{"id":9199,"date":"2020-10-19T22:39:29","date_gmt":"2020-10-19T22:39:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thescripturecache.com\/?p=9199"},"modified":"2022-08-18T21:56:39","modified_gmt":"2022-08-18T21:56:39","slug":"what-is-the-gift-of-the-holy-spirit-acts-238","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thescripturecache.com\/?p=9199","title":{"rendered":"What Is \u201cThe Gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d?\u2014Acts 2:38"},"content":{"rendered":"

Views: 13<\/p>

[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The meaning of the phrase, the<\/em> gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> (Acts 2:38), has for many years been a topic of discussion among brethren.One\u2019s understanding of this phrase is closely related to his understanding of the means, mode, or manner of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. Hence, while this manuscript will not deal specifically with the manner and means of the Spirit\u2019s indwelling, it will be impossible to ignore that subject in the course of this material. Assuming that we all agree that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian (so plainly and repeatedly stated that we need not cite the passages), there must be some point at which the Spirit takes up His abode. I believe Acts 2:38 and corroborating passages identify that point. If they do not indicate when the Spirit begins to dwell in us (regardless of one\u2019s view on the \u201chow\u201d), then I confess I have been unable to discover when He does.<\/span><\/p>\n

Good, able, scholarly, sincere brethren through the years have held\u2014and many presently hold\u2014that the Holy Spirit \u201cdwells\u201d in the Christian only figuratively; that is, He does not actually and personally dwell in us, but only \u201crepresentatively.\u201dMost who thus believe hold that He indwells us only through the agency of His Word. There is little doubt that this view has become the prevailing one among faithful brethren over the past several decades. Those who subscribe to this view of the Holy Spirit\u2019s indwelling generally attribute the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> in Acts 2:38 to a gift<\/strong> which the Holy Spirit gives <\/strong>to Christians. Further, those who thus believe entertain varied opinions of that which constitutes this \u201cgift.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

However, good, able scholarly, sincere brethren through the years have held\u2014and many presently hold\u2014that the Holy Spirit Himself actually<\/strong> dwells in the Christian, rather than only doing so through some agent (e.g., His Word, His \u201cinfluence,\u201d et al.). Those who subscribe to this view believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> in Acts 2:38 is the<\/strong> Holy Spirit<\/strong> Himself<\/strong> as a gift<\/strong> to all who receive remission of sins upon their obedience to the Gospel plan of salvation. If the well-respected late Moses E. Lard can be trusted as an accurate observer of the brotherhood in 1866, not \u201cone man in a hundred\u201d held any other view of this subject at that time.1 Of course, counting noses then or now says nothing of the rightness or wrongness of any given doctrine, but I suppose these observations are at least interesting to those who study these issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

I espouse this latter view, as I have since first having any remembrance of studying it seriously. I have studied and restudied it many times over the years, even as I did once more in preparation for this MS. As in every previous reexamination, I have come away with an inability to interpret and explain various passages consistently while holding to any other view of the matter.<\/span><\/p>\n

Assuming that we all agree that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian (so plainly and repeatedly stated that we need not cite the passages), there must be some point at which the Spirit takes up His abode. I believe Acts 2:38 and corroborating passages identify that point. If they do not indicate when the Spirit begins to dwell in us (regardless of one\u2019s view on the \u201chow\u201d), then I confess I have been unable to discover when He does so.<\/span><\/p>\n

