When a person jumps on a hobby horse for a ride, his destination becomes uncertain, but it may be safely predicted that he will arrive somewhere he did not intend to go—and from which he will not be able to return. When Mac Deaver, a brother in Christ and capable debater, began to travel on his direct influence pony, no one could have imagined he would be writing and advocating the positions as set forth in his book of 2007 and now the “Special Issue” of Biblical Notes Quarterly of Spring, 2011. Not only are the details of certain occurrences full of half-truths and deceit, his teaching has entered the realm of the bizarre.

Among things that he now advocates are:

1) 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (4).

2) The Samaritans were baptized for the forgiveness of their sins; however, “to become a Christian one had to be baptized not only into the name of the Lord but into the name of the Father and into the name of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19, 20)” (6).

3) Today “the baptism in Spirit takes place at approximately the same time as water baptism does” (6).

Those who are scratching their heads and saying, “What?” should not feel alone. Those who have been agreeing with Mac up to this point should be getting a bit nervous. No matter where Mac’s horse stops along the way, there can be no question but that it is headed for the Lake of Fire!

This article will deal only with the baptism that occurred on Pentecost. Faithful brethren have taught for years that only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, but Mac has now concluded and declared that 120 disciples received it. And what proof does he offer? He writes:

(Dear reader, there is no way to exclude the rest of the one hundred and twenty from the “they” of Acts 2:1. We have often tried to make such an exclusion by connecting the pronoun “they” in 2:1 to its alleged antecedent, “apostles,” in 1:26. However, this is simply not conclusive. (See Acts 13:52 and 14:1, 3 for a similar case). Furthermore, if one contends that the rest of the one hundred and twenty did not receive the Holy Spirit when the apostles did, he is claiming that there was then a part of the church that was not spiritually animated by the Spirit. In other words, he is claiming that there was a part of the church that was spiritually dead!) (4).

The above quotation is an explication of a True – False question that Mac had given regarding church membership; we will limit ourselves to the errors within the parentheses. Mac minimizes the arguments in support of only the twelve receiving the Holy Spirit baptism; he certainly knows of the other factors involved but just ignored them, a custom he has of treating truth when it is not favorable to him.

Andrew Connally

In his book of 2007, Mac quoted from Andrew Connally as agreeing with him on receiving wisdom directly from God (49). Whether or not he agreed with Mac’s position on that subject could be argued both ways, but it is clear that Connally would have had no agreement with Mac on this aspect of his Holy Spirit theology. The following quote is from Connally’s Great Lessons from Acts, published by him in Seagoville, Texas (no publishing date):

While we may not be able to know from John’s statement in Matthew 3:11 who would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jesus in repeating and explaining the baptismal promise of the Holy Spirit, clearly shows that it was for the Apostles only (29 emphasis his).

Goebel Music

Goebel Music has been Mac’s close friend for many years. In fact, when he wrote his gargantuan (1,414 pages) work, A Resource and Reference Volume on the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, he praised Mac highly. He also included Mac’s flawed syllogism that he used in his debate with Bill Lockwood (710-11). Will brother Music now stand with Mac and repudiate his own teachings which were set forth in the Fourth Annual Denton Lectures, edited by Dub McClish in 1985? On that occasion brother Music wrote:

Even though we have mentioned this outpouring of the Spirit of God as a promise and as a baptism, and on whom it came, let us just as quickly point out that it fell not upon the 120 but upon the apostles! It was a promise to the apostles (Cf. Acts 1:4-5, 8; John 16:7, 13) and no one else (61 emphasis his).

J. W. McGarvey

Brethren Music and Connally were correct in what they wrote; they were also in agreement with the vast majority of other brethren, not the least of whom is J. W. McGarvey, who commented extensively on the pronoun argument which Mac pooh-poohs in a parenthetical comment. McGarvey, a world-renowned, 19th-century scholar, observed the following in his Original Commentary on Acts:

It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be “all with one accord in one place,” for upon this depends the question whether the whole of hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit…. Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter to find the antecedent (24).

The truth that McGarvey states can be verified by any student of the Word. In Acts 1, Jesus had final words with His apostles and then ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9-11). One will look in vain to find anyone else mentioned in those verses but the apostles, who are first introduced in Acts 1:2, where we read that He gave commandments to His apostles. He also presented Himself alive to them after His suffering by many infallible proofs. He was seen by them 40 days as he spoke to them about things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Then He met together with them (no change in antecedent) and commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which they had heard of from Him. That promise concerned them (the apostles) being baptized by the Holy Spirit shortly (Acts 1:5). After Jesus told them (the apostles) that they would “receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 1:5-6),” He ascended to heaven.

They (the apostles) then returned to Jerusalem and went to the upper room where they were staying; in fact they are all named in Acts 1:13. Now, for the first time, others are mentioned. These (the apostles) continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers (Acts 1:14). At this point a man was selected to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:15-26). It is mentioned that the number of disciples at this time was 120. After the replacement was chosen, the text simply concludes by saying that Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). As we head into chapter two, then, the last noun is apostles—not the 120.

The Quibble

Mac supplies Acts 13:52, 14:1, and 3 as a similar case. It is not similar. Although there is an interruption, it is clear to whom “they” refers in Acts 14:1. Notice that Paul and Barnabas are the focus of attention in Acts 13-14. The missionary journey is one that they have taken together. The Jews fought against Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:50; the pair shook the dust off their feet and traveled to Iconium (Acts 13:51). Verse 52 is a brief comment about the disciples they left behind being filled with joy and the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52). Then the narrative picks up again with Paul and Barnabas in Iconium (Acts 14:1). Would anyone get confused over the pronoun, they, in this case? They would not because the reader knows that the historical account is following the missionaries—not the disciples in one city. Also, since Iconium is mentioned the verse before and the one after Acts 13:52, there is no doubt to whom they refers

Likewise, in Acts 1 it is obvious that Luke has as his subject the apostles. Yes, they meet with other brethren, and they select one of them to replace Judas, but then the narrative returns to what happens to them—not the 120. McGarvey is right to point out that, if the 120 is the antecedent, one would have to go clear back to verse 15, whereas the apostles are mentioned in the verse prior to Acts 2:1.

