The Work of the Holy Spirit in Acts – (Part 3 of 5)

(Essay #12 – God’s Prophetic Spirit)

4:8

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders . . .”

By Acts 4, the rulers in Jerusalem were becoming aggravated at the success of the apostles’ teaching in Jerusalem and so had them arrested and questioned them. This verse describes the beginning of Peter’s response to that interrogation. The text says that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit.” The effect of that is as we have seen elsewhere; he was empowered to speak the word of God. The work of the Holy Spirit in this instance is also the work of inspiration.

4:25

Who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?

Acts 4:25 is another quotation of a psalm of David (Psalm 2:1-2). Once again the Holy Spirit is the source of David’s inspiration to write the prophetic psalm about the time of Christ.

4:31

And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

Acts 4:31 follows the same pattern seen so far in the book of Acts. Christians who were “filled with the Holy Spirit” were continued in their prophetic ability to “speak the word of God with boldness.”[1] The connection is consistent. The infilling work of the Holy Spirit empowered saints to be prophets.

5:3,9

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land” . . . But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”

This passage is different in that the action described is not one performed by the Holy Spirit, but an action done to the Holy Spirit. In the account about the generosity of the members of the church in Jerusalem, Ananias and Sapphira, attempted to deceive the apostles about the proceeds they received from the sale of a piece of land. Their attempt fails. Peter described their attempt as a “test” of the Holy Spirit. The connection between lying to an apostle and testing the Holy Spirit is perhaps explained by 1 Corinthians 12:10. One of the gifts given to the early church was that of the “distinguishing of spirits.” As an apostle, Peter should have been able to know a true testimony from a false one. That power would have been in him from the Holy Spirit. In testing Peter’s ability to discern their lie, Ananias and Sapphira put the power of the Holy Spirit to the test. He passed their test and their failure resulted in their being struck down.

The work of the Spirit in this passage is both revelatory and miraculous. He revealed the lie to Peter and provided the power for striking down the errant husband and wife.

5:32

And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.

This passage affirms two things about the Holy Spirit:

1. The Holy Spirit is a witness to the exalted Christ.
2. The Holy Spirit has been given to those who obey God.[2]

In order to understand the meaning of this verse, we must understand both concepts expressed about the Holy Spirit.

How Does the Holy Spirit Bear Witness?

There are several passages in the Bible which speak of the Holy Spirit’s testimony or bearing witness. All of these passages point to the same prophetic work we have examined throughout these essays. This truth is amply highlighted by seeing the Spirit’s witness described in the book of Acts. There are at least eight clear references in Acts (outside of Acts 5:32) to the testimony to the exalted Christ born through or by the Holy Spirit:

1. Acts 1:8 – “ . . . you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses . . .”
2. Acts 2:40 – “And with many other words he bore witness . . .”
3. Acts 3:15-16 – “And you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. And his name . . . has given this man perfect health in the presence of you all.”
4. Acts 4:33 – “And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.”
5. Acts 10:39 – “And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and Jerusalem. . . ”
6. Acts 10:43 – “To him all the prophets bear witness . . .”
7. Acts 14:3 – “. . . speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.”
8. Acts 15:7-8 – “. . . that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word . . .And God . . .bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,”

There should be no difficulty understanding the nature of the Holy Spirit’s witness in the book of Acts. His witness is not some personal testimony to convince others to have faith based on the outcome of one’s life. His witness is not even some internal validation one has within the depths of his heart. The witness of the Spirit is borne by prophets and apostles. It is expressed in inspired words which are confirmed in the demonstration of the Spirit’s power in the signs and wonders He granted to the early church. Acts knows no other witness from the Holy Spirit.

How is the Holy Spirit Given?

This question is answered most easily by finding passages in the Bible which state the manner in which the Holy Spirit is given. There is only one verse in the Bible that explicitly states how the Holy Spirit is given to Christians: “Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money” (Act 8:18). The consequence of the Spirit’s being given is that men received Him. There are a few texts that reference how men received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8, prayer and the laying on of hands is credited with allowing men to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15, 17, 19). Acts 19:2-6 connects prayer and the laying on of hands from Paul for the reception of the Holy Spirit in Ephesus. More broadly, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would come on the apostles in Acts 2 from “on high” and provide them “power” (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). Paul states that the “gift of God,” which is equated to “receiving the Spirit” in Acts 8, was in Timothy through the laying on of Paul’s hands (2 Timothy 1:6-7). The pattern here is easily seen. In passages which specify a manner in which the Holy Spirit is given, He is either given directly from Heaven, or He is provided in a specific distribution from the apostles’ hands. In all cases, the effect of the giving and the reception of the Holy Spirit is prophetic.

