The observation has often been made that, when people go overboard on the Holy Spirit, they begin to see every passage through the prism of their newfound theology. They enthusiastically embrace new and even bizarre interpretations in an effort to substantiate their views and export them to others. One example of such unchecked exuberance was that of Todd Deaver at the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman in 2003. The following is an excerpt from him (as recorded in an article from Spiritual Perspectives (May 11, 2003):
I just wanted to address the comment about the question, whether or not we should worship the Holy Spirit. I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers concerning that, but let me just offer one observation. Possibly, one of the reasons that you don’t ever find, in the New Testament, worship being directed specifically to the Holy Spirit is that the Spirit is viewed in the New Testament as being within the Christian and helping him to offer it—his worship. For example, in Jude, verse 20, you have a reference to praying in the Holy Spirit. There are several other passages that talk about the same thing.
John 4:24 refers to worshiping in the Spirit. I believe that’s the Holy Spirit there. He is in the Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), helping us in our worship. He is interceding for us within our hearts (Romans, chapter 8). And so, possibly, how that’s supposed to be looked at in the New Testament is that the Holy Spirit is not in heaven receiving our worship but is in our hearts helping us to offer the worship.
In the history of Christianity, probably no one had ever alleged that worshipping God in spirit and in truth (think of all the sermons preached on this passage) referred to worshipping God in the Holy Spirit. Does even one commentary suggest such an interpretation?
Ralph Gilmore, hosting the forum, should have explained the fallacy of the statement (along with the other errors), but instead he said, “Todd, that’s a great point.” He ought to have said, “Todd, the idea that Jesus was teaching that the Holy Spirit helps us in our worship is totally foreign to the context of the conversation with the woman at the well.” As brethren have pointed out over the centuries, Jesus is talking about truth and sincerity of attitude (from the heart).
Once one begins to take an unscriptural position, however, everything becomes skewed, and all passages must be re-interpreted to fit the false theory. What Dan Billingsly has done in making all the Scriptures fit his error is precisely what Mac Deaver does with respect to the Holy Spirit. Objectivity in understanding passages of Scripture evaporates.
Promises, Promises
When Mac Deaver reads Acts 2, all he can see is the Holy Spirit. As already noted, the Holy Spirit had been promised and received on the Day of Pentecost. Certainly, the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled that day, along with the promise made by John and Jesus to the disciples. But that is not the only promise that is in play; Mac however, cannot see the other two. The first, as already mentioned, was the prophecy about Jesus being raised up to sit on David’s throne. The second is the promise made to all mankind of salvation and its attendant blessings. Others readily understand these promises as being present in the text.
After Jesus ascended into Heaven, He was exalted to the right hand of God, where He received the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Leave it to Deaver to, with a wave of the hand, dismiss any interpretation but his. He writes: “The only promise explicitly mentioned as a promise in the whole context is the promise of the Holy Spirit” (28).
The very wording of this sentence indicates that Deaver is aware that other promises are implicitly included, such as the one about Jesus receiving a kingdom when He ascended to the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13-14). Peter mentions that God had sworn to David that He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (Acts 2:30). This promise is in the context about as strongly as anything could be—without being explicit. When Peter proclaims that the Jesus they crucified is now both Lord and Christ, he is also affirming that Jesus has taken His place at the right hand of God and has begun His reign on David’s throne! Thus, the apostle has brought them to the point of discussing—not the Holy Spirit—but salvation.
Deaver wants us to believe that, when Jesus received the promise of the Holy Spirit, He received the Holy Spirit Himself—and then in turn poured Him out upon the apostles so they might speak in tongues. Where was it ever promised that Jesus would be given the Holy Spirit when He returned to Heaven? What He was promised (in the Old Testament Scriptures) was that He would receive a kingdom, which He had. Having received that promise, it was time to declare that fact; thus the Holy Spirit was poured out (metaphorically, not literally) upon the apostles in order to gather the multitude together to hear that salvation was now available.
Deaver acts as though the Holy Spirit is more important than salvation being available to all mankind. When the Jewish men were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, they did not ask, “How can we get the Holy Spirit?” They asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Their question is not, “What shall we do to get the Holy Spirit?” Their question is, “What shall we do about the fact that we have crucified the Son of God, whom God has raised up to sit on the throne of David?”
The Gift of the Holy Spirit
Peter’s answer is familiar: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The two conditions listed in order to receive salvation are easily understood—repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But what is meant by that promise that Peter gave—of receiving the Holy Spirit? Brethren have generally adopted three views to attempt to explain the phrase. Some have argued that the gift is the Spirit while others contend that the gift is something that the Spirit gives.
An important question to ask is, “What would the multitude have thought when hearing this phrase?” Two basic ideas come to mind: 1) That they would, if baptized, receive the ability to speak in tongues, as they had witnessed earlier (Peter had identified the occurrence as pouring out the Spirit on all flesh); or 2) That they would, if baptized, indeed receive salvation, concerning which the Holy Spirit had prophesied through the writers of the Old Testament.
Mac Deaver, however, specifies four possibilities (all on page 29). The first of these is that the multitude believed they would “receive the Spirit with all nine miraculous endowments that characterized the apostles.” Although he rejects this view as what Peter meant, it certainly was not something anyone would have thought. They had only seen one manifestation of the Holy Spirit at that time and did not know how many gifts the apostles might have possessed.
The second meaning that Deaver suggests is that they could receive the Spirit Himself with miraculous power, a la Cornelius. He rejects this option, but the people might have thought this to be a possibility, since they had observed it happen. The third option is the same except that the spiritual gift would come by the laying on of the hands of an apostle. Those on Pentecost could hardly have imagined that possibility since they were as yet not familiar with the way it would later be done.
