Introduction and Survey:
This exegetical paper is about Acts 19:1-7 which is the encounter of Paul and the Ephesian believers. My purpose in writing this paper is to provide a balanced view when it comes to Non-Pentecostal and Pentecostal theologies about this encounter. I have seen a constant debate about the uniqueness of salvation compared to Spirit Baptism according to Pentecostal theology when it comes to interpreting this text. I come from an Assemblies of God perspective which differs from other Pentecostals regarding speaking in tongues. The Initial Physical Evidence in speaking in tongues has always been a challenge for Non-Pentecostal to accept based on our perspective and connections that we find throughout Scripture. As an Assemblies of God minister our theology states that this is a “subsequent and distinct experience” regarding Baptism In The Holy Spirit while Tongues is viewed more of the “means of grace” and not based on the requirement of salvation according to other Pentecostal groups.[1] Throughout Christian Theology we tend to use terminology that isn’t spelled out in the Bible.
So it’s appropriate for me to include the argument to prove validation. I have seen arguments about how this was a specific salvation occurrence, but we see a repeated pattern of tongues throughout the Book of Acts. So I will present a Pentecostal Perspective but also engage on critics that are opposed to it. People tend to just follow the commentaries or bible teachers based on their tradition instead of engaging those who have questions and critiques about what they truly believe. Depending on the perspectives of their theology based on Christology and Pneumatology is where the real battle is fought. Christ is seated on the right hand of God who commanded the Holy Spirit to be with us. The Holy Spirit plays a major part which I believe the critics tend to lessen His involvement based on illumination of Scripture alone.
Text:
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. Acts 19:1-7
Contextual Analysis:
The author of the Book of Acts is attributed to Luke. When if the Book doesn’t state the author there is a hint regarding the author when it comes to addressing Theophilus. (Acts 1:1) When reading the beginning of the Book of Luke we see the same person being addressed when it came to this gospel to Theophilus (Luke 1:1) It is easy to conclude that Luke is the author of Acts based on this observation. Many observations can also be stated when it comes to authorship. Stanley M. Horton provides church fathers as confirmation regarding Luke being the author compared to other scholars in their perspective of Acts. He states that “The Muratorian Canon attributes them to Luke the physician, as did Irenaeus and many of the early church fathers.”[2] C Peter Wagner provides more current biblical scholars’ approaches to Luke’s scholarship. He stated that “Luke was well educated and cultured. Biblical scholars agree that he was “a man possessed of remarkable literary skill, with a fine sense of form and a beautiful style.” He was exceptionally well qualified to write these two historical books. Edmund Hiebert describes him as “a competent scholar and first-rate literary historian.… His work was characterized by comprehensiveness, thoroughness, accuracy, and orderliness.”[3] Having both early church fathers and current scholars both confirm that the authorship is Luke regarding the Book of Acts.
There have been many discussions about the title of the Book of Acts. Some simply just agree with the title Acts with others like to add the apostles’ names because they have confirmed the acts in the text. Pentecostals decided that due to the Holy Spirit being mentioned throughout the Book of Acts and they are used by the Holy Spirit to perform these Acts then is reasonable to conclude that this would be a realistic title. “What, then, is the correct title for Luke’s second volume? Its popular name, especially in the United States, is ‘the Book of Acts, and this is justified by the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus in which it is headed simply Praxis, ‘Acts’. But this neither tells us whose acts Luke is portraying nor helps to distinguish his book from the later apocryphal works like the second-century has been ‘The Acts of (the) Apostles’, with or without the definite article. Yet this title is too man-centered; it omits the divine power by which the apostles spoke and acted. Others have proposed the title ‘The Acts of the Holy Spirit, for example, Johann Albrecht Bengel in the eighteenth century. He wrote that Luke’s second volume ‘describes not so much the Acts of the Apostles as the Acts of the Holy Spirit, even as the former treatise contains the Acts of Jesus Christ.”[4]
The Date of Acts can be confirmed by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Walter A. Elwell states that “It was probability written no later than the early 60s when Paul was under house arrest in Rome awaiting trial. This is the time, At any rate when Acts concludes.”[5] Having that statement eliminates the dogma of a perfect date regarding when Acts was written. Scholars may differ on different dates but it’s good to make assumptions that show the humility of different commenters not having a specific answer.
To conclude this segment in the account of Acts 19:1-7. It’s important to see that the context by looking at the historical and the contextual to conclude a balanced view of what was the outcome of the Ephesians believers. Can both salvation and the Baptism of the Spirit be connected with tongues like other accounts not based on salvation but based on evidence that should be sought after?