The objection might be raised that Acts 2:38 states that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism. Since proponents of a non-prophetic indwelling believe almost universally that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of a Christian, that statement would appear justified. However, their insistence that Acts 5:32 unilaterally excludes the prophetic powers of the Holy Spirit places them in a bind in trying to apply the Bible’s language consistently.

For proponents of the non-prophetic view, Acts 5:32 is a critical text. The argument for a non-prophetic indwelling is often made in this basic manner:

1. Every Christian receives the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism (Acts 2:38).
2. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit and therefore the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
3. This blessing is given to every individual that obeys God (Acts 5:32).
4. The spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit, outside of the apostles and Cornelius, were only given through the laying on the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:18).
5. The first instance of the apostles’ laying hands on Christians occurs in Acts 6:6.
6. Prior to Acts 6:6, those who had obeyed God had been given the Holy Spirit (per Acts 5:32), but only the apostles demonstrated prophetic abilities (per Acts 5:12).[3]
7. Therefore the manner in which the Holy Spirit was given to the saints in Acts 5:32 must exclude prophetic abilities.

The comments that follow on Acts 6 will examine the laying on of hands which occurs in that text. However, if this line of argumentation is true, then there can be no reference to prophetic indwelling beyond the apostles between Acts 2:38 and Acts 6:6. If even the smallest possibility between those two points exists for the language describing the work of the Holy Spirit to include prophetic abilities, then the power of the argument is lost. In other words, Acts 2:38’s gift of the Holy Spirit cannot have the dual nature for which many argue. It cannot refer both to an “ordinary measure” and a “baptismal” or “laying on of hands” measure of the Spirit. The Christian’s having been “given” the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:32 must be a completely separate “giving” than any prophetic “giving” which occurs later. The Christians that are “full of the Spirit” in Acts 4:31-33 and the seven men “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” in Acts 6:3 cannot be full of those blessings in any prophetic manner. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough. If one can know that Peter’s promise that all Christians would “receive the Holy Spirit” at baptism excludes prophetic abilities, it cannot be the case that one’s “receiving the Holy Spirit” at any point after Acts 2 is suddenly now an expression of the reception of the Spirit’s prophetic gifts. If Stephens’ being “full of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 6:3 is certainly and absolutely devoid of prophetic power in Acts 6:3, it cannot be the case that his still being “full of the Spirit” in Acts 7:55 is now prophetic.

Yet, that is exactly the expositional position forced on the doctrine of non-prophetic indwelling. Acts 2:38’s reception of the Holy Spirit excludes any possibility of prophetic abilities. Yet, the very next occurrence of the phrase “receive the Holy Spirit” in the Bible forces supporters of the non-prophetic indwelling to argue that the same phrase not only includes prophetic abilities, but (with the same degree of certainty as in 2:38) now excludes all non-prophetic connection to the Holy Spirit. That occurrence is found in Acts 8. There individuals had been baptized at the preaching of Philip (v. 12). Then the scriptures make this statement about their relationship to the Holy Spirit:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Act 8:14-16)

The implication is clear. The apostles’ presence was needed in Samaria because there existed new Christians who had not yet “received the Holy Spirit.” This condition should not be able to exist using the interpretive model of a non-prophetic dwelling understanding of the Holy Spirit. In fact, using their understanding of Romans 8:9, the Samaritans could not yet be Christians because they did not have the Holy Spirit.

To counter that thought, proponents of this view must argue in some fashion that the “receiving of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 8 is now a prophetic action. The statement will be made that this passage simply means that the Samaritans had not yet received the Spirit in a prophetic way, thereby creating a dual meaning for the phrase “receiving the Spirit.” They may state that Peter’s and John’s actions show the prophetic nature of this reception of the Spirit and again create a dual meaning to the phrase. Whatever the specific argument, in the end advocates of the non-prophetic indwelling must create some basis for Acts 8’s receiving of the Holy Spirit to be prophetic.