Most brethren by far have for generations, regardless of their convictions on this subject, avowed that one\u2019s understanding of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> and the manner of His indwelling should not be issues over which we draw lines of fellowship (assuming, of course, that no claims of post-apostolic miraculous powers are involved in postulated gift). Many of my intimate and esteemed friends believe differently from what I believe on this subject, but I continue to esteem them highly and count them dear. However, a word of caution seems appropriate just here: At times when some write and\/or speak on these matters, they address the opposing view in a ridiculing, condescending, and\/or caustic or dogmatic manner as if it were<\/strong> a fellowship issue. They leave the impression that those who disagree with them are some sort of extremists, either borderline liberals on the one hand or radicals on the other, depending on which view one holds. A brother wrote me the following in 1995 upon learning of my convictions concerning the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It was a great surprise, even a shock to me when I learned\u2026that you held this position.\u2026 Of all of our years of knowing each other I had never heard you refer to the subject in school, nor in articles, sermons, or lectures. I guess we take a lot for granted in our friends.\u2026 I will certainly not knowingly misrepresent you, but will defend you as best I can under the circumstances.2<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Such statements as the above promote neither an open-minded study of an issue nor unity among brethren. If we really believe this issue should not divide faithful brethren, we should speak and act so as not to cause disruptions in respectful and cordial relations when discussing it. The late Franklin Camp\u2019s statement from the introduction to his study of the Holy Spirit is appropriate here. Although I disagree with his conclusions concerning the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>, I want to register my complete concurrence with his following statement:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Let me say to all that may read this book that as long as we agree that the Holy Spirit convicts, leads, directs, and edifies only through the Word, whatever other differences there may be on the subject ought not to have the least effect on the question of our fellowship.3<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My aim is to set forth the case for my conviction that the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> in Acts 2:38 refers to the Holy Spirit Himself. While it is not my principal task to review and\/or refute other views (readily available in various books), it will be necessary at least briefly to touch on them in the course of this study. Calling attention to some things the \u201cgift\u201d is not<\/strong> may help us to understand what it is<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Acts 2:38\u2014The Principal Passage<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The principal passage of our study is the very familiar statement in Acts 2:38: \u201cAnd Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d While I make no pretensions at Greek scholarship, I can read and understand at least some of what the scholars say. Of the Holy Spirit<\/em> is a genitive case form, of which there are more than a dozen types and subtypes,4<\/sup> all of which must depend upon immediate and\/or remote context for their implications. The claim by some that it is grammatically impossible for this phrase in Acts 2:38 to mean \u201cthe Holy Spirit as a gift\u201d is simply unfounded. Thayer,5<\/sup> Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich,6<\/sup> Kittel,7<\/sup> Robertson,8<\/sup>Nicoll,9<\/sup> Vine,10<\/sup> and numerous other notable linguistic authorities not only declare that this meaning is possible<\/strong>, but that the Holy Spirit is<\/strong> the gift, not the giver. Moreover, the Bible itself proves that this grammatical construction can mean the Holy Spirit is the gift, as Wayne Jackson observed: \u201cThat the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> can be the Spirit Himself is demonstrated by a comparison of Acts 10:45 with 10:47, even though the respective contexts reveal that different endowments of the Spirit are under consideration in Acts 2 and 10.\u201d11<\/sup> To say the very least, it is both grammatically and Biblically possible<\/strong> for this phrase to mean \u201cthe Holy Spirit as a gift.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Bible has always been its own best commentary. Every time I preach on the subject of \u201cbaptism,\u201d I use this hermeneutical principle to define a phrase that appears earlier in Acts 2:38\u2014for the remission of sins<\/em> (KJV). In their fever to remove baptism from the plan of salvation, most denominationalists make the absurd quibble that for<\/em> in Peter\u2019s statement means \u201cbecause of.\u201d This assertion places baptism after salvation\u2019s reception and removes its conditional relationship to salvation. While there is more than one way to demonstrate the fallacy of this avowal, one effective way is to lay this phrase by the side of the very same phrase in another passage and determine, if possible, its meaning there.<\/span><\/p>\n

The comparison passage is Matthew 26:28, in which the Lord said: \u201cFor this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins\u201d (KJV). For<\/em> the remission of sins<\/em> is identical in the translation and in the Greek as well (except the definite article appears in Acts 2:38 before sins<\/em>, which fact has no bearing on the parallelism). Correct hermeneutics and exegesis demand that this phrase must mean the same thing in both passages. It surely cannot have opposite<\/strong> meanings in the two contexts. If anti-baptism teachers are correct in saying that baptism is because<\/strong> men have already received remission of sins, consistency forces them to allege likewise that Jesus shed His blood because<\/strong> men had already received remission of their sins before He shed it, a position so ridiculous as not even to need refutation (see Heb. 9:22, et al.). The only meaning the Lord\u2019s words can possibly have is that for<\/em> remission of sins<\/em> means \u201cin order to receive remission of sins.\u201d This Scriptural conclusion applies to the same phrase in Acts 2:38, demanding the same meaning for it. Thus baptism is in order to receive<\/strong> remission of sins. (The ASV correctly denotes the direction of the action by its rendering, unto the remission of your sins<\/em>, thus removing any basis for this quibble related to the preposition for<\/em>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The phrase, the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>, also appears in only one other New Testament passage, cited earlier: \u201cAnd they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d (Acts 10:45). Was this a gift the Holy Spirit gave Cornelius and those in his house? Manifestly not, and Luke leaves no room for doubt. As Peter spoke, the Holy Spirit<\/strong> fell on his listeners (v. 44). Surely no one is prepared to argue that that which \u201cfell\u201d (v. 44) was different from that which was \u201cpoured out\u201d in (v. 45). Luke further described the occasion by saying the people had \u201creceived the Holy Spirit\u201d (v. 47). Unquestionably, the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> in this context can only refer to Him Who fell on and was poured out upon them and Whom they received\u2014identified clearly by Luke as the Holy Spirit Himself<\/strong>, not a gift given by the Holy Spirit. The late Roy Lanier, Sr., well said:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