Formal Analysis:
There are many views when it comes to the themes throughout the Book of Acts. The Main Point is based on Acts 1:8 which is mentioned through many of these resources. John Stott provides multiple themes that can be summed up when it comes to this specific Book. He states that “I have tried, therefore, to address myself with integrity to some of the main questions which the Acts raise for today’s Christians, such as the baptism of the Spirit and charismatic gifts, signs, and wonders, the economic sharing of the first Christian community in Jerusalem, church discipline, the diversity of ministries, Christian conversion, racial prejudice, missionary principles, the cost of Christian unity, motives and methods in evangelism, the call to suffer for Christ, church, and state, and divine providence.”[6] George O Wood provides four statements of the themes of Acts based on how Acts interacts with the content. He states that “Acts bridges the Gospels and Paul’s Letter, Acts Traces the Growth of the Church, Acts Guides Faith, and Apologetics, Acts Emphasize The Holy Spirit for Witnessing”[7] Stanley Horton states that “We too can see in Acts a new way for us to live in relationship to the Lord, the Church, and the Holy Spirit. It will affect our values and help us be disciples who claim God’s promises and bring Christ glory.”[8]
A Pentecostal Perspective provides a theme based on the evidence of speaking in tongues through the Book of Acts. According to many authors from the Assemblies of God Correspondence School, they stated that “Just before His ascension, Jesus’ final promise to His disciples was, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you” (Acts 1:8). We see that promise fulfilled throughout Acts where the Holy Spirit gave believers the power to witness and work for Christ. Acts record five times in which various believers were filled with the Holy Spirit and explain the outward evidence that this had occurred” The Day of Pentecost (2:1–4): All 120 people spoke in new languages as soon as they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Believers at Samaria (8:14–19): When he saw the evidence of the Spirit, Simon the sorcerer offered money in the hope of experiencing it himself. Saul’s conversion and filling (9:17–19): We know that Paul often spoke privately in unknown languages (1 Corinthians 14:18). At Cornelius’ home (10:44–46): They spoke in new languages. Believers at Ephesus (19:1–7): They spoke in new languages and prophesied. [9] There are so many complex themes within the Book of Acts that is good to highlight and know when we are taking an account the whole book.
Acts is a historical narrative that has its type of interpretation. People differ on theology based on interpreting themes, but we see Paul using narratives to create doctrines. (Romans 4:1-11) So when It comes to Pentecostals and their view of Baptism In The Holy Spirit and the Initial Physical Evidence in Speaking In Tongues can be supported by Paul’s statement demonstrating theology and doctrine. Terminology titles like “Trinity” is not found in the bible but Trinitarians believe the concept is demonstrated and was confirmed by the Council of Nicea in 325. As Pentecostals, we take that same approach that even if the terminology of Initial Physical Evidence Of Speaking In Tongues is not in scripture the concept can be found throughout the Book of Acts.
Detailed Analysis and Synthesis
In the next following segment of this paper, I will be providing Non-Pentecostal and Pentecostal sources regarding Acts 19:1-7. Having both perspectives will provide a balance and a great overview of how this interpretation may vary. While certain people may want to just use their tradition to confirm their theology it’s best to avoid single-sided investigation.
Acts 19:1-2
Based on a Non-Pentecostal Lens there is complexity when it comes to the believers in this verse. There are different views about the believers and who they are followers of. Something is missing with these believers since Paul asked if they have received the Holy Spirit since they have received. This indicates that these believers believe in something or someone. The main emphasis is the Holy Spirit in this text. There are a variety of opinions about these disciples. Wagner states that “, we can see clearly that these 12 were disciples of Apollos. E. M. Blaiklock agrees, saying, “Perhaps they were a remnant of Apollos’ less-mature ministry in the city.” But were they true believers? The usual way Luke uses the word “disciples” from the Greek mathetai means what we call born again “Christians.” But could they be real Christians without being baptized in the name of Jesus and without knowing anything about the Holy Spirit?[10] Apollos may be the one who had these disciples but were they ignorant of the teachings of Christ? According to Stott John, He states that “they were disciples of John the Baptist, and were decidedly less well informed than Apollos had been. This incident has become a proof text in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles, especially when the inaccurate and unwarranted av translation of verse 2 is followed, namely ‘Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?’ From this, it is sometimes argued that Christian initiation is in two stages, beginning with faith and conversion, and followed later by receiving the Holy Spirit. [11]
We have two concluding factors is it either Apollos or John’s disciples? There may be a mixed feeling about who they are and what they believed but it seems to me that based on their location and the timeframe of the Book of Acts they were disciples. According to Walter A Elwell, He states “After only a short time in Antioch, Paul began a third swing through “Galatia and Phrygia strengthening all the disciples”[12] This is Pauls’ third swing which means Paul has encountered the disciples whether they are Apollos or John’s we can conclude that they were disciples and not just pretending to be one. According to John, he stated that Pentecostals use Paul’s statement in verse 2 to confirm that there is a two-stage outcome in this text.