The moment that argument is made, the needed certainty is gone that Acts 2:38 and Acts 5:32 exclude the prophetic. If Acts 8 can refer to the prophetic, there is no textual basis that the reception of the Spirit in Acts 2:38 cannot. If Acts 8’s “giving” of the Holy Spirit is prophetic, there is no textual basis to exclude the prophetic from Acts 5:32.

The situation is even worse than that for the non-prophetic view. As stated, according to this view, Acts 2:38’s receiving the Spirit as a gift cannot include the prophetic. And Acts 8’s receiving the Spirit as the gift of God cannot include non-prophetic indwelling. The conclusion is that the Bible uses the same phrase to describe two mutually exclusive doctrines.

Yet many proponents of non-prophetic indwelling hold to some form of the “measures of the Holy Spirit” doctrine. Their understanding of “indwelling” texts found in the epistles is often expressed in a statement like this: “The Holy Spirit did this in a miraculous measure for the early saints, but now does it for us in a non-miraculous way.” That statement cannot be true in this view. In order to sustain non-prophetic indwelling before Acts 6, its connection to prophetic indwelling must be severed. And in order to allow for a functional interpretation of Acts 8 to exist, prophetic indwelling must be equally severed from non-prophetic indwelling. The challenge confronting the expositor who holds to a universal, non-prophetic indwelling view is to correctly identify every prophetic and non-prophetic statement of the Spirit in the New Testament. The moment he allows for a duality of meaning in any New Testament statement about the Holy Spirit’s work in the church, his doctrine falls.

However, if one understands Acts 2:38 as a prophetic blessing and Acts 5:32 as the distribution of that promised blessing among the church, this problem vanishes. It allows a consistent use of language about the Holy Spirit from the beginning of the Bible forward. Every time a man receives the given Spirit, he becomes a prophet. The prophetic witness of the Holy Spirit and His prophetic empowerment of the saints is what Acts 5:32 is affirming.

6:3; 6:5; 6:10; 7:55

Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. (Acts 6:3)

And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. (Acts 6:5)

But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.(Acts 6:10)

But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55)

 Acts 6 is another important passage in one’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. As noted in the comments on Acts 4:32 and 5:32, the argument for the non-prophetic indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church makes an important use of the events of Acts 6. The Bible teaches that it was through the laying on of an apostle’s hands that the prophetic powers of the Holy Spirit were passed on to first-century Christians.[4] That truth being established, it is in verse 3 that an apparent difficulty arises. Acts 6:3 lists being full of the Holy Spirit as one of the qualifications of the seven men that the Jerusalem church was to identify. However, those men are not said to have the apostles lay their hands on them until Acts 6:6: “These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.”

1. If it is the case that only by the laying on of an apostle’s hands a man could receive the powers of the Holy Spirit (And we believe that to be the case)[5]
2. If it is also the case that being full of the Spirit implies prophetic abilities (And we have shown that to be the case in every verse prior to Acts 6).
3. How is it possible that these seven men were full of the Spirit before the apostles laid their hands on them?

The question is valid and at first glance makes a compelling case for re-evaluating our understanding of one’s being “full of the Holy Spirit” and, perhaps, of the view taken more broadly in this work that the Spirit’s work with man is always prophetic in its effect. If it is possible to be “full of the Spirit” with no connection to the apostolic ministry, then the Holy Spirit must have some work in the lives of the saints beyond the prophetic.

However there are several points that must be considered before admitting to that conclusion.

1. The laying on of hands has more than one purpose in the Bible.

At the heart of this objection is the belief that Acts 6:6 means that the apostles would grant prophetic powers to these seven men to fill the role of attending to the widows. As a part of their initiation as servants of the church, the seven men would become the first people beyond the apostles with prophetic abilities. However, that argument is only sound if it can be established that there was only one reason that the apostles would lay hands on the seven. The truth of the matter is that the laying on of hands was a well-established practice among the ancients. Its presence is found several times in the Bible. Further, it had an established significance completely unrelated to the giving of the Holy Spirit.

