In the previous issue of PREACH THE WORD, we argued that, in Old Testament times, direct revelation was the exception rather than the rule. We endeavored to show that, in general, men were dependent upon "second hand" revelation. We argued that those to whom God spoke directly were an exclusive group, and were called "prophets". We further argued that, beginning with the Law of Moses, the form of revelation common to all Israel was the written word. In this issue, we wish to discuss how God spoke to men in the New Testament.
Some of those who are convinced that direct revelation is an integral part of the Christian's life will readily concede that the primary medium of revelation to most people in the Old Testament was the written word. They claim that herein lies a fundamental difference between God's revelation before the cross and his revelation after the cross. They may cite Jeremiah 31:33 in support of their notion that after Christ's coming, God's law is written on the heart, and man must look inward for guidance from the Spirit.
According to Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord said, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it." But if "on their heart" is to be contrasted with "in writing", why was the New Testament put into writing? The fact is one takes the word of God into his heart after having received it by some indirect means. Paul was glad that the Christians in Rome had become "obedient from the heart" (Romans 6:17). Paul was not talking about obedience motivated by some direct guidance, supernaturally implanted in the heart. In the same letter, he wrote that belief, or faith, "comes by hearing" (Romans 10:17). The hearing of which he spoke was not some mystical awareness of an inner voice, but the kind of hearing that requires a preacher - "how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14). Indeed there is a difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Many people who did not have the Lord's word in there heart were included under terms of the Old Covenant. But only those with God's word in there hearts would participate in the New Covenant. There is, however, no difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant as to how God's word gets into one's heart.
As we study the means of revelation, it is important to stress that in the New Testament, the focus of the work of the Spirit is revelation. Once we have reviewed this point, we will look at the different ways in which the Spirit revealed God's word to men in New Testament times. We will then be prepared to draw a conclusion as to how God's word is made known to men today.
When we say that the focus of the work of the Spirit is revelation, we do not mean to suggest some intrinsic limitation on the potential scope of the Spirit's activities. Rather, we mean to call attention to the fact that, just as there are roles defined for the Father and Son relative to our salvation, there is also a role defined for the Spirit. The role defined for the Son was to be just that, a son who is subject to the will of another, and to be "obedient, even unto death, yea the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:8). Now that is not to say that the one revealed to us as the Son does nothing besides what he has already done, namely, submit to the cross.
It was not the role of the Spirit to die on the cross as a man. Rather it was the role of the Spirit to communicate the Lord's will to man after the Son had ascended back to the Father. The night before His crucifixion, Jesus promised the apostles,
But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. (John 14:26)Paul would later explain, "the things of God, none knoweth, save the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11). He further asserted that what he taught was what the Spirit revealed to Him.
According to New Testament writers, even the Old Testament had been written by mean who received God's word from the Spirit. See, for example, Acts 4:25, Hebrews 8:15-17, and especially 2 Peter 1:21 which says, "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
Remember that revelations of God's word were always either direct or indirect. If we can understand the circumstances of each kind of revelation (direct and indirect), we understand the circumstances of all revelation. With regard to direct revelations of God's word after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), we can consider two categories: (1) direct revelations made to those who experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and (2) direct revelations received by those who did not experience the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Let us first consider those who experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and consequently received direct revelations. Some of our readers will no doubt assume that this means all Christians. They suppose that the baptism associated with individual salvation is Holy Spirit baptism. "After all," some will say, "although John baptized in water, he promised that Jesus would baptize us in the Holy Spirit!" However the passage alluded to, Matthew 3:11, is by no means a claim that all believers would receive Holy Spirit baptism. John's point was to contrast Jesus with himself: "He that cometh after me is mightier than I." Whereas any man could baptize in water as John did, Jesus had the power to baptize in fire (i.e. condemn to eternal punishment, cf. Mt. 3:10, 12) and in the Holy Spirit. No mere man had such power. This didn't mean that Jesus would baptize all those listening to John in the Holy Spirit, just as not all of them would be baptized in fire (be condemned to eternal punishment). Certainly we should not suppose that all those who were baptized in fire were also baptized in the Holy Spirit!
It will surprise some of our readers to find that there are only two instances in all the New Testament where one can indisputably assert that Holy Spirit baptism occurred. And in both of these cases, there was a specific and special purpose.
