The Work of the Holy Spirit in Acts – (Part 2 of 5)

(Essay #12 – God’s Prophetic Spirit)

1:16

Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

Peter’s quotation of David’s words from the Psalms shows the Spirit’s work in the life of David.[1] In the psalm of David, the Holy Spirit “spoke.” Once again, the Spirit’s work is the work of inspiration.

2:4

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The first reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament church uses imagery of the Old Testament (“filled with the Holy Spirit” – Exodus 28:3; 31:1-5; 35:30-35; Deuteronomy 34:9) in the same way it was used in the Old Testament: to describe the work of inspiration. On the day of Pentecost the promise of Jesus found in Acts 1:16 was fulfilled and the power of the Holy Spirit “filled” the apostles. The resultant action was that they were empowered as prophets and began to speak the words given them by the Spirit.

2:17-18

And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Peter begins his defense of the events of Acts 2 by quoting the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32. We have already discussed this connection at length.[2] These words are a promise that the coming of the Holy Spirit would provide prophecy, visions, and dreams to all of God’s people. They are another statement of the Holy Spirit’s work of inspiration in the church.

2:33

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Peter’s description of the basis of the miraculous events on that day refers to the fulfillment of Joel’s promise of the Holy Spirit’s being “poured out.” That outpouring was seen and heard by Peter’s audience through their witnessing of the apostles’ speaking in all the languages of the nations present. The “promise of the Holy Spirit” is the promise of the outpouring of inspiration among God’s people.

2:38-39

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

This verse is at the center of much of the controversy about the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. One of two things is true of it. It either extends the established understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament into the time of the early church or it establishes a new teaching about the “gift” of the Holy Spirit. The argument of these essays is that the former statement would be more nearly correct than the latter. The gift of the Holy Spirit in verse 38 is based on the promise in verse 39 and that promise is the same promise of verse 33 and elsewhere in this context. That promise is the promise of Joel quoted in Acts 2. It is the promise that the outpoured Spirit would provide prophecy, visions, and dreams to all of God’s people.

What is the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Acts 2:38 is the conclusion of the first gospel sermon ever preached. When Peter answered the question of those who had just been pricked in their hearts about the identity of Jesus by saying, “Repent and be baptized,” he forever announced the terms of entrance into the kingdom of Jesus Christ. So his promissory statement that follows that each respondent to his preaching that day would receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit” should naturally carry the same universal impact. If then the gift of the Holy Spirit is just as much a universal experience to the Christian as the remissions of sins in Acts 2:38, understanding the nature and impact of the gift of the Holy Spirit is a foundational concern for the Christian.

However, there is perhaps no verse in the Bible about the Holy Spirit that causes as much confusion and disagreement among God’s people as does this one. There are at least a half-dozen major views about the meaning of this phrase. While many of these views have places where they overlap and find agreement and most do no fatal harm to the faith of God’s people, they cannot all be true. We must approach this topic with the conviction that the Bible does teach one understandable doctrine about the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the pages following, argumentation will be presented explaining that biblical truth. For the sake of clarity, this process will begin by stating the conclusion so that the reader will know the aim of the argument.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit is . . .

Stated as simply as possible: “The gift of the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the promise of the Holy Spirit.” That promise is said to have been responsible for the presence of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33). The nature of that promise is explained in the quotation of Joel 2 in Peter’s defense of the apostles’ actions (Acts 2:16-21). The promise contained in Joel’s prophecy describes then the effect of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the church. His presence, just as it did on Pentecost, would provide the church with “prophecy, visions, and dreams.”

The gift of the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of the Spirit promised to “all flesh” in the church. When He was outpoured to them, they received Him, and He provided them with the prophetic revelation necessary for the growth and maturation of the church.

1. What is the gift of the Holy Spirit? The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
2. What does then the “gifted Spirit” do for the saint? He provides “prophecy, vision, and dreams.”
3. That is the conclusion the argumentation presented below will seek to establish.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit – The Cart or the Horse?