Timothy provides an interesting case study. He was an inspired preacher of the early church. The Bible clearly states that he received that prophetic ability through the laying on of the apostle Paul’s hands: “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” (2 Timothy 1:6-7). Yet, there is another statement of Timothy’s having hands laid on him: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Timothy 4:14). The verses describe both the manner (“through the laying on my hands”) and the time (“when the council of elders laid their hands on you”) of Timothy’s receiving the prophetic endowment of the Holy Spirit. While the specific details of the ceremony mentioned are not described we do know that two groups of people laid their hands on Timothy. We know that Paul did so to empower him with the “gift of God.” The purpose of the elders’ touch on Timothy was for a purpose beyond that of granting the Spirit’s power to Timothy. It was likely as sign of commission or endorsement of his work.[6]

For what purpose then did the apostles lay hands on the men in Acts 6? Read their own words: “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty” (Acts 6:3). Question: “When did the apostles appoint them to the duty and what was the indication that they had done so?” The answer is clear. Verse 6 is the time and manner in which the apostles appointed those seven men to the duty.

This ceremony stands in sharp contrast to the two mentioned examples of the apostles’ laying on of hands to deliver the Spirit’s power to Christians. Notice all three passages in succession:

1. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:6)
2. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:17)
3. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. (Acts 19:6)

Do you notice what is missing from Acts 6:6? Why is no statement found in Acts 6:6 that the seven received the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues or an indication that others could see the Spirit’s power in them as Simon could in Acts 8:18? The answer is simple: Because verse 3 already told us those seven had the Holy Spirit.

What we have then is a phrase – “full of the Spirit”— which has but one meaning in the Bible and a phrase – “laying on of hands” – which has multiple meanings. We have evidence that the second phrase has a particular usage when connected to the Holy Spirit (cp. Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6) and the evidence indicating that usage is missing from Acts 6. Further we also have a statement of purpose – “whom we will appoint to this work”—which fits another established meaning of the phrase “laying on of hands.” Sound judgment, then, demands that we make use of the known, allowable usage of laying on of hands and steer clear of crafting a previously unknown meaning to the Bible phrase “full of the Holy Spirit.”

2. The seven men were not just full of the Spirit, but also full of wisdom, faith, grace, and power.

The problem becomes greater when one considers that in verses 3-4 the seven men, and Stephen in particular, are said to be not only full of the Spirit, but also of wisdom and faith. It is interesting to note that two of the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:9-11 are wisdom and faith.

In Old Testament prophecy being full of the Spirit is tied to the infilling of wisdom. In Isaiah 11:2 the Bible says: “And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.” The Spirit is labeled as the giver of wisdom, counsel, might, and knowledge. In earlier essays, we have already seen that same language attached to being full of the Spirit in Exodus. There Bezalel and Oholiab were said to have been filled with “skill, ability, knowledge, intelligence, and craftsmanship” (Exodus 31:3).

Further in Acts 6:8, Stephen is described as a man full of grace and power. The connection to Micah 3:8 cannot be missed: “I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord.”

1. According to Micah, to be filled with power is to be filled with the Spirit
2. Stephen was full of the Spirit in Acts 6:3
3. Therefore, based on Micah 3:8, Stephen was full of power in Acts 6:3
4. It was that power that led to his preaching and working of signs in Acts 6:8

The conclusion that must be drawn from that connection is that one who is full of power, grace, wisdom, and faith has access to the Spirit’s prophetic abilities because he is one who is full of the Spirit.

3. Stephen’s being full of the Spirit in Acts 7 is clearly prophetic.

A simply stated problem arises when Acts 7:55 is considered. There is no doubt that Acts 7:55 follows the pattern we have seen in every other reference of the infilling of the Spirit: “But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” The “he” of Acts 7:55 is Stephen. He is said to be “full of the Holy Spirit” which enables him to have a vision of the throne of God. Clearly, we once again have a connection between prophetic insight and being full of the Spirit. If Stephen’s being full of the Spirit in Acts 7:55 is a statement of prophetic ability, why does the exact same language about the same individual not have the same meaning? If it is simply because Acts 6:6 says the apostles’ laid hands on him, a stronger answer is needed (as we have shown).

4. Stephen’s preaching was directed by the “wisdom” and “Spirit” of which he was full.

In case there was any remaining doubt about the nature of the Spirit and wisdom needed in Stephen and the other six men, look at Acts 6:10: “But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.” All parties admit that by verse 10, Stephen is an inspired preacher. The Bible states that his preaching came through the “wisdom” and “Spirit” he possessed. It is a strained reading of Acts 6, at best, which makes his being “full of the Spirit and wisdom” in verse 3 have no connection to the wisdom and Spirit he possesses in verse 10.