The fourth choice is that Peter meant that the people would receive the Spirit Himself but “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.” What? “This would be supernatural non-miraculous power.” If anyone on the Day of Pentecost would have so understood Peter to mean what Deaver alleges here, he would outrank Einstein. Why would anyone observe a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit (i. e., speaking in tongues) and conclude that Peter referred to a non-miraculous manifestation of the Spirit? Actually, with the knowledge that the people had at that point and their brief, limited experience, the only option that makes sense is number 2—that they would receive the same thing they had seen in the apostles (and without the laying on of hands).
Mac Deaver rejects this view though, if the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit Himself, it would surely be the one that crowd would have envisioned. He rightly points out that only Cornelius and his family receive what he describes as position #2 and that it was the exception. Of course, students of the Word do not learn that fact until the book of Acts unfolds itself.
Because many brethren hold to position #3, Mac spends four pages refuting that position, after which he affirms that the fourth position is the correct one—the one concerning the non-miraculous indwelling. Up until this point he has not dealt with the possibility of the gift of the Holy Spirit referring to salvation. In fact, he made it clear that there were no other choices. After listing the four options, he asks, “Are there any other possibilities? I think not” (29). Leave it to Deaver to suggest that the four possibilities he sets forth are the only ones that can possibly exist—and then reverse himself. “Before concluding this section, let me mention one other alleged meaning of the expression ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’ which some preachers have advocated” (34). Well, which is it? Are there four and only four possibilities, or is there another? There is another, and it is one that the crowd would have had in their minds, thus giving it credibility.
Salvation
Mac hates to stoop to discuss this non-existent option (in his mind). After all, he has already proved his case; why bother to mess up his perfect construct? Concerning the idea that the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to salvation, he writes: “Given the foregoing explanation, this is false. But let me offer a few comments anyway” (35). He does not seriously examine this view. Why does he not quote someone who has actually written on the subject or comment on a few related Scriptures? Does he not know how to do research? It is much easier to define another’s position in one’s own terms and then discredit it than to let someone who holds that position speak for himself.
Therefore, the position shall be set forth before we look at Mac’s refutation of it. First, a summary is in order.
1. The apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in various languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance (2:4).
2. Many were appropriately amazed at what they saw and heard, but some mocked, accusing the apostles of being full of new wine (2:12-13).
3. Peter refuted the charge and claimed that what they had observed was what Joel had prophesied (2:15-16). The passage mentions such spiritual gifts as prophecy. Nothing in Joel’s words suggests a gift “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.”
4. Then Peter begins to preach Jesus, who was attested by God to them “by miracles, wonders, and signs,” which they had seen (2:22).
5. They had put Him to death, but He was resurrected (2:23-24).
6. David had spoken of the resurrection (2:24-31).
7. God had sworn to David “with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Acts 2:30).
8. Jesus had been raised up; the apostles were witnesses. Jesus had been highly exalted at the right hand of God (given David’s throne), and the Holy Spirit had poured out the miraculous gift they had observed (2:32-33).
9. Peter quotes Psalm 110:1, a Messianic kingship passage (2:34-35).
10. Peter reaffirms that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, after which the men ask what they should do (2:36-37).
Neither the question nor the answer revolves around the Holy Spirit. The answer is devoted to salvation. God used the Holy Spirit to do something miraculous to gain people’s attention. The purpose, however, was to teach a spiritual message—that of salvation. Jesus had fed 5,000 on one occasion, and they wanted to make him a king, mistaking the sign for what the sign pointed to. The Holy Spirit is prominent in Acts 2—but only as a means to preach the gospel to the people. In answer to their question, Peter mentions repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Does he mention the gift of the Holy Spirit to reintroduce the subject of the Holy Spirit?
Such is unlikely for two reasons. First, everything in verses 38-42 centers on salvation. Second, in another passage, one without the prominence of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, the parallel response is also entirely on salvation. However, Acts 2 deserves further examination. Notice verse 39: “For the promise is to you and your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” To what does the promise refer in this verse? Certainly it was not the promise made to David of Christ ruling on his throne. Is it the promise of the Holy Spirit Jesus made to the apostles? No. Does it refer to what Peter just promised about the gift of the Holy Spirit? After having told them how to be saved, did Peter then think it was important to tell them about a gift “without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power”? Having broached being saved, would he take an excursion into another subject area, which would possibly only confuse them?
No, it is our contention that the gift of the Holy Spirit here is the same thing as the gift of God in John 4:10—the salvation that comes through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and the blessings that accompany it. Why it is phrased that way may relate to the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who prophesied of the salvation to come all through the ages. Furthermore, salvation (resulting in eternal life) is a gift of God (Rom. 6:23).
Notice too that the promise of salvation is made to all (2:39). Peter said many other things to the people, exhorting them, “Be saved from this perverse generation” (2:40). The emphasis is clearly upon salvation. Acts 2:41 does not say, “They that gladly received his word were baptized, and they all received a gift ‘without accompanying miraculous power but with non-miraculous spiritual power.’” It speaks only of salvation and being added to the body of Christ. Among the things in which brethren continued steadfastly in Acts 2:42, there is no mention made of a non-miraculous gift—but rather things that pertain to salvation.
In Acts 13 the references to the Holy Spirit that had to be made on Pentecost are absent. Paul arrives at the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead and His post-resurrection appearances (Acts 13:30-31). Then he says: “And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers” (13:32). After recounting the resurrection further in light of prophecies, Paul says that “through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins…” (13:38). The promise (the glad tidings) is clearly salvation, the forgiveness of sins.