The cart and the horse, the chicken or the egg or any other similar proverbial expression would work in this place to express the importance of understanding whether Peter, in using the phrase in question, is introducing a new biblical truth or emphasizing an old one. For many, Acts 2:38 marks a watershed moment when a new work of the Holy Spirit with man begins. Many views about the gift of the Holy Spirit are based on the necessary idea that the fulfillment of Acts 2:38 is a blessing reserved for only those living under the covenant of Jesus Christ. This view mandates that the given Spirit is the identifying blessing of the Christian. No person outside of Christ can have this blessing.[3] It is then also true no man before the time of Christ could have had that blessing. Acts 2:38 is the dividing line in the Bible about the work of the Holy Spirit. If Acts 2:38 expresses a new blessing from the Holy Spirit of God, which was previously unknown to the people of God, one must look after Acts 2:38 for its explanation.

However, another possibility does exist. Peter’s words describe a work of the Holy Spirit already known to his audience. It is clear that Peter does not explain the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit in his sermon.[4] If he did so, the great amount of controversy that surrounds this topic would disappear. If he had taken the time to state “You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and He will give you ____________,” the issue would be easily settled. Peter did not do that.

Why not? If the doctrine is so vital why not explain it? It is the first thing mentioned to the believers after the “remission of sins.” Why would the apostle not take the time to elaborate on such an important blessing? He had already defended the identity of Jesus: “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” He told them the steps they needed to take: “Repent and be baptized every one of you.” He explained the reason for the steps: “for the forgiveness of your sins.” Each of those concepts (the Messiah, repentance, baptism, and forgiveness of sin) was already a part of the Jewish understanding. If the gift of the Holy Spirit is a completely new concept to them, should we not expect it to be explained in some way – perhaps even more thoroughly?

Peter is trying to motivate his audience to turn to Jesus. If the gift of the Spirit is the first blessing promised to the new converts, its nature should be of such motivational power that explaining it to the audience would result in more converts than leaving its nature unexpressed. If the nature of the gift was before this time both unknown and never experienced, Peter has every reason to explain the gift’s nature to an audience hearing the gospel for the first time.

However, if Peter’s audience already knew what that blessing was much less explanation would be needed. Peter argues that Jesus is the Lord and Christ. He does not need to explain to a Jewish audience what those words mean. They knew their Messiah was Lord and Christ. He does not need to explain repentance to them. Their prophets had done so for 1,500 years. He does not need to explain baptism to them. John’s baptism had been taught among them for the four years leading up to this great day. He argues the facts of the life of Jesus. He exhorts his audience to respond to those facts in the right way. Yet, he has no need to explain the concepts because they already knew them. The same is true about the gift of the Holy Spirit. He argued for the fact of the gift’s coming yet had no need to explain the details of its nature.

The Jews had no confusion about the work of the Holy Spirit. They had no Arminian and Calvinistic concerns. They had no charismatic or non-charismatic controversies. There was no ambiguity between miraculous and ordinary works of the Spirit for them. They had the prophets and history of the Old Testament upon which to draw and understand the Holy Spirit. They had the biblical material these essays have presented. They had man’s first encounter with the Holy Spirit in the prophetic abilities of Joseph (Genesis 41:38) and the more than 100 verses leading up to Acts 2:38. That is the understanding that Peter’s audience had as they listened to his sermon. They knew the Spirit gave man prophetic and divine abilities and that is all they knew He did for man. Peter does nothing to correct that understanding. In fact, his only basis for the work of the Spirit on that day is found in the prophecy of Joel and its promise of “prophecy, visions, and dreams.”