5. Acts 6:3 only states the fact of indwelling, not its function

At least one final problem remains for those who would dispute that the seven men to be chosen were prophetically gifted is that Acts 6:3 states a simple fact: The men must be full of the Holy Spirit. It does not state in any way the function of the infilling. In that regard it is unique from the verses that precede it and most of those that follow it. So far, every statement of a filling by God’s Spirit has been followed immediately with a prophetic role or statement of inspired action. Each verse has stated both the fact that a man was filled by the Spirit and the function that filling provided him. The problem with asserting that Acts 6:3 cannot include the miracles of the Spirit is that the Bible has provided no other meaning to the phrase. If “full of the Spirit” in Acts 6:3 does not mean prophetic powers, what does it mean? Which verse prior to Acts 6:3 introduces a non-prophetic filling into the doctrinal tapestry of the Bible?

Assuming that a non-prophetic infilling exists is not good enough. As the apostles do not explain to the church what it means to be “full of the Spirit,” the church must have already known what it meant. The truth is they did. They had seen it in the events of Acts 2:4 and Acts 4:8 and Acts 4:31. There was already an established meaning to the phrase. There was no other option on the table. If Acts 6:3 does not refer to a prophetic filling, there is no other understanding the church at Jerusalem could have known.

Those who hold that “full of the Spirit” in Acts 6:3 means an ordinary (non-miraculous/non-prophetic) work of the Holy Spirit for all Christians must find, prior to Acts 6:3, book, chapter, and verse proof that such a work has been described in scripture. Their task is to do more than to exclude the prophetic from Acts 6:3 – although they must do that. They must also prove that the position that being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is a non-prophetic function in scripture.[7] Acts 6:3 simply does not state, by itself, what the function of the infilling of the Holy Spirit did for those seven men.

In summary, once one realizes that more than one reason exists for the apostles to lay hands on individuals the difficulties of this text evaporate. The language of verse 6 is the only perceived difficulty which would prevent one from understanding how the men of Acts 6:3 were full of the Spirit. The phrase in 6:3 means the same as it does in Acts 7:55 and every other passage noted so far.

7:51

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

At Stephen’s defense of his prophetic work he questioned the Jewish council’s motivation of their hostile actions toward him. He states that their opposition to his work was the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. But he points out that the fathers of the members of his audience had done the same thing. To illustrate this point he asks, “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?” Their fathers had resisted the Holy Spirit by persecuting the prophets. Stephen’s audience was guilty of the same action in their persecution of him, one of the Spirit’s prophets. According to Stephen, resisting the Holy Spirit, both in Old and New Testament times, is done by resisting the inspired message brought by Him.

7:55-56

But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

The final reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of Stephen is another example of His prophetic influence. Stephen’s being full of the Holy Spirit allowed his heavenly vision and prophetic proclamation of the exalted Christ.

[1] The view of non-prophetic indwelling demands that no Christian outside of the apostles had prophetic abilities prior to Acts 6:6. They limit the statement of Acts 5:12 to meaning not only that mighty deeds were done by the apostles, but also that they were done only by the apostles. First, the verse makes no such specific statement. To state that the apostles did miracles does not necessitate that no one else did. Second, it is at least possible that Acts 4:28-33 states that the saints as a whole were “full of the Holy Spirit” and spoke God’s word through prophetic abilities. Upon Peter’s and John’s release from prison, they returned to their “friends” (ESV), “people” (NIV), “companions” (NASB, NKJV) (4:23). It is the group of “friends” that utters the prayer of praise that follows (v. 24). It is then the “they” of the whole crowd who is said to be gathered together. All of the “they” are then “filled with the Holy Spirit” and prophesy (4:31). The whole number of believers is then referenced in 4:32. It is possible, that the “company” described in verses 24-31 is only the apostles. However, the “company” or “people” of the apostles could just as easily refer to the “whole number of believers” who heard the report of the apostles’ release. If that is the case, then 4:31 explicitly states that believers beyond the apostles had prophetic abilities before Acts 6:6. At the very least, the claim that the Bible definitely states in Acts 5:12 that no one other than the apostles had prophetic powers is not as strong as the non-prophetic indwelling view claims.