So if the expression, the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>, here means the Holy Spirit is the gift, and if the expression occurs in only one other verse, if we allow the Bible to explain itself, we must conclude that this is the meaning of the expression in the only other place it occurs.12<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The phrase, for the remission of sins<\/em>, relates to two respective antecedents in Matthew 26:28 and in Acts 2:38 (the shedding of Jesus\u2019 blood in the former and repentance and baptism in the latter). However, these differences do not negate the identical meaning of these identical grammatical constructions. Likewise, although the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> relates to two different manifestations of the Spirit in the respective cases described in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45, this fact does not negate the identical meaning of the identical grammatical constructions in both of these cases. What the phrase means in one place, it means in both. I conclude that the gift of the Holy Spirit <\/em>in Acts 2:38 refers to the Holy Spirit Who was given, just as it clearly does in Acts 10:45.<\/span><\/p>\n

Complementary Passages<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The New Testament teaches in several passages that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian (Rom. 8:9\u201311; 1 Cor. 3:16\u201317; 6:19; Eph. 2:21\u201322; 2 Tim. 1:14; et al.). My purpose in mentioning this fact and citing these passages is not to discuss them or to argue the case that He does dwell in the Christian. I mention the indwelling doctrine because of its relation to \u201cthe gift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d Since the Holy Spirit takes up His abode and dwells in the Christian (as numerous New Testament passages affirm), when does He do so? Acts 2:38 is only one of various passages that answers this question. Here, the stated time or point is when one has received remission of sins upon believing in Christ, repenting of his sins, and being baptized (vv. 37\u201338a). Now consider some corroborating passages:<\/span><\/p>\n

Acts 5:32:<\/strong> \u201cAnd we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.\u201d This passage clearly states both that (1) the Holy Spirit is the gift God gives and (2) He gives the Holy Spirit (no room to quibble about a gift from<\/strong> the Holy Spirit here) to those who obey Him. Some try to confine this gift to the apostles and their baptism in the Spirit on Pentecost, but such cannot be done without putting the language on a torture rack. Peter and the apostles (v. 29) are the \u201cwe\u201d who were the witnesses (along with the Holy Spirit). The \u201cthem that obey him\u201d in the last part of the verse\u2014to whom God has given the Holy Spirit\u2014are clearly distinguished from the \u201cwe are witnesses\u201d (the apostles). Them<\/em> refers to those besides<\/strong>, apart from<\/strong>, the apostles who obey God. The details of this obedience are found in Acts 2:38, where those who obeyed God in repentance and baptism were given the Holy Spirit. Here, likewise, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who are obedient. Acts 5:32 is therefore a commentary on the meaning of Acts 2:38 relating to the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 6:19:<\/strong> \u201cOr know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own\u2026.\u201d Paul was addressing children of God (\u201cunto the church of God which is at Corinth\u201d [1:2]). This passage is an unambiguous affirmation that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians\u2014specifically in their mortal bodies. I wish to emphasize here that this passage also clearly affirms the source<\/strong> of the indwelling Spirit\u2014\u201cwhich ye have from God.\u201d If we allow words to have their ordinary meanings, Paul here states that God gave<\/strong> us the Spirit Who dwells in us as His children.<\/span><\/p>\n