The simple reason Peter does not correct their understanding of the work of the Spirit is that they already knew what the prophets had promised about the Holy Spirit in the time of the Messiah. Peter’s audience knew what to expect from the Messiah’s use of the Spirit. Once Peter had shown them that Jesus was the Messiah, they knew that the prophecies that had been given to them would be true. They knew that Joel’s prophecy would come to pass and that the outpoured Spirit would give the prophetic gifts we have discussed. They had read that the time of the Messiah would lead to the “pouring out” of the Spirit from on high and that Israel would become fruitful again. (Isaiah 32:14-16). They knew the Spirit would be “poured out on their offspring” (Isaiah 44:2-5) and that they would be able to speak the words of God (Isaiah 59:21). They knew the Messiah would bring this blessing on the house of Israel when God’s glory returned to His people (Ezekiel 39:28-29). They knew God’s gift to His people during the reign of the Messiah would be a great outpouring of His Spirit on all the flesh of the House of Israel that would provide them with prophecy, visions, and dreams so that they could speak the words of God among themselves and to the nations. That is what the prophets had told them about the Messiah. There was no need for Peter to explain that to them, nor to correct their understanding of it.

So Peter’s words were not new to them. They already expected the Messiah to usher in a time of a great outpouring of God’s Spirit. Peter is simply telling them that the time of that outpouring was upon them. The outpouring of the Spirit they were seeing that day was evidence that Jesus was the Messiah: “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being there exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing” (Acts 2:32-33).

But the promise of an outpoured Spirit from the Messiah was to more than just a small group of people as it had been in the Old Testament. The promise was to all flesh of His people and to their offspring (Joel 2; Isaiah 44). All that Peter is stating in verse 38 is that the time of that universal outpouring on the people of God from the Messiah is here. And if they would obey the teaching of the Messiah He would save them and they would partake in the outpouring that the prophets had promised them must accompany His coming.

The point has been made in these essays that the Bible is meant to be read from front-to-back, not back-to-front. It needs to be emphasized here again. Peter’s audience had Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekiel. They had none of the writings of Paul, Luke, or John. Yet, Peter expected them to understand what the gift of the Holy Spirit was. If one’s understanding of the gift cannot be established by using the information available to Peter’s audience on that day, then it is most likely the case that his understanding of the gift needs some correction. About 3,000 souls received the gift of the Spirit in response to the obedience of the gospel on the day of Pentecost. Each one of them would have understood what that gift was and that understanding would have been limited to the knowledge they could have drawn from the Old Testament prophets, Peter’s words, and their own experience with the gift. If our understanding of the gift needs more information than that, we should re-examine our conclusions. The solution to understanding the gift of the Holy Spirit is found in the Old Testament, not after Acts 3.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit as a Gift

Another area of great controversy on this topic is essentially a grammatical one. For many it is a critical discussion. The desire is to create a duality in the nature of the Spirit’s work with man. It seeks to establish a grammatical separation (and so a textual basis) between the Spirit’s prophetic work and His non-prophetic work with man. This allows commentators to find needed expositional space later in the New Testament. In short, it allows for there to be verses which apply to the prophetic gifts of the Holy Spirit which are viewed as limited and temporary and other verses which apply to the non-prophetic works of the Holy Spirit which are viewed as universal and enduring. This approach usually views the gift of the Holy Spirit as a gift that the Holy Spirit provides. Most often that gift is said to be the prophetic gifts given to the church.[5] On the other side of the discussion is the view that the Holy Spirit Himself is the gift that is given to each Christian. This view then creates the belief that each Christian has a literal and personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It then takes Acts 2:38 as inclusive of all the blessings of the Holy Spirit throughout the entire Christian era.[6]

In these essays, we have steered clear of extensive Greek argumentation to establish points. The answer to understanding the work of the Holy Spirit is not found in specialized Greek knowledge. That is also true in this instance. The controversy about the gift of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit as a gift centers on the use of the genitive case in the Greek language. The genitive case in Greek roughly equates to English possessive case. The problem is that it can be translated in either of two ways in this instance. It can mean the Spirit’s gift or the Spirit as a gift. Both camps can make extensive arguments in support of their position. Those arguments are available in many works and students of this topic should be familiar with them. However, if either side truly had a conclusive argument it would likely have been made already. A resolution to the controversy is not going to be found in arguments from the Greek.

However, the solution can be found in understanding that there is no duality in the Spirit’s work with man. Arguing over whether the Spirit gives the gift or is the gift implies that if one side is true then the Spirit’s work with man has one effect and if the other side is true then the Spirit’s work with man has another effect. The question is not about the meaning of the phrase “gift of the Holy Spirit.” The question must be answered: Can it be established that the Holy Spirit provides man with any benefit beyond prophetic blessings?

The argument that has been put forth in these essays is that whenever the Spirit works with man, His work is always prophetic in its nature. From over 100 verses prior to Acts 2, that truth has been established. Even in this essay we noted that the Spirit’s work is referenced 10 times in Acts 1-2. Acts 2:38 is the tenth of those references. Without question from most every commentator, the first nine of those references are prophetic. So where is this non-prophetic work of the Holy Spirit introduced into Peter’s narrative?

If one cannot insert a non-prophetic conception of the Spirit’s work into the text, in practical terms, to state the gift of the Spirit is the Spirit and the gift of the Spirit is given by the Spirit is the same statement. If the Spirit’s work is always prophetic, when one receives Him as a gift, that one becomes a prophet. If the Spirit’s work is always prophetic and He gives man His gift, the effect is that man would become a prophet. In the end, this discussion becomes a distinction without a difference.

Before passing from this thought an important point needs to be highlighted. It is from Acts 2:38-39 that many seek to establish the non-prophetic blessing of the Holy Spirit. However as it relates to the gift of the Holy Spirit two observations can be made:

• Every argument made against the prophetic nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit comes from after Acts 2:38. Proponents of a non-prophetic indwelling will appeal to those having the Spirit in Romans 8 and other New Testament texts. However, they cannot appeal to any Old Testament text to establish it. They cannot because in so doing they would then deny the exclusive possession of this blessing by the Christian that their doctrine demands. If the indwelling is a new blessing brought in by the exaltation of Christ, then it cannot exist prior to His exaltation. No appeal to an Old Testament text or to any New Testament text based on Old Testament teachings can be made. It is only after Acts 2 that the work of the Spirit can be non-prophetic.
• Every argument made against the prophetic nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit comes from a “non-gift” passage. After Acts 2, the Holy Spirit is connected to the gift (both in the singular and plural) several times. We will examine those texts in the next section of this essay. One telling truth in this area is that none of those texts can be used to establish a “non-prophetic gift” from the Holy Spirit. One would think that the best places in the biblical text to establish the meaning of a phrase is in the actual texts that use the phrase. That is so obvious that it should not have to be stated. Unfortunately it does. Where in the display of tongue-speaking and the flames like fire on Pentecost does one find argumentation for a non-prophetic Spirit? What specific language in Acts 8 can describe God’s gift as non-prophetic while Peter and John are busy laying hands on the Samaritans? Amidst the noise of the tongue-speaking in the house of Cornelius, what textual feature indicates that the gift of the Spirit in his house was non-prophetic? It cannot be done. Each of those passages must be explained away, not used as the basis for this non-prophetic work. The work of establishing that non-prophetic function is claimed in other texts and then applied backwards into Acts 2. The only way to place a non-prophetic work in Acts 2 is to read the Bible back-to-front.

 What is the answer then? Is the Holy Spirit the gift or does He give the gift? Acts 2:38 describes the “gift of the Holy Spirit” as a gift that is received. The Bible speaks of people “receiving” the Holy Spirit in at least 15 places.[7] Beyond that, if a man receives not only a gift from the Spirit, but also the Spirit Himself, that one would then be in possession of the Holy Spirit. He would “have” the Spirit. There are dozens of verses which speak of men having the Spirit clothing, resting, being placed or put on, filling, and coming upon them. The Bible’s testimony is clear in both testaments that God’s people receive a communion with the person of the Holy Spirit, not just a dispensation of a gift that He provides.