[2] Two points need to be made about this phrase. First, note the actual affirmation of 5:32 is not that God “is giving” His Spirit, but “has given” His Spirit. In both the English and Greek, the verb tense is looking backward to a completed action. It is looking back then to Acts 2:38. The text is not making a statement about the ongoing reception of the Holy Spirit at the conversion of each person. It is looking back to the opening of whatever blessing was given to God’s people on the day of Pentecost. As we have noted, that blessing was prophetic in its nature. Second, the verse does not state that God has given His Spirit to each one at baptism. The Spirit has been given to those who obey Him. While it is the contention of this work that the prophetic abilities of the Spirit were distributed as universally as possible, the language of Acts 5:32 does not demand this to be the case. Nehemiah 9:20, 30 states that God “gave” His Holy Spirit to the people in the wilderness. From our examination of the Holy Spirit’s work in that time we have seen that initially Moses, Aaron, and Miriam were known as prophets in Israel. Belazel and Oholiab were then also filled with the Spirit. Finally, 70 men were empowered by Moses with the Holy Spirit. That is only 75 individuals whom we can identify as having the Spirit. Yet, God had given His Spirit to all of Israel. Additionally, in Acts 15:7-8, Peter states that the Gentiles had been granted life and been given the Holy Spirit. He makes that statement in reference to a time when only the household of Cornelius had received the Spirit. It is not necessary for every person to have a personal possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit to have been given to a group. Acts 5:32 alone does not demand a universal distribution of the Spirit. Establishing that demand is necessitated in this verse by the non-prophetic indwelling view.

[3] As mentioned earlier in the comments and notes on Acts 4:32, Acts 5:12 is a critical passage for the non-prophetic view of the indwelling. From it, proponents believe they can establish that no person outside of the apostles had access to the prophetic powers of the Spirit until Acts 6:6. However, as noted, Acts 5:12 makes no direct statement about the prophetic functions of anyone beyond the apostles. It states that “many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles.” It never states that those signs and wonders were only by the apostles. Note the many qualifiers in the verse: 1) Many; 2) Signs and Wonders; 3) Regularly; 4) Among the People; 5) By the Hands. Could it be the case that a “few” signs and wonders were done by others? Could it be the case the prophetic functions other than “signs and wonders” were done by people other than the apostles? Could it be the case that signs and wonders were done at infrequent (as opposed to regular) intervals by saints other than the apostles? Could it be the case that signs and wonders were done among the church (as opposed to among the people) by those other than the apostles? Could it be the case that signs and wonders not involving the “hands” were done by those other than the apostles (i. e. Miracles of healing require the hands. Tongue-speaking, prophecy and others signs only require the use of the lips, mind, etc.) If even one of those questions can be answered “yes,” (And all of them could be answered “yes” without contradicting the language of the verse) then Acts 5:12 has no force in establishing the argument for the non-prophetic indwelling prior to Acts 6:6.

[4] Other essays in this series deal with this issue more fully. However, the doctrine is taught in at least the following passages: Acts 8:14-18; Acts 19:6; Romans 1:11; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:6

[5] Please see Essay #10: “God’s Mystery: Established by Judgment” for a full discussion of the work of the Holy Spirit in Cornelius’ house.

[6] This function of the laying on of hands can be seen in Genesis 48:14, 17; Numbers 27:23; Mark 10:16; Acts 13:3; 1 Timothy 5:22

[7] It should also be noted that being full of the Spirit was a needed qualification for a special function in the church at Jerusalem. If being “full of the Spirit” is the result of every Christian’s having received “the gift of the Spirit,” then what quality beyond simply being a Christian are the apostles instructing the church to find in those seven men? Their “good repute” is something that the Jerusalem church could identify and measure. Their “wisdom” is something that the church could witness, and again, measure. What evidence exists to measure the impact of one’s being “full of the Spirit” that is in no way prophetic in its influence? If all Christians are “full of the Spirit” at baptism, but the demonstration of the infilling is not the same in all people, the effect of the Spirit’s work must be demonstrable in some way. Further, as the non-prophetic indwelling view separates the effect of the Spirit’s indwelling from the effect of His influence only through the word, one’s being “full of the Spirit” is not simply a statement of the word’s influence on a man. This would necessitate that one’s being “full of the Spirit” has a demonstrable effect (which the Jerusalem saints could have used to identify qualified men) in the life of a Christian. For the non-prophetic indwelling proponent, few options short of the Calvinist’s direct influence exist that can be used to characterize the demonstrable, non-prophetic, non-“word only” influence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit.