For the past sixteen years many faithful brethren have been opposing what has come to be called “the Deaver doctrine.” It first surfaced in a debate that Mac Deaver had with Marion Fox in 1994 and has been evolving ever since. The position emerging from that discussion was the subject of succeeding debates, the last of which occurred ten years ago. Several brethren have dealt with certain aspects of this false teaching at various lectureships, and the Gospel Journal, when edited proficiently by Dub McClish, devoted an entire issue in February of 2002 to exposing the various fallacies of Deaver’s ideology. The Defender and a few other papers likewise devoted articles to this heresy during that same month.
In 2007, Deaver published what is purported to be the latest version of his beliefs, without which no one could understand his position. He assured this writer that, unless one had read this volume, he would not fully comprehend his view and thus would be misrepresenting him. Therefore, not cheerfully, but grudgingly and of necessity, this disadvantaged scribe purchased a copy and now (with all of the wonderful knowledge not heretofore possessed) is ready to examine and comment upon The Holy Spirit (Center of Controversy—Basis of Unity) by Mac Deaver.
The very first chapter contains many errors, but the main concern of this examination will be chapter two, “The Gift of the Holy Spirit—Its Meaning.” This topic has been debated for more than 100 years. Entire chapters have been written on the meaning of the phrase from Acts 2:38—and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Only Mac Deaver could have the temerity to cover all three positions in ten pages and act as if anyone who would possibly disagree with him is unscholarly. Leave it to Deaver and his arrogance to think he has thoroughly analyzed everything pertaining to the subject and drawn the correct conclusions in so short a space.
The approach of these articles will be to deal with the shortcomings of this chapter. Later comments made in the book, if any, that relate to this topic will not be addressed here so that the analysis can be as brief as possible. Some are intensely interested in this subject, but others are bored by it. It is important, however, that we understand this phrase—what it means—and what it does not mean.
Acts 2:38 and 10:45
The purpose of Mac’s second chapter is to determine the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit as found in Acts 2:38. Deaver rightly says that the only other time this expression is found in the entire New Testament is in Acts 10:45. “And there the reference is indisputably to the Holy Spirit Himself (see v. 44)” (27). On the basis of this one verse, then, Mac and many others conclude that the Holy Spirit has given Himself as the gift in both passages. How simple things are for Deaver. It only took him four sentences to explain what (apparently unenlightened) brethren are still wondering about. After repeating that the phrases in both verses are identical, Mac hurriedly concludes: “This much is settled. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit” (27). What an unsettling remark! This hasty bit of analysis cannot go unchallenged.
First, Acts 10:44 does say that the Holy Spirit fell on all who were listening to Peter preach the Word, but the gift of the Holy Spirit they received was not the Holy Spirit personally. Notice that immediately after saying that “the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also,” the text continues: “For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God” (Acts 10:46). We know from 1 Corinthians 12-14 that speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift given by the Spirit. The text in Acts 10 tells us that the Jews who were with Peter were astonished because these Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And how did they know that the Holy Spirit had fall-en (a figure of speech) upon them? They heard them speak in tongues. Thus, the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit Himself, personally—but in this instance the ability to be able to speak in tongues. It may have dawned upon the reader that what was settled for Mac is not at all settled when looking at the text.
Second, the Holy Spirit falling upon them, in light of the next two verses, is a metonymy of the cause (Dungan 271) where the Holy Spirit stands for what He has imparted to them—i.e., a spiritual gift. The same thing occurs later in Acts 19:5-6. Paul baptized twelve men who had only known the baptism of John. “And when Paul had laid hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” Once again, the Spirit came upon them, and people could observe this fact by the spiritual gifts that they then showed. In both cases, these two groups received a miraculous gift—a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Third, according to Mac’s logic, if the phrase, the gift of the Holy Spirit, is only found one other time in the New Testament, and it refers to a miraculous gift being given, then it must mean the same thing in Acts 2:38. So, leaving it to Deaver–logic, the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 that Peter promised to the people was that of a miraculous gift. If Mac were to concoct a syllogism, it would probably read something like this.
1. If the same author uses the same phrase twice in a book of the New Testament, then whatever the phrase means in one context, it means in the other, also.
2. Luke uses the same phrase in Acts 10:45 that he uses in Acts 2:38.
3. Therefore, what the gift of the Holy Spirit means in Acts 10:45 it must also mean in Acts 2:38.
Although the form of the syllogism is valid, the first premise cannot be proven to be true. But if it were true, it would not help Mac because it would establish that Luke was referring to a miraculous gift in Acts 2:38. Oddly enough, however, Mac does not hold that view. The fact is, though, that he must either adopt that view or give up his argument. “That much is settled.”
“The Gift of God”
The problem with making an argument of this type is that two usages of a phrase is not enough of a sampling to be certain of drawing the correct conclusion. Had the phrase been used five or ten times, with the same obvious meaning each time, then one would have a case, but twice is not necessarily conclusive. Take, for example, the phrase, the gift of God. Although it is found 6 times in the English, the expression is found only twice when the Greek word translated “gift” is dorea. In Acts 8:20, it clearly refers to the miraculous.
Simon the sorcerer had become a Christian in response to Philip’s preaching. Peter and John went to Samaria and prayed that these new Christians “might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15-17). Observations about this text should prove helpful.