The first occurrence is in Acts 2. The apostles had been told wait in Jerusalem "for the promise of the Father, which," said Jesus, "ye heard from me." Then, echoing the words of John the Baptist, Jesus explained: "For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence" (Acts 1:4-5). The mention of a promise which the apostles had heard from Jesus refers to what Jesus had told the apostles on the night of his betrayal. Part of that promise, recorded in John 14:26, was cited earlier in this article. As Jesus continued talking with the apostles, he explained that they would "receive power" when the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they would be his "witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). He then ascended to heaven. Even when Jesus was on earth, the apostles had difficulty in discerning his meaning (e.g. Matthew 16:6-7, Luke 22:36-38, John 11:12-13). Now that he was gone, how were they to accomplish their mission? How could they acquit themselves of such a weighty charge? The answer lies in the power they would receive when the Holy Spirit came upon them. And therein lies the purpose of what occurred not many days later:
And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4)
Notice this point: No man laid hands on the apostles to baptize them in the Holy Spirit, nor did the apostles ask to receive Holy Spirit baptism. It was, so far as they were concerned, a spontaneous event.
The second demonstrable occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism pertained to the conversion of Cornelius, a Gentile. However, the purpose of Holy Spirit was not to save Cornelius. It was rather intended as a sign to Jews that Gentiles as well as Jews could be baptized in water and thus buried with Christ. That this was the purpose is clear from Acts 10:45-47, Acts 11:1-18, and Acts 15:1- 9. (For a full discussion of this point, see "Conversion and the Holy Spirit" in the August, 1991 issue of PREACH THE WORD.)
Now these are the only two indisputable occurrences of Holy Spirit Baptism. And in neither case was individual salvation the purpose, as is assumed by those who believe Holy Spirit baptism is experienced by all believers. In both of these cases, there was a specific and special purpose: Empowering the apostles to preach throughout the world in the first case, and in the second case, signifying to Jews that "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:34-35).
At this point some will be livid, supposing that we are saying the Holy Spirit never did anything other than on the occasions described in Acts 2 and Acts 10. They will be ready with a host of passages that talk about being led by the Spirit, speaking in tongues, being filled with the Spirit, etc. Note carefully that we are not saying the work of the Spirit was limited to Acts 2 and Acts 10. We are saying that, after the day of Pentecost, people who received direct revelation can be divided into two groups, those who experienced Holy Spirit baptism, and those who received some other gift from the Holy Spirit. Analyzing the two groups, we see that the former is an exclusive group indeed. None today can claim to be apostles. None today are the first Gentiles too be converted, necessitating a sign from heaven to prove God's willingness to accept Gentiles. Therefore, none today has scriptural precedent for claiming direct revelation on the basis of Holy Spirit baptism. If any today wishes to claim direct revelation it will have to be on some other basis.
1 Corinthians 12 begins with the words, "Now concerning spiritual gifts..." Paul goes on to discuss various gifts - "the word of wisdom," "the word of knowledge," "prophecy," "kinds of tongues" - all of which were from the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). But these are quite different from that which the apostles experienced on the day of Pentecost and which Cornelius and his household experience while Peter was preaching. Remember that in those cases, there was no volition on the part of the recipient. The outpouring of the Spirit was spontaneous, so far as the recipients were concerned. Cornelius and the members of his household were overwhelmed by the Spirit and began speaking with other tongues (i.e. languages) "while Peter yet spake" (Acts 10:44). In contrast, the Corinthians' gifts were subject to their control, and Paul gave explicit instructions about using these gifts:
If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three....But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church....And let the prophets speak by two or three....But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For all can prophesy one by one...and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets... (1 Corinthians 14:27-32)
In Acts 8, we find how Christians acquired such gifts, and see a further distinction between such gifts and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Philip, who was not an apostle, but who did possess such gifts as described in 1 Corinthians, was preaching in Samaria and was authenticating the message he preached by means of miracles (Acts 8:4-13). After having baptized many, news of the conversions came to the apostles in Jerusalem and two of them, Peter and John, departed from Jerusalem and came to Samaria. Acts 8:16 says that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon any of these new converts; "only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." This is the same expression used in Acts 10:48 with reference to water baptism. Acts 8:17 says, "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." Peter and John, the two apostles who had come all the way from Jerusalem some thirty five miles distant, gave these new Christians the Holy Spirit. Philip had already preached the gospel to the Samaritans and baptized them into Christ, thus making them "partakers of the Holy Spirit" in the sense of Hebrews 6:4. But Philip had not given these new converts the ability to do miracles, speak in tongues, prophecy, etc., even though he himself had such gifts. The inspired text tells us of one Simon who drew the proper conclusion: "Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given..." Notice that here, human intermediaries were required to administer the Holy Spirit. Not so with Holy Spirit baptism, which as you will recall, came upon the apostles in Acts 2 and upon Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 without any human administration. Notice moreover that it was specifically apostles who could lay hands on people and give the Holy Spirit. Even Philip could not do it.