The issue is not really whether or not man receives that communion with the Holy Spirit. It is what that communion does for man. As we have seen, the Holy Spirit’s coming upon man provides prophecy, visions, and dreams.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit vs. the Gifts of the Holy Spirit

There are some who seek to make a distinction between the gift of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is said to be the personal indwelling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit refers to the prophetic demonstrations of the Spirit’s power in the early church. The attempt, once again, is to define a duality in the Spirit’s work. However, if this distinction is to be accepted as true, there must exist some textual evidence that the singular form of gift is used differently than the plural form. Nearly all agree that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are the spiritual or miraculous gifts mentioned in passages like 1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4:8-14, and Hebrews 2:4. As such, there is little reason to examine those passages in this context. Without dispute, they are statements of the prophetic abilities the Holy Spirit provided to man.

However, does the singular “gift” make a clear break from the use of the plural form? “Gift” appears in contexts discussing the Holy Spirit six times in the Bible; four of them are within the book of Acts. The first is in the text under discussion, Acts 2:38. The second connection of “gift” to the Spirit is found in Acts 8:17-20. When Simon observed that the Holy Spirit was “given” through the “laying on of the apostles’ hands” he sought to purchase that ability from Peter. In Peter’s response, he refers to that action as attempting to purchase the “gift of God.” What Simon was attempting to gain in the purchase of the “gift” was the ability to pass on prophetic powers to others. Here, “gift” and Spirit are in a prophetic context.

The third and fourth appearances occur in the same setting. In describing Peter’s actions and the defense of his actions in the house of Cornelius, Luke records these words from Peter:

1. (Acts 10:45-47) And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
2. (Acts 11:15-17) As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Peter states that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is a “gift” that is “poured out.” Every Bible student should pay attention to that language as it also appears in Acts 2:33 and is found in Joel’s prophecy that Peter used as the basis of the activity in Acts 2. The words of God’s prophets are never meaningless or coincidental. That which was “poured out” in Acts 2 was “seen and heard.” The “poured out” Spirit of Joel’s prophecy gave “prophecy, visions, and dreams.” The “poured out” gift in the house of Cornelius baptized its members in the Holy Spirit and produced the same tongue-speaking recorded at the beginning in Acts 2. If it were not for the troubling implications about the view of a non-prophetic gift of the Holy Spirit, connecting Acts 2 with Acts 10-11 (as Peter does) would be done naturally by most Bible students. If God were desirous of drawing a clear distinction between the “gift of the Holy Spirit” and the “gifts of the Holy Spirit,” He chose a very suspect way of accomplishing that task.

The fifth occurrence of gift and Spirit together in the same passage is found in Hebrews 6:4. There “tasting the heavenly gift” is connected to having “shared in the Holy Spirit.” Notice the other words in that same context:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come (Hebrews 6:4-5)

The individuals under discussion in this text have been enlightened, have the heavenly gift, share in the Holy Spirit, have tasted the word of God and have powers of the age to come. What, other than the prophetic abilities of the Holy Spirit, would give a first-century saint knowledge of God’s word, a dispensation of divine powers, and some measure of enlightenment from God? As we know, the prophetic powers of the Spirit were at work among the recipients of Hebrews (2:4), how could this verse, in its original context, be referring to any other work?

The last appearance of “gift” and “Spirit” together is found in 2 Timothy 1:6-7: “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” There is some ambiguity in the “spirit” reference in this text. Some translations render the verse as “the spirit” and other translations, such as the ESV, render the passage as a reference to the human spirit by saying simply “a spirit.” For the purpose of this discussion, the specific usage of the word “spirit” has little impact on the meaning. What is easy to see is that the “gift of God” comes through the laying on of an apostle’s hand in the person of Paul. The connection back to Acts 8 and Acts 19 is easily made. Prophetic abilities were given through that means to the early saints including Timothy.

