After Phillip Schaff supplies background information about the apostles and a timeline of New Testament events, from the birth of Christ to the exile of John in Patmos (1:219-22), he discusses the miracle of Pentecost, which he terms as following Easter, thus revealing his denominational heritage (since the word Easter never appears in the Greek New Testament) (1:225). Pentecost, the feast of harvest, lasted one day (1:226). He points out that this is the day of the first spiritual harvest on earth and acknowledges that Pentecost was “the birthday of the visible kingdom of Christ on earth” (1:227).
The Day of Pentecost
Sadly, these are among the few comments concerning the Day of Pentecost that are accurate, and the author does not explain why this harvest of souls was the birthday of the kingdom on earth or how Jesus added these saved souls to His church, which is the most important event of that day. He refers to the content of Peter’s sermon in only one summary paragraph (which is quoted later in this article).
This would have been an excellent section to have highlighted Peter’s message of the resurrected Jesus and shown the profound effect on the Jews that day, which caused them to ask what they should do (Acts 2: 37). Then Schaff might have discussed Peter‘s answer: “Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). He might further have noted that some 3,000 did precisely that (Acts 2:41). They were born again of water and the Spirit; the church was born also. The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). But immersion was not taught by the religious group with which Schaff was affiliated (which was the sprinkling of infants and confirmation); so he passed over it with only a brief comment.
Instead, he spent the bulk of his time discussing what the Holy Spirit did that day and the way it affected the apostles—and he got it wrong. At this point in the book, one is hoping that he is a better historian than a commentator on the events. How ironic that he noted the significance of the Day of Pentecost but spent all of his time on a lesser matter while barely mentioning what was truly important.
Who Spoke in Tongues?
What happened when the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit? Schaff says: “To the apostles it was their baptism, confirmation, and ordination, all in one, for they received no other” (1:229). This claim does not make sense. It was a baptism of the Holy Spirit, but it did not and does not take the place of baptism in water for the remission of sins. There is no such thing as “confirmation” in the Christian system. Although the word does appear in its non-religious meaning twice in the New Testament, it never refers to such a Christian “ordinance” that was invented many years later by men. God never authorized that practice. As for ordination, Jesus had called them to preach years earlier, and no special “ordination” may be found in the pages of Holy Writ. What Schaff says in this statement should serve as a warning to all that one can become so familiar with religious practices begun by men, but not found in the Bible, that it influences all they do.
As a result of being filled with the Spirit, Schaff correctly says that the apostles now possessed “an understanding of Christ’s words and plan of salvation as they never had before. What was dark and mysterious became now clear and full of meaning to them” (1:229). True, they now understood the plan of salvation much better—in fact, well enough to preach it the same day. Had Schaff left it at this, he would have been back on track, but he suddenly derailed the train entirely. He writes:
But the communication of the Holy Spirit was not confined to the Twelve. It extended to the brethren of the Lord, the mother of Jesus, the pious women who attended his ministry, and the whole brotherhood of a hundred and twenty souls who were assembled in that chamber. They were “all” filled with the Spirit, and all spoke with tongues… (1:229).
Hold on for a minute! If the apostles received their “baptism, confirmation, and ordination” in being filled with the Holy Spirit, and the 120 received the same thing, then why were they not equally baptized, confirmed, and ordained? Could they not all preach and be ordained then—even the women? Yet we know that this was not the case from the pages of the New Testament. None of the apostles, evangelists, or elders were female, and this is by God’s design (1 Tim. 2:11-14). The lack of the denominational ordinance of confirmation has already been noted, but what about the Holy Spirit baptism taking the place of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
Apparently, Schaff thought that, since the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit, they did not need to be baptized in water (perhaps they were exempt?). His footnote on the matter says: “They were baptized with water by John; but Christian baptism was first administered by them on the day of Pentecost. Christ himself did not baptize, John 4:2.” Schaff is assuming two things—1) that the disciples were not also baptized by Jesus (not Himself personally, but by His authority, John 4:1-2); and 2) that they might have baptized themselves first on the Day of Pentecost and then baptized all the others. This writer thinks that number one is the more likely, but either is possible.
It has been argued—even by brethren—that the apostles were placed miraculously in the church and were never baptized for the remission of sins, but both John and Jesus baptized for that purpose. Is it logical to conclude that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness but that His apostles were exempted from what is required of all Christians? Either their baptism by the authority of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins prior to the cross was valid, or they too were baptized in water on Pentecost.
But why does Schaff think that the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit? He cites Acts 1:13-14. An examination of the text will prove helpful, beginning with Acts 1:4. “And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem….” The first thing the reader should ask is, “Who is them?” We would have to check for an antecedent, which is found in verse 2—“the apostles.” Whom follows in verse 3. The same procedure should follow in Acts 2:1 where we read they were all with one accord in one place. Who is they? The preceding verse (Acts 1:26) closes by naming the twelve apostles. It would be logical to think that they in Acts 2:1 refers to the apostles (Matthias was numbered with them)—not the 120 who were mentioned previously.
But starting at chapter one, the main subject is “the apostles.” They are first mentioned in Acts 1:2, and no one else is introduced through Acts 1:13. Jesus was speaking only to them in 1:4 when He told them to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father. To them only did He promise power after the Holy Spirit came upon them. Only to them did He assure that they would be witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world (1:8). No others were present when the apostles saw Jesus taken up and received by a cloud as they watched. They then returned by themselves to Jerusalem (1:9-12). Upon arrival they went into “an upper room, where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.” The eleven were staying in an upper room for the time being. It does not say they were in the upper room when Judas’ replacement was selected or on the Day of Pentecost.