Galatians 4:6:<\/strong> \u201cAnd because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.\u201d This passage declares that God sent the Spirit of Christ (another term for the Holy Spirit [Rom. 8:9; Phi. 1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11]) into some hearts. The hearts belong to those who are God\u2019s sons, and He sends the Spirit into their hearts because<\/strong> they are such. There is no implication of inspiration in the averment that the Spirit cries \u201cAbba, Father\u201d in our hearts, as Darrell Conley aptly noted:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the parallel passage in Romans, Paul expresses the same thought this way: \u201cThe Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God\u201d (Rom. 8:16). The testimony of the Spirit of God through His Word declares what God requires to become His child. Our spirit bears witness to whether or not we have been obedient to those requirements. The two together bear witness to the fact that we are (or are not) children of God.13<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 From Galatians 4:6 I conclude that (1) God sends the Holy Spirit (2) into the hearts of His children (3) because they are (i.e., when they become) His children.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, consider the following parallels:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Acts 2:38: One receives the gift<\/strong> of the Holy Spirit upon repentance and baptism<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  • Acts 5:32: God gives<\/strong> the Holy Spirit to those who obey<\/strong> Him<\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1 Corinthians 6:19: God gives<\/strong> the Holy Spirit to dwell in Christians<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  • Galatians 4:6: God sends<\/strong> the Holy Spirit into the hearts of His sons<\/strong>14<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Two Fundamental Laws of Hermeneutics<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The rules of Biblical interpretation, technically called \u201cBiblical hermeneutics,\u201d are not found in a neat list somewhere in the Bible. They rather represent the distillation of principles at which earnest Bible scholars have arrived over the centuries. Almost any standard book on hermeneutics contains and discusses these rules that have been hammered out over time and through controversy. Some of these rules are exemplified by the inspired writers themselves (e.g., the prohibitive nature of the silence of Scripture as seen in Heb. 7:14; 8:4). Even if one were not aware of books on this subject, he would not study his Bible very long (or very profitably, at least) without employing (whether consciously or unconsciously) certain reliable and consistent principles of interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    I have already employed one hermeneutical rule in the course of this study. I did so when I used Matthew 26:28 to clarify the meaning of for remission of sins<\/em> in Acts 2:38, and when I used Acts 10:45 to clarify the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>in Acts 2:38. W. Robert Palmer simply states this rule as follows: \u201cOne passage will often explain another passage.\u201d15<\/sup> D.R. Dungan\u2019s description is: \u201cHelp may be had\u2026by examining the statements of other writers on the same subject, who are of equal authority.\u201d16<\/sup> I now suggest two additional hermeneutical principles that are germane to interpreting the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> correctly in Acts 2:38.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Literal Language Comes First, Figurative Language Second<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

    When all of the suggested meanings of ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> in Acts 2:38 are sorted out, only two basic positions remain: Some take the clause as literal language while others assert that it is figurative language. A fundamental rule, universally advocated by reputable Biblical hermeneuticists as far as I know, advises Bible students to assume that the language in any passage is to be understood literally, unless a prevailing reason or reasons indicate it may be figurative. Dungan states and comments on this rule as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids.\u2014Figures are the exception, literal language the rule; hence we are not to regard anything as figurative until we feel compelled to do so by the evident import of the passage.17<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Palmer\u2019s statement of this dictum says:<\/span><\/p>\n

    Simply stated, let us consider every passage as literal with the following exceptions:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. When it involves an impossibility or an absurdity\u2026.<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. When it involves a contradiction or inconsistency.<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. When it involves an immoral conclusion.<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. When it is otherwise implied by the context.<\/span><\/li>\n
    5. When it is otherwise stated.<\/span><\/li>\n
    6. When it is more apt to be figurative for\u2026sheer common sense.18<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Moses E. Lard\u2019s succinct version of the principle states: \u201cA 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.\u201d19 <\/sup>Clinton Lockhart identifies his \u201cRule XXXI\u201d as \u201cPreference for the literal,\u201d and writes simply: \u201cSince the literal is the most usual signification of a word, and therefore occurs much more frequently than the figurative, any term will be regarded as literal until there is good reason for a different understanding.\u201d20<\/sup> Numerous other hermeneutics books echo this rule consistently.21<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