According to Pentecostal Perspective regarding context Apollos was being instructed about Jesus even if he knew John’s baptism (Acts 18:26) Where Pentecostal and Non-Pentecostal differ is the word disciples. Standley Horton states that “everywhere else in the Book of Acts where Luke mentions disciples he always means disciples of Jesus, believers in Jesus, followers of Jesus.” [13] To answer John’s statement about the “Baptism” a lot is aimed towards the Greek. Without knowing Greek it is hard to be able to have a clear graph of what is going on throughout the passage. This is confirmed by two more statements about this specific problem. Horton states that “Contemporary versions generally take this to mean “when they believed.” But the Greek is literally, “having believed, did you receive?” The “believing” is a Greek aorist (past) participle, while “receive” is the main verb (also in the aorist). Since the tense of the participle often shows its time relation to the main verb, the fact that “believing” is in the past tense was taken by the King James Version translators to mean that it preceded the receiving.[14] He also states that “That is why the King James translators, as good Greek scholars, translated the participle “since ye believed.” They wanted to bring out that the believing must take place before the receiving. This also brings out the fact that baptism in the Holy Spirit is a distinct experience following conversion.[15] William also confirms this by stating that to put it positively, Luke describes the gift of the Spirit exclusively in charismatic terms as the source of power for effective witnesses.[16]
There is a mixture of problems regarding what people think these disciples are and who they are following. Luke when it comes to terminology is clear that a disciple is a disciple of Christ if it was another disciple it would have stated which individual it was since it is also mentioned through the Book of Luke. Translations matter when it comes to finding out the Greek since now different translations have their theological bend. Without learning about the importance of the nuances of the language it’s easy to make assumptions about a text.
Acts 19:3-4
When it comes to the non-Pentecostal perspective there is a lot of diversity about questioning the baptism and the purpose behind it when it came with these Ephesians Believers.
According to Stott, He stated that “They explained that they had received John’s baptism, not Christian baptism. In a word, they were still living in the Old Testament which culminated with John the Baptist. They understood neither that the new age had been ushered in by Jesus, nor that those who believe in him and are baptized into him receive the distinctive blessing of the new age, the indwelling Spirit.[17] Another statement made by Marshall states “This confession shows that the men were followers of John the Baptist but knew something about Jesus. Somehow knowledge of Jesus separate from the Christian message about his resurrection and outpouring of the Spirit seems to have spread to Ephesus and probably elsewhere.[18] This brings us to the conclusion that just because someone heard about Jesus doesn’t mean they are true followers. The following perspective provides a different outlook when it comes to these believers and their take on their baptism.
Is there some discredit of the belief of Christ based on just knowing? Many don’t consider the salvation prayer a specific way to be saved. The main point in the Pentecostal perspective is that something was missing in their lives. They know about Jesus but have they submitted to His lordship? George Wood states “The twelve men had believed, and Paul baptized them in water. Who can deny that they were Christians at that point? But something was missing in their lives.”[19] While Stanley Horton states that “John himself told the people that they should believe in the Coming One, Jesus. This means, of course, that they would not only accept Him as Messiah and Savior but also obey Him, following His directions to ask for and receive the Spirit[20] With both of these opposing views it’s easy to fall into the trap how questioning their belief based on the background they have received teaching wise.
According to the legitimate of salvation, the most common statement about it is that it is by grace and faith alone. It seems like from the non-Pentecostal perspective they must be baptized to be real believers, but that would be in contrast to salvation and would mean they are adding works in the equation to prove their statements. While the Pentecostal view admits that they know about Jesus and most likely follow Him but baptism is the next step to make it a sign that they are now worshipping and serving Him.
Acts 19:5-7
The last few verses are where a lot of controversy starts when it comes to the sequence of this experience. Some may call it unique while others are a normative experience for Christian life. Based on the perspective of non-Pentecostals they provide a thesis that this is a unique situation that isn’t repeated in scripture. Some may state that if they spoke and prophesied that was the interpretation which comes from the camp that was to go word by word isn’t that case. Regarding the point of view of these 3 verses, it’s important to look a the context of the rest of the passage.
