouring of the Spirit. Surely, all flesh does not include animal flesh or those who are wicked, but those willing to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Acts 2:21; 10:43). Jew and Gentile represent all flesh. Thus, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the apostles representing Jewish flesh upon the day of Pentecost and then upon the household of Cornelius representing Gentile flesh (10:45).

Furthermore, when the Apostles spoke in tongues having been filled with the Holy Spirit, it represented Holy Spirit baptism promised by Jesus (1:5) and it also fulfilled the prophecy of Joel (2:17). Now, if it took the Holy Spirit baptism to fulfill Joel’s prophecy and the promise of Jesus in reference to the Jews, then it would require Holy Spirit baptism for the Gentiles. After all, Cornelius’ household was filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, the Spirit poured out upon them as on the Jews at the beginning, and reminded the inspired apostle Peter of Jesus promise to baptize with the Holy Spirit (11:16). Finally, if Cornelius’ household did not receive Holy Spirit baptism in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, then where is this prophecy fulfilled?

Every reference to the experience of Cornelius’ house-hold points back to Pentecost (Acts 10:44, 45, 47; 11:15, 16; 15:8). Both Joel 2 and Acts 2 point toward the conversion of Cornelius’ household in Acts 10 for fulfillment. This scriptural proof is convincing and conclusive.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 
February1, 1996