      Let us now apply this principle of hermeneutics to Acts 2:38. Are there any prevailing factors to suggest that Peter was speaking figuratively? Are sinners to repent only figuratively<\/strong> (doubtless, this idea would appeal to many)? Are we to understand baptism in this verse to be a mere metaphor<\/strong> (as many denominationalists insist it is in their determination to delete it from the plan of salvation), or must the sinner be actually<\/strong> immersed in water? Does one literally<\/strong> receive remission of his sins upon repentance and baptism, or is this just a figure of speech<\/strong> that stands for something else? I insist that all three of these items are strictly literal<\/strong>. Now, if the first three of the four elements in Acts 2:38 are universally accepted among the Lord\u2019s people in their literal, ordinary usage and meanings, I am unable to see by what valid rule one can assume that Peter suddenly switches to figurative language for the fourth element\u2014ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Suppose one is a relatively new Christian and is therefore ignorant of various hypotheses concerning the meaning of ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> in Acts 2:38. What prevailing reason would cause him to assume or even suspect that this is figurative language, and what would he understand this clause to mean? Further, when he reads in Acts 5:32 of the apostles\u2019 speaking of God\u2019s gift of the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him<\/strong>, will it not be most natural for him to understand this statement in literal terms? His study will eventually bring him to 1 Corinthians 6:19, and he will read that his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is in him, and God is the One Who placed Him there<\/strong>. He will then come upon Galatians 4:6 and learn that God sent<\/strong> the Holy Spirit into his heart because he is a Christian<\/strong>. We should not be surprised if this student accepts these statements in their usual and customary meanings. Truly, we should be surprised if he did not.<\/span><\/p>\n

      What is there in any of these passages (and several others relating more specifically to the Spirit\u2019s indwelling) that, when taken in their usual, literal sense, creates any contradiction, absurdity, impossibility, or inconsistency? I can find no \u201cqualifying epithet\u201d in any of them to negate their literalness. What is there in any of them that even hints that they are metaphorical or figurative? I suggest nothing at all.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Despite the foregoing considerations, as indicated in our introduction, the most popular view brethren hold of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> is that this phrase is a figurative expression. Jackson correctly observed: \u201cOther good brethren hold that the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> is merely a metaphorical expression suggesting that only the Spirit\u2019s influence, by means of the inspired Word, indwells the Christian.\u201d22 <\/sup>This view is closely allied with a figurative view of the Spirit\u2019s indwelling<\/strong>, as Lanier points out:<\/span><\/p>\n

      Others say that the phrase dwells in you [Rom. 8:9, et al., DM] must be taken as a figure of speech, and means that the Spirit dwells in a person only as that person is influenced, motivated, by the teaching of Christ revealed by the Spirit. This is called the \u201crepresentative indwelling\u201d of the Spirit.23<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

      Just here we will do well to consider an important caution about identifying passages as figurative without due cause<\/strong>. After his statement (as quoted earlier), \u201cfigures are the exception, literal language the rule,\u201d Dungan continued:<\/span><\/p>\n

      And even here great caution should be observed. We are very apt to regard contexts as teaching some theory which we have in our minds. And having so determined, anything to the contrary will be regarded as a mistaken interpretation; hence, if the literal meaning of the words shall be found to oppose our speculations, we are ready to give to the words in question some figurative import that will better agree with our preconceived opinions. Let us be sure that the meaning of the author has demanded that the language be regarded in a figurative sense, and that it is not our theory which has made the necessity.24<\/sup> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      When taken at face value (i.e., in literal terms), Acts 2:38 teaches that everyone who repents and is baptized receives the Holy Spirit as a gift. Acts 5:32 corroborates this fact by saying that God gives His spirit to those who obey Him. Further, according to 1 Corinthians 6:19 and Galatians 4:6, the God-given, God-sent Spirit takes up His abode and dwells in us because we are sons of God. The \u201cgift of the Holy Spirit\u201d in Acts 2:38 is as much a literal promise of God as is remission of sins for every believing, penitent sinner who is baptized.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Definitions May Be Substituted for Words<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      One of the earliest rules of hermeneutics I learned as a student at Freed-Hardeman College half a century ago was that the definition of a Biblical term, properly<\/strong> defined, can be substituted for the term itself, and it will make perfect sense. We were taught the reliable \u201crule of thumb\u201d: \u201cThings (i.e., words, phrases, objects) that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.\u201d Therefore, if our use of a substitute term renders a passage nonsensical, creates a contradiction or absurdity, or produces a misfit, the substitute is thereby proved incorrect. This principle was drilled into all the preacher students in just about every Bible and Bible-related course. It has served faithful brethren well in both writing and preaching, especially on the polemic platform. Dungan lists it as Rule 7 under Section 50, \u201cRules by which the meaning of words shall be ascertained,\u201d and states the rule as follows: \u201cThe proper definition of a word may be used in the place of the word.\u201d He then continues with the following amplification:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      If the trial be made in this way, and the definition is wrong, the sense of the passage will be so destroyed as to make it apparent. It need only to be stated that the true meaning of a word will give the same sense that the word would give; hence, to remove the word and replace it with the definition, is easily done, and is a valuable method.25<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