Non Pentecostals view the pouring of the Spirit as a unique case based on the mentioning of tongues and prophecy. John Macarthur who is against charismatics stated “The resulting message can be translated and thereby understood referring to Acts 19:6, either by those who already know the language (as on the day of Pentecost – Acts 2:9) or by someone gifted with the ability to translate (1 Cor 12:10, 14:5, 13)[21] John MacArthur only provides only two possibilities which are the language is known or someone can translate when it came to Acts 19:6. There are some issues when it comes to the laying on of hands. John Stott states that “The laying-on of apostolic hands, however, together with tongue-speaking and prophesying, were special to Ephesus, as to Samaria, to demonstrate visibly and publicly that particular groups were incorporated into Christ by the Spirit; the New Testament does not universalize them. There are no Samaritans or disciples of John the Baptist left in the world today.”[22] This was a unique sign for the two instances that have been to confirm the acceptance of Christ. There’s another view that these people needed extra signs to know that they are adopted to God’s family. According to Marshall, he states “It is clear from the other stories of conversion in Acts that such manifestations took place spasmodically and were not the general rule (8:17 note; 8:39; 13:52; 16:34); in the present case some unusual gift was perhaps needed to convince this group of ‘semi-Christians’ that they were now full members of Christ’s church.[23] We see different objections about the function of tongues, the laying on of hands, and the uniqueness of this account.
The Pentecostal Perspective offers not just salvation only type of uniqueness of the situations but and salvation and pneumatology opinion. James Dunn wrote his thesis against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and how it is only limited to just that moment. William states that following “Again Dunn queries, “Why should it be assumed that Luke thinks of the Spirit only as of the power of inspiration?” And again, this time answering his question, “There is surely a danger here of being so struck with the visible effects of the Spirit’s coming in Luke-Acts that one diminishes Luke’s pneumatology to such effects.” The overview of this is stating that while only focus as the Holy Spirit being able to illumine scripture and not have any other involvement in the early believers. When it comes to laying on of hands there is a different way of viewing this type of practice besides ordination.
According to Horton, he states “It is better here also to take the laying on of hands as a means of encouraging their faith and as preceding or at least distinct from the coming of the Spirit. Then, probably to emphasize that these disciples had now received the full experience of the baptism in the Spirit, Luke states that they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (The Greek also seems to imply that they continued to do so.)[24] George wood provides his insights by stating that “Though Luke does not say “other” tongues here, it is the same gift as was given on the Day of Pentecost and exercised in the Corinthian Church. Then the speaking in tongues gave them further assurance that the Holy Spirit’s presence and power were real. That they also prophesied indicates they were energized by the Spirit to build up and encourage the group.[25] Based on the following statements it’s easy to conclude that the Holy Spirit isn’t just an illumination agent but speaks in tongues and stayed speaking in tongues. Prophesied in this statement means prophecy and not interpretation so it concludes that there wasn’t a need for interpretation in this instance. The main purpose is being built up and encouraged by the Spirit.
Reflection:
Based on my investigation throughout this scripture and the different theological tend of Non-Pentecostal and Pentecostal lenses there is a lot of discovery and implications that must be noted. When it comes to Acts 19:1 there is a lot of comments about who the believers are the conclusion is maybe Apollos Or John’s disciples. Based on another source Paul’s main mission is to encourage and build believers so the assumption of these believers knowing Christ is valid in my opinions while another states that they were arrogant based on their whereabouts. The Holy Spirit is emphasized as received when you believed. Based on the issues of translations there has been a lot of debate based on verse 2. Regarding the different status of this verse, it’s easy to conclude that translations are not always perfect and that regarding opinion it’s all based on the perception of the Ephesians believers. According to Pentecostal comments Paul sensed noticed that something was missing with these believers not based on belief but based on the Holy Spirit’s power.
When it comes to Acts 19:3-4 there is the emphasis on not being real believers and a lot of what I got from the non-Pentecostal perspective is that you may have the knowledge but you are not saved unless they are baptized. While the other view presents that they are already believers and that baptism was to serve the worship and service for Christ not for belief. Does the other view support salvation base on works to legitimatize the Ephesians Believers? I learned that it’s better to stay quiet when it comes to assuming the status of any believer and seeing the outcome of their actions. The Pentecostal view already acknowledges that they are already believers and that baptism was only for worship and service demonstration, not a salvation badge that must be required to be a believer.