Others are drawn into the narrative in Acts 1:14. The apostles continued with one accord with the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. During that time Peter stood up and told those present that they needed to select a replacement for Judas, which they did. They cast lots and Matthias was chosen; afterward, he was numbered with the eleven apostles (1:15-26). Some assume that the 120 were present on the Day of Pentecost, which is not totally off the wall, since the last event included them, but it is equally possible that, with the event being over, the narrative picks up again with the apostles where it was before, and they are the last antecedent of they.
We know that the women in the 120 did not receive what the apostles did; they were not “ordained.” The promise had not been made to them that they would receive the Holy Spirit, which Jesus gave to the eleven in John 14:25-26, 15:27, and 16:12-13. And after the supernatural occurrence happened, Peter stood up with the eleven. Why did not the 119 stand up with him if they had all received what the apostles received (2: 14)? This now makes four reasons for concluding that only the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit: 1) it was only promised to them; 2) the antecedent only refers to them; 3) the women were not ordained to preach; and 4) only the eleven stood up with Peter.
What is the case for the other side? There are only two points that are generally argued. First, the they in Acts 2:1 refers to all 120. It could, but the nearest antecedent remains apostles; so further evidence would be needed. And the further evidence would need to be compelling. The only other argument is Peter’s citation of Joel which talks about daughters and maidservants prophesying in Acts 2:17-18. Not everything in this prophecy had already happened, but it had begun to be fulfilled. Women would prophesy later (in the presence of each other), but they never did publicly (1 Tim. 2:11-14). Therefore, the women present on Pentecost did not do so, either, since it would have violated God’s plan.
What Did the Apostles Speak?
Equally mystifying to the last position taken is the following one—that the apostles did not speak in actual languages! “The supernatural experience of the disciples broke through the confines of ordinary speech and burst out in ecstatic language of praise and thanksgiving to God for the great works he did among them” (1: 230). What does Schaff mean by this statement? He affirms that the glossolalia (tongue speaking) here was “an act of worship and adoration, not an act of teaching and instruction…” (1:230). He repeats this point, and it may be primarily true, but he is wrong to think instruction cannot overlap with praise. Praising God does teach others; do we not learn that from the Psalms? And do not New Testament passages confirm that we teach one another while singing praises unto God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The two concepts are not mutually exclusive; they are harmonious.
But where does the text say that speaking in these languages was ecstatic? Except for their praising of God, no comments are given concerning their emotional state. Must one be in a state of ecstasy in order to praise God? Can we not do so while we are rational and thinking clearly? Does Schaff really want to go there? A peculiar statement follows this one. “The Holy Spirit was certainly at work among the hearers as well as the speakers…” (232). What? He adds: “It was the same Spirit who inspired the tongues of the speakers and the hearts of the susceptible hearers, and raised both above the ordinary level of consciousness” (1:232). Where is this stuff coming from? Not from the text of Acts 2.
In the “Notes” section of this chapter, Schaff comments furthers on some of these matters. He argues that in Corinth speaking in tongues had nothing to do with the spread of the gospel. It was instead self-devotion (he may be right in that, since they were in it for what they could get out of it instead of what God could be given). He says that individuals were
wholly absorbed in communion with God, and gave utterance to their rapturous feelings in broken, abrupt, rhapsodic, unintelligible words. It was emotional rather than intellectual, the language of the excited imagination, not of cool reflection (1:235).
It sounds more like the frenzy of the false prophets of Baal than the worship of Almighty God (1 Kings 18:28-29). If the Corinthians were behaving in this manner, was God the author of it? Maybe that is the reason Paul had to warn them that “no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed…” (1 Cor. 12:3). If the Corinthians were overly emotional, maybe that was the reason their worship was chaotic, and Paul had to admonish them, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). But the Spirit did not make them this way because the “spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32). Would that be less true of tongue speakers?
Schaff’s ideas of this type of worship do not come from the New Testament. He assumes that a phenomenon of his day, called “speaking in tongues” is what the Bible meant. He discusses having personally observed an Irvingite group in New York; he said that their words
were broken, ejaculatory, but uttered in abnormal, startling, impressive sounds, in a state of apparent unconsciousness and rapture, and without any control over the tongue, which was seized as it were by a foreign power (1:237).
This is not at all what the Scriptures describe. Every Christian should commit to memory Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” What does this verse tell us? They spoke with other tongues (languages). They did not speak gibberish and the Spirit made it intelligible. With the Spirit’s guidance, they spoke the languages, which Jews from various countries heard and understood. Because they spoke in these languages, people heard in those languages. Nobody commented that they were making impressive, broken, abrupt, and unintelligible sounds, indicating they did not have control over their own tongues!
Salvation
This chapter on the Day of Pentecost contains 21 pages. Most of it is devoted to what the Holy Spirit did in a miraculous way. Scant attention is paid to the climax of all that happened with respect to salvation. Following is all that Schaff wrote about this topic. Peter
humbly condescended to refute the charge of intoxication by reminding them of the early hour of the day, even when drunkards are sober, and explained from the prophecies of Joel and the sixteenth Psalm of David that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews had crucified, but who was by word and deed, by his resurrection from the dead, his exaltation to the right hand of God, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost, accredited as the promised Messiah, according to the express prediction of the Scripture. Then he called upon his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, as the founder and the head of the heavenly kingdom, that even though they had crucified him, the Lord and the Messiah, might receive the forgive-ness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, whose wonderful workings they saw and heard in the disciples (1:233-34).
Even to this day, people find the Holy Spirit much more fascinating a subject than salvation. How ironic it is that the emphasis in the Bible is the theme of redemption, but people write a multitude of books on the Holy Spirit—most of them inaccurate! Still, the above quote is right and serves as an excellent summary of that notable day. Some might think that Schaff was implying the gift of the Holy Spirit was miraculous, which might be, but his wording is correct. They were promised the gift, and they had seen the Spirit’s workings.