      In his section on \u201cThe Meaning of Words,\u201d Palmer advises:<\/span><\/p>\n

      Here is a simple test that can be made. If there is any doubt as to which meaning to use, substitute the various definitions in place of the word itself. The one shade that seems to fit the passage best will often come to light by this practice. This helps immeasurably. As a matter of fact, this proves most useful even when there is but one meaning to a word. Put the definition of a word right in its place in any given verse. Watch it become more alive.26<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Let us now apply this rule to Acts 2:38. Brethren who believe the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> refers to a gift the Holy Spirit gives<\/strong> (instead of the Holy Spirit Himself) explain this gift in various ways. The most prevalent of these are \u201csalvation,\u201d \u201ceternal life,\u201d \u201cmiraculous gifts,\u201d and \u201cthe Word of God.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

      Salvation<\/em><\/strong> Substituted: <\/strong>\u201cRepent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive salvation<\/strong>.\u201d Without doubt, salvation from the guilt of our sins is a gift which we can Scripturally attribute to the Holy Spirit, but is that what Peter meant by the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>? Had he not already indicated their reception of salvation in this very sense in the phrase, remission of sins<\/em>, which was theirs upon their penitence and baptism?<\/span><\/p>\n

      Of this hypothesis, Wayne Jackson sagely observed:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      But this theory appears to gloss the very language of the verse. It seems very clear to this writer that \u201cthe gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d is something different from and in consequence of the reception of the forgiveness of sins. Note the dual use of the conjunction and in this context: \u201cRepent ye, and be baptized\u2026unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d If baptism is different from repentance, should not a similar recognition be given to the distinction between salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit? Moreover, other passages also suggest that the reception of the Holy Spirit is a blessing given in consequence of salvation [he then quotes Gal. 4:6].27<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      If Peter referred to salvation as the Holy Spirit\u2019s gift, he would, in effect, have said, \u201cRepent ye, and be baptized\u2026unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive remission of sins.\u201d Salvation<\/em> in this context creates a strange (and exceedingly unnatural) redundancy for the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Eternal Life<\/em><\/strong> Substituted:<\/strong> \u201cRepent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive eternal life<\/strong>.\u201d As with salvation<\/em>, eternal life is most certainly a gift, and we do no violence to Scripture when we attribute this gift to the Holy Spirit. However, this hypothesis pushes the reception of the gift to the end of a faithful life. As the late Gus Nichols observed: \u201cThis is another theory which logically means that we do not have the Holy Spirit in this life at all, for the Bible plainly teaches that \u2018eternal life\u2019 is \u2018in the world to come.\u2019\u201d He then correctly pointed out that numerous passages teach that God has given the Holy Spirit to His children, and He dwells in them \u201chere and now\u201d in this life [for which he cites Acts 2:38; 5:32; Rom. 8:8\u201311; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 1 The. 4:8; Gal. 4:6; Jude 19].28<\/sup> Surely, the very wording of Peter\u2019s statement indicates an immediate reception of the gift, which eternal life<\/em> does not fit.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Miraculous Gifts <\/em><\/strong>Substituted: <\/strong>\u201cRepent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive miraculous gifts<\/strong>.\u201d That is, those who repented and were baptized would be given the power to perform signs and work miracles, as the apostles did. I will subsequently document the fact that evidence is totally lacking of any besides the apostles possessing miraculous powers for a considerable time after Pentecost. For this theory to have any plausibility, therefore, one would have to suggest that the giving of this gift was delayed to some indefinite, post-Pentecost time. Does the fact that Peter said, \u201cye shall<\/strong> receive\u201d imply some distant time for reception of the gift, as some assert? Terry Hightower\u2019s comment indicates that this suggestion is untenable:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Some hold that the future tense promise of \u201cye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d (Acts 2:38, emph. TMH) was not in but after baptism and is thus the reception of supernatural powers (i.e., miracles given by apostles\u2019 hands, Acts 8:17) perhaps months or even years later. However, parallel verses which include the phrase, thou shalt be saved (e.g., Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9; emph. TMH) show this \u201cindefinite time\u201d to be incorrect.29<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Admittedly, some<\/strong> who obeyed the Gospel in Jerusalem eventually<\/strong> received miraculous powers when the apostles laid their hands on them (Acts 6:6\u20138; 8:6\u20137). Some of these may<\/strong> have even been converted on Pentecost (e.g., the seven men, 6:6\u20138), but granting this to be so, they did not receive miraculous powers then<\/strong>. This explanation of the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> suffers on several counts:<\/span><\/p>\n