Lastly, when it comes to Acts 19:5-7 there are the opinions of uniqueness or normative. The non-Pentecostal view concludes that it’s not a normative experience that it was unique because there is no longer those type of people living today. Another one is based on the usage and the purpose is no longer valid based on an interpretation. The laying of hands is also mentioned by only this unique instance because it’s not mentioned anywhere else. While Pentecostal states that the Holy Spirit is more than just the power of inspiration regarding the Bible but of power, encouragement, and gift. Paul mentioned the gift of the Spirit and goes back to their mini-Pentecost. If Pentecost was a unique and fulfilled event why was there another one? Why were there repeated accounts speaking in tongues moments including when Paul spoke later on throughout his ministry? I believe the issue isn’t based on the limitations of the Spirit but the lack of the study of the Spirit and what He can do for us today as believers.
Bibliography:
Ag.org. 2010. Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | Baptism in the Holy Spirit. [online] Available at: <https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Baptism-in-the-Holy-Spirit> [Accessed 15 December 2021].
Wood, George O. Acts: The Holy Spirit At Work In Believers. 3rd ed., Global University, 2010.
Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007.
Wanger, C. Peter. The Book Of Acts: A Commentary. 3rd ed., Regal, 2008.
W., Stott John R. The Message Of Acts: To The Ends Of The Earth. 1st ed., InterVaristy Press, 2020.
Marshall, I. Howard. Acts: An Introduction And Commentary. 2nd ed., Inter-Varsity Press / IVP Academic, 2008.
Elwell, W., 2013. Encountering the new testament – a historical and theological survey. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids MI: Bakers Publishing Group.
Menzies, W. and Menzies, R., 2011. Spirit and power. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Horton, S. 2005. What the Bible says about the Holy Spirit. Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Pub. House.
MacArthur, J., 2013. Strange fire – the danger of offending the holy spirit with counterfeit wor. Nelson Books.
Adams, J., Barclift, M., Johns, D., McGhee, Q., Opperman, M. and Teague, W., 2010. New Testament Survey. 3rd ed. Springfield, Missouri, USA: Global University.
[1] Ag.org
[2] Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007.
PG 15
[3] Wanger, C. Peter. The Book Of Acts: A Commentary. 3rd ed., Regal, 2008. Pg. 18
[4] W., Stott John R. The Message Of Acts: To The Ends Of The Earth. 1st ed., InterVaristy Press, 2020.
Pg. 32-33
[5] Elwell, W., 2013. Encountering the new testament – a historical and theological survey. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids MI: Bakers Publishing Group. pg 195
[6] W., Stott John R. The Message Of Acts: To The Ends Of The Earth. 1st ed., InterVaristy Press, 2020.
Pg. 11
[7] Wood, George O. Acts: The Holy Spirit At Work In Believers. 3rd ed., Global University, 2010.
PG 17
[8] Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007.
Pg. 12
[9] Adams, J., Barclift, M., Johns, D., McGhee, Q., Opperman, M. and Teague, W., 2010. New Testament Survey. 3rd ed. Springfield, Missouri, USA: Global University. (67)
[10]Wanger, C. Peter. The Book Of Acts: A Commentary. 3rd ed., Regal, 2008. Pg. 425
[11] W., Stott John R. The Message Of Acts: To The Ends Of The Earth. 1st ed., InterVaristy Press, 2020. Pg. 303-304
[12] Elwell, W., 2013. Encountering the new testament – a historical and theological survey. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids MI: Bakers Publishing Group. Pg. 227
[13] Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007. Pg 316
[14] Horton, S. 2005. What the Bible says about the Holy Spirit. Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Pub. House. Pg. 160
[15] Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007. Pg 316-317
[16] Menzies, W. and Menzies, R., 2011. Spirit and power. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan. Pg. 27
[17] W., Stott John R. The Message Of Acts: To The Ends Of The Earth. 1st ed., InterVaristy Press, 2020. Pg. 304
[18] Marshall, I. Howard. Acts: An Introduction And Commentary. 2nd ed., Inter-Varsity Press / IVP Academic, 2008. Pg. 325
[19] Wood, George O. Acts: The Holy Spirit At Work In Believers. 3rd ed., Global University, 2010.
Pg 55
[20] Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007. Pg.319
[21] MacArthur, J., 2013. Strange fire – the danger of offending the holy spirit with counterfeit wor. Nelson Books. Pg. 141
[22] W., Stott John R. The Message Of Acts: To The Ends Of The Earth. 1st ed., InterVaristy Press, 2020. Pg. 305
[23] Marshall, I. Howard. Acts: An Introduction And Commentary. 2nd ed., Inter-Varsity Press / IVP Academic, 2008. Pg. 326
[24] Horton, S. 2005. What the Bible says about the Holy Spirit. Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Pub. House. Pg. 162
[25] Horton, Stanley M. Acts: A Logion Press Commentary. 3rd ed., Gospel Publishing House, 2007. Pg. 320
My Faith Journey 