It is clear that in every context outside of Acts 2:38 whenever the word “gift” appears alongside the “Spirit” it is a reference of prophetic abilities. How then in Acts 2, when nine previous references to the Holy Spirit in the context have all been prophetic in nature, can a reader assign a non-prophetic meaning to the gift of the Holy Spirit? No argument can be crafted from verses which connect “gift” and “Spirit” to establish a non-prophetic work of the Holy Spirit. That is telling and indicative that the gift of the Holy Spirit produces only prophetic abilities.

The Promise of the Gift of the Holy Spirit

There is one strong indicator in Acts 2 as to the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter states that the respondents to his sermon would receive the gift because, as verse 39 says, “[T]he promise is for you . . .” We know then that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a matter of biblical promise. That means that somewhere in the Bible’s text prior to Acts 2, God promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who obeyed the gospel. These essays have already considered that connection. Essay #4: “Joel 2:28-32: The Promise of the Holy Spirit” has established that the only promise of the Old Testament used to explain the work of the Holy Spirit in the church is in Joel 2. It is the only Old Testament passage directly quoted and applied to the church. And Acts 2 is the last time any Bible prophet ever referred to the Old Testament to explain the Holy Spirit’s work. Joel 2 is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We will not take the time to rehash that material here. However, there is one point that needs to be emphasized in this context. Those who believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is a non-prophetic blessing are caught in a bind in regard to finding a promise of it before Acts 2. As discussed, Peter does not explain the nature of the gift. The most reasonable conclusion is that he expected his audience to understand the effect of a man’s receiving the Holy Spirit. What Acts 2:39 necessitates is that understanding of the gift comes from a pre-existing statement about the work of the Holy Spirit. Peter’s argument demands that a non-prophetic experience of the coming of the Holy Spirit was known before Acts 2:38. If this non-prophetic indwelling existed among the Jews prior to Acts 2, how then could it be used as the identifying “seal” of the true people of God after Acts 2?

Many current proponents of an “ordinary” or non-prophetic indwelling claim that the indwelling produces no visible or demonstrable effects. But if it is true that the effect of indwelling from the gift of the Holy Spirit is only internal, then it cannot be evidentiary. That is especially true, if the Old Testament Jews also had this same indwelling. As the Judaistic teaching began to impact the church, how could the gift of the Spirit be used to identify the people of God? Both doctrines could simply claim to have experienced this non-demonstrable indwelling. If the Jews had experienced and understood the Spirit’s non-prophetic indwelling to the degree that it did not need to be explained by Peter, would they not simply claim the continued possession of this indwelling after Acts 2? If they could successfully make that claim, they would have nullified the apostles’ appeal to the seal of the Spirit among the early Christians.

Acts 2:39’s statement that the gift is a fulfillment of a promise of God demands that the gift of the Holy Spirit be of Old Testament origin. If the gift is of a non-prophetic nature its inclusion in the Old Testament ruins its ability to be used as evidence of a true Christian. Yet, if it is of a prophetic nature, the fact that the gift is demonstrable means its ability to be used as evidence continues. If after Acts 2:38-39, there were no “Jewish” prophets to counter the “Christian” prophets, the evidentiary impact of the gift would still have efficacy.

The fact that the gift is a part of Old Testament prophecy means that it must be prophetic.

Objections Considered

While it is impossible to anticipate every possible objection to this position, there are two objections that need a brief comment. First, many would argue that Peter’s promise is universal in its nature and so if the gift is prophetic then all Christians must be prophets. In answer to that, we would simply agree. Yes, all of the saints who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit are prophets. The New Testament is quite emphatic in its affirmation that the distribution of prophetic powers among the early saints was universal. This topic has already been addressed in these essays. Essay #6: “The Extent of Prophecy and Miracles in the Church” argues that the normative state for the early saints was that all had access to the prophetic powers of the Holy Spirit. If the material in that essay is correct, and we believe it is, then this objection has no merit.

