This is part 4 of a series on the paradox of salvation. In part 1, I presented two humorous video clips (one minute each) dealing with Calvinist and Arminian witnessing. In part 2, I broke down Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how he used the Bible to proclaim Christ to those gathered in Jerusalem that day, using both Law and Gospel. Then in part 3 I further discussed Peter’s answer to the question, “what must we do to be saved?”, focusing on the importance of baptism and what the Bible says about it.
As promised, here in part 4 we are going to discuss the link between the Holy Spirit and baptism by examining Acts chapters 8 and 19. But before we begin, I need to make a short disclaimer. People have written books explaining these passages (and I’ve read a few of them). This is going to be a rather terse overview, mostly in order to expose you to the passages and to get you thinking. I’m not going to fill in all the blanks, I would have to write another manifesto in order to do that. So bear with me as I go through the text at this brisk pace, it will be helpful for you to have the text handy as you read this.
I’m going to begin with Acts 19, but in order to fully understand it we need to go back to Acts 18:24-28. Here we are introduced to Apollos, who is “a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John” (18:24-25). So let’s get this straight, he taught about Jesus accurately, but his understanding of baptism was wrong. Was this such a big deal? I mean, all we need is to hear about Jesus right? Yeah, it was a big deal. It was big enough that Priscilla and Aquila pulled him aside and set him straight (v. 26). Now we’re at chapter 19. Paul is in Ephesus (where Apollos had been preaching), and he asks the believers if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Their answer: no, we don’t know anything about the Spirit. So what does Paul do? Does he immediately begin instructing them properly about the doctrine of the Trinity? Does he begin quoting Christ’s teachings on the Holy Spirit? No. Instead he asks them one question: “Then what baptism did you receive?” (v. 3).
Hmm, apparently there must be a pretty strong link between baptism and the Holy Spirit if this is the first question Paul asks. They reply that they received John’s baptism.
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.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. (Acts 19:4-7)
Baptism is apparently such a big deal that they do it again – the right way. Note the close connection between the Spirit and water baptism in this account. The Ephesian disciples said that they had not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul does not question their belief or their previous instruction. His diagnostic question on matters of the Holy Spirit focuses on water baptism: “Into what then were you baptized?” (19:3, literally).
Andrew Das, in an article he wrote concerning baptism, says:
What about the order of events in these narratives? Shouldn’t baptism come first and then the Spirit? Luke clearly establishes a connection between water baptism and the Spirit. In Acts 2:38 the Spirit is promised to those who are baptized. But in Acts 10 Cornelius’ household receives the Spirit first and then is baptized. Acts 19 records the “disciples” first being baptized and then receiving the Spirit. Luke does not then seem to be establishing a clear sequence between the events. BUT: note how they are always in the immediate context of the other. The Spirit is simply a promise in connection with baptism in Acts 2:38. It’s a lot like John 3:8: you hear the sound of the wind but don’t know where it’s coming from or where it’s going. The two are simply connected.
But what about Acts 8:1-25. This passage presents a problem. In Acts 8 a group of baptized believers remain without the promised Spirit for a significant period of time (the time it took the apostles to arrive after the evangelization was well on its way). Only after the apostles arrive and pray for the people do they receive the Spirit. Does this passage disrupt the connection between water baptism and the Holy Spirit. Not really. One must not overlook certain grammatical features qualifying Acts 8. In v. 16: For [the Spirit] had NOT YET fallen on any of them, but they had ONLY been baptized. The words “not yet” and then “only” are placed first in their respective clauses for emphasis. First, the Spirit had NOT YET fallen on them. An event that was supposed to happen had not yet happened…. The distinction between “not yet” and a simple “not” is one of an EXPECTED event that had not In other words, the Spirit SHOULD HAVE fallen upon them in baptism. The Spirit, then, SHOULD HAVE come with the Baptism. Now we can understand the emphatic word “ONLY.” They were ONLY baptized. The baptism was “ALONE,” that is, it was UNACCOMPANIED.
Luke is serving the reader notice that the separation of the Spirit from water baptism was UNUSUAL. The Spirit was therefore NORMALLY RECEIVED IN WATER BAPTISM. Something strange had happened in Samaria. This was not how the Spirit was normally received. So why did the Spirit delay His coming to the Samaritans if they had been baptized? To understand why we must take a look at the role that Samaritans play in Luke and Acts.
For the sake of length I’m not going to post Das’ entire response, but you can read the full-length article here. In a nutshell, Das explains how Jews and Samaritans have had a longstanding rivalry, going back into Old Testament times. He shows how Luke establishes this theme throughout his Gospel and in the book of Acts. I really recommend you read the original article to fully grasp the magnitude of this, but I will jump ahead to his conclusion for the sake of length.