      First<\/strong>, Peter\u2019s language implies that \u201cthe gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d would be given as universally as \u201cthe remission of sins.\u201d Jackson\u2019s comment on this hypothesis is germane: \u201cIf such a view is correct, it would seem that a reasonable approach to the passage [Acts 2:38, DM] would suggest that all who were baptized that day (cf. 2:41) received not only forgiveness of sins, but also supernatural gifts, so that literally hundreds of disciples were performing miracles subsequently in the city of Jerusalem.\u201d30 <\/sup>As I earlier indicated, I will demonstrate later that this was not the case at all.<\/span><\/p>\n

      If this gift consisted of miraculous powers\u2014administered only through the apostles\u2019 hands\u2014then certain extremely implausible circumstances follow, some of which Lanier summarized:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Three thousand people obeyed the commands; therefore, that many received the power to work miracles. Are we ready for such a conclusion: But soon the number came to be five thousand males (Acts 4:4). Then believers were the more added to the Lord (5:14), and the number of the disciples multiplied exceedingly (6:7). If we multiply five thousand males by the least number possible, we have ten thousand. Then there were women obeying the gospel\u2026(6:1). Did apostles lay hands on all these women and give them the power to work miracles? \u2026When the church at Jerusalem heard that Antioch had received the word, they sent Barnabas to exhort and encourage them. I wonder why apostles were not sent to lay hands on them that they might receive the promise of Acts 2:38. If the promise of Acts 2:38 was miraculous power, and all who obeyed the commands of that verse received miraculous power by apostles\u2019 hands, these twelve men were required to go to every person who obeyed the gospel regardless of where he lived\u2026. This would have been a physical impossibility; nothing less than miraculous transportation could have made it possible\u2026. And then I wonder who laid hands on the Ethiopian eunuch\u2026. The eunuch went on to Ethiopia without the gift of the Holy Spirit\u2026according to this theory.31<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Second,<\/strong> evidence is completely nonexistent that any saints besides the apostles possessed any miraculous powers for some time after Pentecost. Nichols correctly wrote: \u201cThere is not a word said on Pentecost, nor for two or three years afterward, about the apostles\u2019 laying hands on any to bestow upon them the miraculous gift of the Spirit. (Acts 6:6 is the first recorded instance.)\u201d32<\/sup> Further, there is not one word during that same time span of any miracles being wrought by anyone besides<\/strong> the apostles. Jackson further notes:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      There is absolutely no indication, from Acts 2 through chapter 5, that anyone other than the apostles possessed miraculous gifts. Note the following: \u201cand fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles<\/strong>\u201d (Acts 2:43). The miracle performed by Peter and John in Acts 3 seems to have been an unusual event; the Jewish leaders commented: \u201c\u2026for that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it\u201d (Acts 4:16). There is no hint that multitudes of Christians were duplicating such signs in the city. Again: \u201cAnd by the hands of the apostles<\/strong> were many signs and wonders wrought among the people, and they were all with one accord in Solomon\u2019s porch. But of the rest durst no man join himself to them; howbeit the people magnified them\u2026\u201d (Acts 5:12\u201313). The religious awe with which the multitudes held the apostles\u00a0<\/strong>suggests they were doing signs not characteristic of the saints generally. It is only when one comes to Acts 6:6ff. verses that mention is made of the imposition of the apostles\u2019 hands, and the subsequent exercise of miraculous gifts by others (cf. Acts 6:8, emph. DM).33<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Third,<\/strong> if the \u201cgift of the Holy Spirit\u201d was miraculous gifts, rather than the \u201cordinary\u201d indwelling manifestation of the Spirit, promised to and declared for all Christians, we must assume that the \u201csaints\u201d at Rome did not really belong to Christ at the time Paul wrote to them. He stated that they were \u201cin the Spirit, if so be<\/strong> that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his<\/strong>\u201d (Rom. 8:9, emph. DM). As far as history (inspired and uninspired) is concerned, no apostle had been to Rome at the time Paul wrote his letter to them. This fact is further implied in that he said he longed to visit them in order to impart<\/strong> to them \u201csome spiritual gift,\u201d which only an apostle could impart in person<\/strong> (i.e., by laying his hands on them) (1:11). Yet, the apostle addressed them as \u201cbeloved of God, called to be saints\u201d (v. 7). Obviously, he thought they already\u00a0<\/strong>had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and that they belonged to Christ at the time he to wrote them and thus before he got there<\/strong>. His description of them (\u201ccalled to be saints\u201d) tells us that they had obeyed the same commands Peter issued on Pentecost, upon which he promised they would receive both remission of sins and<\/strong> the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). If the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> is not a reference to the indwelling Spirit, when did the Romans receive the Spirit? Were the Romans without \u201cthe gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d until Paul arrived to lay hands on them? Did they not have the \u201cSpirit of Christ\u201d and did they thus not belong to Christ before Paul arrived in Rome, in spite of the fact that he described them as \u201cbeloved of God, called to be saints\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\n