Aside from these two categories, Holy Spirit baptism, and the gifts of the Spirit which were given by the laying of the apostles' hands, there is no precedent for Christians subsequent to the day of Pentecost receiving direct revelation of God's will. One may be inclined to cite the vision in which an angel spoke to Cornelius, prior to his receiving Holy Spirit baptism. But this vision, too, was part of the evidence intended to demonstrate God's willingness to accept Gentiles, and was so cited by Peter (Acts 11:1-18, especially 11:13-14). Furthermore, the angel did not tell Cornelius what to do other that to send for Peter. It was Peter who would speak words to Cornelius whereby he could be saved. Notice that even when there was supernatural revelation, the words of salvation were imparted naturally!
One might be inclined to cite the case of Saul to whom the Lord himself appeared. Was this a case of Holy Spirit baptism? Whether it was or not, as an apostle, Saul, who is also called Paul, would need to be empowered as were the other apostles. If it was not Holy Spirit baptism, one might argue that the Lord's appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus was a case of direct revelation involving neither Holy Spirit baptism nor the laying of an apostle's hands. However the purpose of the Lord's appearing to Paul was, at least in part, to equip him to be an apostle. When Jesus told the twelve they would be his "witnesses," he meant just that. They would need to be able to say, "Jesus was raised from the dead. I know because I am an eyewitness." This was a requirement for being an apostle (Acts 1:21-22). This is what Peter said on several occasions (Acts 2:23, 5:32, 10:39-42). And this is what Paul was able to say as a result of the appearance of the Lord on the road to Damascus (1 Corinthians 9:1). The conclusion is that Paul's case was exceptional, and was necessary for his becoming an apostle. His case is not a precedent for Christians today.
Early on we argued that revelation of God's word to man is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is true whether we are talking about direct revelation, or indirect revelation. We have discussed at length those people who, after the day of Pentecost, received direct revelation. We have seen that they either received the spontaneous baptism of the Holy Spirit for some specific purpose, or they received the Holy Spirit by means of the laying on of the apostles' hands. All others were and are dependent upon indirect revelation.
Now ask yourself if you fall into any of the categories where direct revelation is received. Are you an apostle charged to wait in Jerusalem for the empowering of the Holy Spirit which would be needed to preach the gospel throughout the whole world? Are you a Gentile in a world where no Gentile has yet been converted? Is it necessary that you be baptized in the Holy Spirit for mankind to understand that God will accept Gentiles, or has that already been made clear? If you don't fall into either of these categories, then you have no scriptural precedent for supposing you will receive Holy Spirit baptism.
That leaves the gifts, such as are described in 1 Corinthians 12-14, and which were given by the laying on of the apostles hands. But have you received the laying on of the apostles hands? Of course you have not. (See box: When were the gifts to cease?) Neither Holy Spirit baptism, nor the laying on of the apostles' hands are experienced by people today. That leaves no basis for expecting direct revelation today. That leaves only indirect revelation. It is still revelation of God's will to you by means of the Holy Spirit, but by indirect means, namely by means of those men to whom the Holy Spirit spoke directly in the first century.
If those to whom God spoke directly have all passed from this earthly life, we conclude that we are dependent upon what they left behind. That is we are dependent upon indirect, or second hand revelation, namely, the written word. To some, it seems inconceivable that God would choose such a means of speaking to man. But the point we established in part 1 of this series was that, from the beginning of time, God's primary means of communicating his word to man has been indirect revelation, and beginning with the Law of Moses, it was specifically the written word. In other words, we should not be surprised to find that we are dependent upon the written word.
Part 1: How God Spoke to Man in the Old Testament
Part 3: Confusion about "Signs"