When the Spirit does not come in the water baptism as expected, the whole episode forces the Samaritans to submit to the laying on of the Jerusalem Apostles’ hands. The Jerusalem Apostles had to personally preside over the Samaritan reception of the Spirit. The Spirit WAS THEREFORE FORCING TWO SEPARATE BODIES OF ISRAELITES TO BE REUNITED. Heterodox Samaria is once again restored to orthodoxy, an orthodoxy represented in the Jerusalem Apostles. The Samaritans will not receive the Holy Spirit apart from the Jerusalem Apostles. There will be no separate Samaritan, Christian church autonomous of the Jerusalem church. The old walls of division are torn down by the activity of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s motif of ethnic hostility between Jews and Samaritans up to this point is surely the key to the proper interpretation of Acts 8 and the separation of the Spirit from water baptism. We know that we have been on the right track in our interpretation when we get to Acts 10-11. Consider Acts 10-11 from the perspective of ethnic tensions. The Jews with Peter are all surprised that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and particularly, “in the same way” as the Jews had at Pentecost. Acts 10:45 speaks of the astonishment of those with Peter that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. Since the Gentiles were given “THE SAME GIFT” (11:17) as the Jews at Pentecost, Peter could not hinder them. The gift of the Spirit came to them “as also to us.” The reception of tongues forced the Jewish apostles to recognize the Gentiles as fellow recipients of the Spirit. God had already gone out of His way with a vision to Peter that the Gentiles are to be considered clean. Then he sent the Holy Spirit upon them in an undeniable way. Thus the Holy Spirit was overcoming human prejudice against the Gentiles in Acts 10-11 by these extraordinary manifestations. Salvation was therefore clearly for all. Acts 15 portrays a Jerusalem council mindful of what God was doing among the Gentiles. Like the gap between Jew and Samaritan, the Spirit was now forcing the bridging of the gap between Jew and Gentile. Acts is a story of the Spirit intervening in the midst of the human condition of weakness and sin. Where the Jerusalem church had been initially slow to take the Gospel to new groups, the Spirit was taking the initiative. People found themselves having to “catch up” with the Spirit’s activity. Nothing, not even ethnic conflict, could stand in the way of the Spirit’s work.
Acts is a story of the Spirit at work in human affairs, the Spirit of Jesus Christ (1:1). We should not be surprised, then, at the unusual delay of the Spirit in Acts 8, since it provided a unique opportunity to bring two groups of Christians once divided together. And once again, as Luke carefully qualifies the events: Acts 8 confirms that the Spirit and water baptism do indeed go together even as Acts 2:38 indicated.
So in conclusion, it is clear from scriptures that there is a close connection between water baptism and the Holy Spirit. Stay tuned for part 5 where we will discuss a passage in 1 Peter 3 which demonstrates a strong link between baptism and salvation.
Related posts:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Perhaps this ties into to the upcoming post, and I’m “jumping ahead”, but I feel the need to ask… Are you implying, (or even flatly stating) that baptism is that which imparts the Holy Spirit? It seems that this is what you are essentially saying, since even though you acknowledge that sometimes the order in which each happens is switched around, the two are always in “immidiate context”… So it seems you are saying that no baptism = no Holy Spirit (which would then, by extension, mean no baptism = no salvation…)
In 1 Peter 3 he refers to baptism as “the pledge of a good conscience toward God”. And in Acts ch. 10 we see Simon the Sorcerer included in those who believed and were baptized, but then later Peter rebukes him for trying to buy the power of imparting the Spirit through the laying on of hands. So, even though Simon had been baptized, Peter is essentially saying “repent, you are not right before God”. So though he had already been baptized, wasn’t that baptism merely a pledge of what Simon really had to do in his heart? A pledge is just a pledge, but whether or not we act in accordance to what we pledge, that is what makes the pledge count for something…
It seems clear that baptism and the Holy Spirit are connected in scripture, I’m not saying this – the Bible is. And yes, I do intend to get into that more in depth in part 5 with 1 Peter 3.
Do I think that someone can receive the Holy Spirit apart from Baptism? Absolutely. Does it happen? All the time. But it seems the two go together throughout the book of Acts, and they are linked somehow. I’m not trying to turn it into a formula like sacramentalists do, saying that we receive the Spirit through baptism. But I am saying there is a strong link, whether symbolic or mystical. I lean towards the mystical, but I don’t claim to understand it. It does seem clear that God is doing something for us through baptism.
As I made clear in part 3, we are buried with Christ through baptism (Rom 6:3-4), and baptism is a work of God, the “circumcision done by Christ” (Col. 2:11-12). To say more than that is difficult, because the Bible doesn’t say much more. My point is that we underscore the importance of baptism a lot in church circles these days, and it seems to be a gift of grace from God, through which He works in our lives.
At the same time, I’m not trying to espouse a doctrinal statement yet. Mine is available on this website, go to the about me page – I have a whole section on baptism. Also you can search past posts, I’ve talked about it before. My point in this post is to show what the Bible says, and let people connect the dots themselves. I know there is a lot of “wiggle room” here, and that is intentional. I wasn’t trying to draw lines in the sand with this post, I’m simply trying to get people to think critically about what the Bible says rather than using the language espoused in all the Christian cliches and doctrinal statements.
The important part to understand from scripture seems to be that baptism is a gift of grace which God works through in order to identify us with Christ in his burial and new covenant. We can each develop more lengthy doctrinal positions from this by applying human reasoning/logic, but for now I just want to let the Bible speak for itself. In part 5 I will conclude with a personal statement, and I’m going to draw heat for it, so stay posted