      Fourth,<\/strong> although the promise of the \u201cgift of the Holy Spirit\u201d was as universal as the reception of \u201cremission of sins,\u201d where is the evidence that every saint in the first century received miraculous powers (even if one grants that the apostles could somehow get to all of them)? As earlier observed, there is no evidence that any of the thousands converted in Jerusalem for two or three years after Pentecost received or exercised such powers. Moreover, the first ones who received these powers numbered only seven<\/strong> out of the several thousands who were disciples by that time, leaving the impression that this conferring of power was exceptional and unusual rather than universal and ordinary among the saints (Acts 6:5\u20138). (Interestingly, these seven men had to be \u201cfull of the Holy Spirit\u201d already in some sense, before<\/strong> their appointment for the necessary work and before<\/strong> the apostles laid hands on them to give them miraculous powers [v. 3].)<\/span><\/p>\n

      Philip, one of the seven, went to Samaria, preached Christ, performed signs, and baptized \u201cboth men and women\u201d (Acts 8:5\u20137, 12). Peter and John soon came and laid their hands on these new saints, upon which they received miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit (vv. 14\u201319). Did the Samaritans not have the Holy Spirit in any sense until the apostles arrived? Again, when Philip converted the Ethiopian, how did he ever<\/strong> receive \u201cthe gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d if it consisted of miraculous powers? And what of the converts of those thousands who, upon the persecution led by Saul, were scattered from Jerusalem and then \u201cwent about preaching the word\u201d (8:1\u20134)? Those who fled Jerusalem \u201ctraveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch\u201d (11:19), and someone (apparently other than an apostle, as noted earlier) had established the church in Rome. While the Jerusalem saints scattered, Luke plainly stated that the apostles did not, but remained in Jerusalem<\/strong> (8:1). Granting for argument\u2019s sake that the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> refers to miraculous powers, how did these converts in far-flung areas receive the promise of Acts 2:38 before an apostle visited them? It is quite likely that many first-century brethren never saw an apostle their entire lives and thus never received this promised gift\u2014if it consisted of miraculous powers.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fifth,<\/strong> If the gift of the Holy Spirit<\/em> refers to miraculous powers, what are we to do with the latter part of Acts 2:38 today? Those who identify the gift of the Holy Spirit with miraculous powers <\/em>seem to be left with only three options, none of which I can accept:<\/span><\/p>\n