First, Peter and John were sent to Samaria for a specific purpose—to give these brethren the Holy Spirit. They did not automatically receive the Holy Spirit upon being baptized. Both here and in Acts 19, those who had been baptized needed to have an apostle lay hands on them to receive the Spirit. Second, when they received the Holy Spirit (metonymy again), such was visible to others present. In Acts 10 and 19, people observed the recipients exercising a spiritual gift. Although neither speaking in tongues nor prophecy is mentioned in Acts 8, it is evident that Simon saw some evidence that they had received the Spirit because he wanted to buy the power to do what Peter and John had done (Acts 8:18-19).
Peter chastised Simon severely because he thought “the gift of God could be purchased with money!” (Acts 8:20). What is the gift of God? It refers to the ability that Peter and John had as apostles to impart a spiritual gift (the Holy Spirit) to Christians. Simon wanted to buy that ability, that gift. Certainly, this dorea (gift) of God refers to a miraculous ability.
However, the other time the expression occurs is in John 4:10. Jesus said to the woman at the well, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” What is “the gift of God” here? It is the same expression in the Greek as in Acts 8:20, but it is certainly not the miraculous ability to lay hands on someone and impart a gift. Neither is it a miraculous gift; Jesus may be referring to Himself (He certainly is God’s gift to us—John 3:16), to the salvation that comes through Him, or both. The same expression is used, but the meanings of both are different. Likewise, the gift of the Holy Spirit has two different meanings.
Acts 10:45
Deaver knows that his argument on Acts 10 and Acts 2 is fraught with difficulties. Therefore, he tries to head off the obvious conclusion that the gift of Acts 2 is miraculous (27). Of course, it only stands to reason that it would be, but he argues that the only point of similarity he is concerned about is that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether or not a miraculous gift is involved. He asserts what he cannot prove, and he does so by failing to study the entire context and refusing to acknowledge common figures of speech. He repeats that no one can question his conclusion, but it has already been questioned—and successfully at that. Merely repeating a point (which lacks evidence) cannot replace careful exegesis.
The Promise
Mac next turns his attention to the word promise; once again, his analysis is very thin and superficial. His main points are these.
First, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father which is explained to be the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4, 5) (28).
Mac has begun this section with a true statement. He could also have included Luke 24:49 in which Jesus also made that statement. Both of these statements were made after Jesus was raised from the dead, the one in Acts being spoken the day of His ascension. But Jesus had promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would come upon them on the night of His betrayal. At that time He promised that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would come, and when He did, He would bring to remembrance all things whatsoever that Jesus had taught them. He would also guide them into all truth and show them things yet future (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13).
That first point holds true, but it does not mean that every time the word promise is used, it refers to that particular promise because God made others that are referenced in Acts 2. The cognate forms of the word promise are used 70 times in the New Testament. Only three times does promise refer to the Holy Spirit being given, and two of those were cited above. Over 50% of the time, the promises made to Abraham are referenced, and that includes the spiritual promise of salvation. The apostles, at the time of the Day of Pentecost, were looking for the Holy Spirit as Jesus had promised them, but the nation of Israel was looking for the One through Whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed, the message which Peter proclaimed that day.
In his second point, Mac mishandles Acts 2:33.
Second, Peter in his sermon explained that whereas Jesus had gone back to heaven and was exalted by God’s right hand, he had received of the Father “the promise of the Holy Spirit” which he had poured out, the evidence of which was discernible to the people (Acts 2:32, 33) (28).
While it is true that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit had been seen by the multitude and, in fact, was responsible for the people gathering together, Peter had already explained (by the time of verse 33) that those things were a fulfillment of what the prophet Joel had written. From verse 22 onward, Peter’s intention is to proclaim that Jesus had arisen from the dead—also in keeping with what the Scriptures had taught. The apostle now sets forth two crucial facts: 1) Jesus has been raised from the dead: and 2) He has ascended into heaven to sit on the throne of David. However, as this latter subject has been introduced into the text, it is important to stop and remind ourselves of some crucial details regarding that event.
In 2 Samuel 7:12-13, God had Nathan speak to David:
“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”
This prophecy of Jesus and His kingdom was very much in the minds of the people. Peter explains that Jesus is the Person of the prophecy: “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on the throne…” (Acts 2:30). The people were expecting the Christ to sit on the throne of David. Peter explains that Jesus fulfilled David’s prophecy of the resurrection, but now he refers again to what David knew—about the throne and the kingdom.
“Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).
What promise of the Holy Spirit did Jesus receive? He was given the throne and the kingdom of David—one of the reasons He was able to endure the cross. Jesus, “for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). The way Mac interprets this verse, when Jesus ascended into heaven, the Father gave Him the Holy Spirit, and He in turn poured Him out on the apostles. This interpretation ignores the significance of what Peter was preaching concerning the resurrection and the ascension into heaven.
Furthermore, it makes the same mistake that Pentecostals do. They are more excited about the Holy Spirit Whom they erroneously imagine gives them spiritual gifts today than about Jesus, the One Who redeemed them from their sins. Mac also thinks that the Holy Spirit and His manifestations on Pentecost are more important than the message concerning Jesus. As Paul taught to the Corinthians, the spiritual gifts were not the important thing. They were inferior to love and would soon disappear anyway. The gifts were to authenticate the gospel message and to edify the church. They were a means to an end—not the end itself.
The rushing mighty wind, the cloven tongues as of fire, and the speaking in tongues likewise were not the message; they were used to call attention to the gospel. The message was that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. He was resurrected and ascended into heaven, where He received the kingdom, the throne of David. As evidence of that unique event, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the apostles. Peter again mentions the exaltation of Christ in verses 34-36. This is not just a day of signs; the crucial thing is the message that the signs were sent to confirm. Leave it to Deaver to miss the significance of the message in Acts 2.