More than an Antecedent

But there is much more proof to demonstrate that only the apostles are meant in Acts 2:1. First, the promise of baptism in the Holy Spirit was only made to the apostles in Acts 1:8. Second, all of the indications are that they were the only ones who received it. What is the verification? Others have already presented compelling evidence. Goebel Music wrote:

Then, too, it was the 12 that Peter defended in Acts 2:14, and it was to the 12 that the people directed their question and not to the 120 (Cf. 2:37). All of the ones doing the speaking were said to be “Galileans” (Acts 2:7). And it surely cannot be proved that the 120 were all Galileans (67).

Yes, nothing in the text indicates that any brethren but the apostles were speaking in tongues that day. If the women among the 120 were doing so, then they were speaking “the wonderful works of God” in public (Acts 2:11). Does Mac wish to affirm that notion? Is he so desperate to affirm his doctrine that he will have women preaching in public contrary to what the Spirit later inspired Paul to write (1 Tim. 2:11-14)?

Andrew Connally adds this observation:

Only the Apostles worked miracles until “they laid hands” on others. The miraculous Gifts of the Holy Spirit belonged to the Apostles only, until they “laid their hands” on someone else (Acts 2:43; 3:3; 3:6; 4:33; 5:12; 5:15-16; 6:6, 8) (29 emphasis his).

These comments are sufficient to prove the argument, but there is more to consider. Peter did not stand up with the 120; he stood up with the eleven (Acts 2:14). Near the close of the recorded sermon on Pentecost, Peter affirmed: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32). Who is “we”—the 12 or the 120? Remember that in Acts 1:2-3 it was said that Jesus presented Himself alive to the apostles. They are the witnesses. Can it be shown that all of the 120 saw Him during that 40-day period? It cannot.

Those who were baptized that day continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine—not the doctrine of the 120 (Acts 2:42). “Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). The text never indicates the 120’s involvement in any of the things on Pentecost. Only the apostles are specifically mentioned. Thus, before Acts 2:1 and after Acts 2:1, the narrative is concerned with the apostles. The 120 are only briefly mentioned in the entire inspired account.

Thus, Mac’s effort to claim that the 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit falls woefully and embarrassingly short. It is obvious that he did not study the matter thoroughly, as did J. W. McGarvey, Andrew Connally, Goebel Music, and hundreds of others who could be cited. He has joined the denominationalists and the Pentecostals in his insistence that all 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit. They have advocated this error for decades. Do faithful brethren really want to join Mac in this departure from the truth?

Disagreeing with Mac

Of course, there is always a severe consequence for disagreeing with Mac. In this case he charges that those who do not believe all 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit (contrary to the evidence of the text) must claim “there was then a part of the church that was not spiritually animated by the Spirit. In other words there was part of the church that was spiritually dead!” (4).

Well, that certainly sounds bad. But where is the proof for such a reckless assertion? No one has argued that a part of the church was not “spiritually animated”; but, regardless, where is the verse that promises spiritual animation, whatever that is? Is Mac implying that everyone must be baptized in the Holy Spirit as the apostles were, or they are spiritually dead? Would that be true for today, also? If this is his assertion, then he is guilty of circular reasoning. He would be guilty of using his doctrine to try to prove his doctrine.

In other words, one of Mac’s teachings is that all who become Christians today are baptized in the Spirit. While we are arguing the veracity of that claim, he cannot then assume that his overall thesis is true in trying to establish a view that leads to his conclusion. Thus, this is a smaller tenet of the larger doctrine, which means that each point must be established along the way. One cannot jump ahead to the conclusion and attempt to use it as proof of this part of his case. This tactic involves the use of circular reasoning.

Most brethren would also note that Mac’s definition of spiritual deadness is false. If those after Pentecost, apart from being baptized in the Holy Spirit, were spiritually dead, then what about those who lived before Pentecost? Was Enoch spiritually dead when God translated him? Was Abraham spiritually dead when God made the three great promises to him? Was Moses spiritually dead when he chose to suffer with the children of God rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season? Was David, a man after God’s own heart, spiritually dead? When salvation came to the household of Zaccheus, was he spiritually dead? Was the centurion that Jesus praised for his great faith spiritually dead? Was the thief on the cross spiritually dead when Jesus promised him Paradise? If it will help Mac out, these can be put in the form of true–false questions (and without parentheses).

One does not determine the meaning of a text by imposing his theory upon it; one studies a text for what it says. If ambiguity exists, then one may rightly apply other texts to it to provide the meaning, but no confusion exists in Acts 2 concerning who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Jesus specified reasons for their receiving what they did. The purposes were to:

1. Remind them of everything that Jesus had taught (John 14:26).

2. Guide them into all truth (teach them all things) (John 14:26; John 16:13); and

3. Show them things to come (John 16:13).

Will Mac argue that these are all available to the Christian today? If the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available today, why are not all these promises? As Goebel Music taught more than 25 years ago:

Indeed, Holy Spirit baptism was a baptism that was both temporary and limited. However, if it did occur today then we would not have to spend so much time in our studies (Cf. John 14:26; 16:13) because we would have such things brought to our remembrance (69).