Second, many would then argue that because Peter’s statement that the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit applies to “all who are far off” that it is an enduring promise. Further, as the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were temporary in nature, the gift of the Holy Spirit cannot be prophetic. That argument comes from a misunderstanding of the phrase “far off.” For the Jews it was not a statement of time. The Jews viewed the Gentile nations as being “far off” from God. Paul uses this language in Ephesians when he states that the Gentiles that were “far off” have now been “brought near by the blood of Christ” (2:13). The promise of Acts 2:39 is described as being for all nations, even the ones “far off.” Other than the fact that two generations are mentioned, “you and your children,” Acts 2:39 makes no specific mention of time. For more discussion of the people to whom this promise applied please see Essay #4: “Joel 2:28-32: The Promise of the Holy Spirit.”

The gift of the Holy Spirit was for all of God’s people for as long as the promise was active. Joel 2 was for all flesh, but it was not for all-time.

Conclusion

The gift of the Holy Spirit is simply the expression of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. God promised that “all flesh” who followed the Messiah would have the Holy Spirit poured out to them. Peter is stating that if one would respond to the gospel he would receive the Holy Spirit as God had promised. Understanding the nature of the gift is simple so long as one remembers that whenever the Holy Spirit comes upon, falls upon, fills, or is received by man in any way, the effect is prophetic in its nature. That is why after Acts 2, the references to “gift” and “Spirit” are always in prophetic contexts. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit and possession of Him as a gift made prophets of “all flesh” in the early church.

[1] Peter’s reference is either to Psalm 41:9 or to the quotation in verse 20 taken from Psalm 69:25. There is some disagreement among the commentators. In either case, the point of his referencing the work of the Spirit is that the Spirit provided the inspiration to write those words of prophecy.

[2] Please read Essays #4-8 in Volumes #2 and #3 of this series. 

[3] That view is most often established by the use of Romans 8:9-12. Please see Essay #16 “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Rome and Galatia,” for a full discussion of that important text.

[4] In truth while not in verse 38, Peter does explain the gift of the Spirit. He does so with his quotation of Joel 2:28-32. That quotation would a part of his audience’s knowledge base about the Holy Spirit. His use of it justified the actions of that day and his sermon.

[5] Most often proponents of this view hold to some form of “Word-only” indwelling. Broadly stated, this view admits that the Spirit gifted the early saints with prophecy but after the age of prophecy ended He only continued to dwell within man by faith from the word He revealed. While the view being put forth in this essay is that the effect of the gift of the Spirit was prophetic, it does not state that the gift was prophecy. It states that the gift was the Spirit who then provided prophecy. There is a point of commonality between this view and word-only indwelling as it relates to the work of the Spirit among modern Christians, yet the textual understanding is far different. Please see Essay #22 “How Does the Holy Spirit Indwell the Christian Today?” for a more thorough discussion of this topic.

[6] For those who hold to this view, but do not believe in modern day charismatic influence of the Holy Spirit they must create the same duality in the Spirit’s work as does the word-only view of indwelling. One popular construction for this distinction is found in a doctrine known as “Measures of the Holy Spirit.” This view typically holds that Jesus received the Holy Spirit without measure (taken from the KJV’s rendering of John 3:34) and that He alone did so. Below him there was an apostolic or baptismal measure given to the apostles. Early prophets in the church received a miraculous or “laying on of hands” measure from the apostles, and then all saints receive the indwelling or ordinary measure. Passages then that speak of the Holy Spirit among the saints can refer both to prophetic works and non-prophetic works at the same time. For a full discussion of this view please see Appendix A: “The Measure of the Holy Spirit.”

[7] John 7:39, 14:17, 20:22, Acts 1:8, 2:33, 8:15, 8:17, 8:19, 10:47, 19:2, Romans 8:15, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:14.