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

(Essay #12 – God’s Prophetic Spirit)

This is Appendix A of Essay #12

 Measures of the Holy Spirit

Most views of the Holy Spirit’s work with man acknowledge that His work in the early days of the church included elements which are no longer present. With all due respect to charismatic teachings about the Holy Spirit’s role today, it is difficult to entertain seriously the notion that the signs and wonders of the apostolic age are present in the modern world. While the early Christians witnessed the healing of individuals over whom the shadow of Peter passed and resurrections of the dead by the hand of the same apostle (Acts 5:15; 9:36-42), no saint of today has ever witnessed an equal display of the Spirit’s power.

The experiential difference between the Christians of long ago and those today compels all but the most ardent charismatic to conclude that the New Testament must describe a transition in the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. Any view of the Spirit’s work that rejects the idea of a modern charismatic influence of the Spirit, but also seeks to apply the New Testament promises about the Holy Spirit to saints of today must find some duality to the Spirit’s work in the Bible. The Holy Spirit must have a prophetic or miraculous influence which was present in the first-century and a non-prophetic or non-miraculous influence which was at work in the past and is still present today.

One significant paradigm of the Spirit’s work in the Christian which seeks to address that duality is expressed in a doctrine known as “The Measures of the Holy Spirit.” This view holds that the Spirit was given in different measures, amounts, or degrees to different individuals. There were measures of the Holy Spirit that gave man extraordinary or miraculous gifts and there were measures of the Spirit that produced ordinary or common gifts. Further, it is believed that the extraordinary measures of the Spirit have ended and the ordinary gifts of the Spirit have continued until this day.

The Textual Basis of the Measures of the Holy Spirit Doctrine

John 3:34 is almost universally used as the foundation of this view of the Spirit’s work. The verse and its immediate context reads,

He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:31-36)

All acknowledge this is a context discussing the prophetic ministry of Jesus. The text states that God gives His Spirit “without measure.” However, the King James Version’s rendering of verse 34 gives a more limited rendering to the verse. It reads, “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” The italicized addition of “unto him” suggests that Jesus is the being to whom God provided the Holy Spirit without measure. The argument is then made that as Jesus is divine, His ministry was the only ministry to receive such an unfettered connection to the Holy Spirit. To say He was given the Spirit without measure is to suggest that all others were given the Spirit in lesser measures.  H. Leo Boles expressed this view of John 3:34:

God gave the Holy Spirit in his fullness without measure to Christ as the Messiah; he gave the Spirit by “measure” to apostles, prophets, and others; that is, they had the Holy Spirit in modified degrees. Not only is the relation of the Holy Spirit to Jesus described as being without measure, but his relation to Jesus is described by Luke as being “full of the Holy Spirit.” (Luke 4:1, 14)[1]

Gus Nichols expressed the same view of John 3:34: “It is implied in this statement that the Spirit is given to some by ‘measure,’ or sparingly; but not so unto Christ. The context shows this refers to Christ.”[2] Just as Boles, he placed significance on the Bible’s statement that some were “filled with the Holy Spirit”: “The apostles on Pentecost were ‘all filled with the Holy Ghost.’ (Acts 2:4) Why say they were ‘filled’ – unless one could have, or may have had less?”[3]

The basic argument is simple to grasp. Jesus was unique in His unmeasured reception of the Spirit. The apostles and other early saints received lesser measures of the Spirit which empowered them with prophetic abilities. Finally, all saints receive the Spirit in some still more limited measure which provides them with the ordinary blessings of the Spirit.[4]

The Measures of the Holy Spirit Defined.

While proponents of this view have some variation in their description of the different measures of the Spirit available to man, Gus Nichols provides a common synopsis of these measures:

1. Christ had the Holy Spirit without “measure,” as stated in John 3:34.
2. The apostles of Christ, and the household of Cornelius were “baptized” with the Holy Spirit, as stated in Acts 1, 2, 10, and 11.
3. Those on whom the apostles laid their hands received a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit, as is seen in Acts 8:18 and 19:6.
4. Then there is, as we have stated, the “ordinary” gift of the Spirit which bestowed no miraculous power, which is for all the children of God.[5]

The Expositional Benefit of the Measures of the Holy Spirit

The great expositional benefit to the measured view of the Spirit’s work in the church is that it gives the expositor access to a seamless duality in the texts discussing the Spirit’s work. Within the measures construct, identical words and phrases expressing the nature of the Spirit’s work in the church can be applied to any of the known measures of the Spirit.

Two examples will highlight the expositional function of this approach.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit

In the measures of the Spirit approach, the “gift of the Holy Spirit” can refer to both the extraordinary and ordinary gifts of the Spirit. Boles argues for both meanings of this phrase:

“The gift of the Holy Spirit” as a phrase is found only twice in the New Testament. (Acts 2:38 and 10:45) However, it seems to have a different connotation in each use of the phrase. In Acts 2:38 the apostle seems to have in mind that gift that belongs to all Christians, while in Acts 10:45 he has reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[6]

In one reference Boles applies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the ordinary measure of the Spirit and in the other to the baptismal measure of the Spirit. In so doing, he allows for the same phrase to refer to two blessings of God that are diametrically opposed: One is prophetic and demonstrable and one is ordinary and invisible; One is temporary and one is eternal; One was reserved for a limited number of saints and One is universal.[7] It is difficult to envision that both works are sufficiently described by the same biblical phrase.

Full of the Spirit

This view also sees a dual meaning to the idea of one’s being full of the Holy Spirit. Nichols states the following about being full of the Spirit:

In the next verses we read that “they” – the apostles – “were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:4) The apostles were then qualified to reveal and confirm the gospel, to preach it “with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” (1 Pet. 1:12.)[8]

Yet, having acknowledged the connection between being filled with the Holy Spirit and having prophetic abilities, Nichols admits that just four chapters later, the same phrase must be understood as a non-prophetic statement:

The record says Stephen was a “man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 6:5.) Do all men have the same amount of faith? Stephen was “full of faith.” Of course, there are degrees of faith. “Your faith groweth exceedingly.” (2 Thess. 1:3.) Jesus said, “O ye of little faith.” (Matt. 6:30.) Why not believe there are differing amounts of the Spirit to be possessed, when the record says “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” (Acts 6:5)? This may refer to a non-miraculous measure of the Spirit in Stephen’s case at that time, for this was before the apostles laid hands on him. (v. 6)[9]

The measures view provides enough flexibility of meaning to the phrases that even in closely spaced contexts, identical language can be used to describe distinct and unrelated activities of the Holy Spirit.

Even those who believe the Holy Spirit only influences man today through the word can still find the same dual meaning in identical language describing the Spirit’s work. For example, Guy N. Woods states emphatically that one’s being filled with the Holy Spirit in one context is an explicit reference to the Spirit’s prophetic ministry:

The apostles were “filled” with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4). This filling was figurative, not literal; and it refers to the endowment of power which was theirs, and not to a literal infusion of the Spirit . . . Thoughtful people will surely perceive that the pouring out of the Spirit, the filling of the Spirit and the baptism of the Spirit designated the bestowal of power upon the apostles by the Spirit . . .[10]

Yet, in commenting on Ephesians 5:18 and Colossians 3:16, Woods argues just as emphatically that one’s being “filled with the Spirit” is the ordinary indwelling of the Spirit through the word: “To be ‘filled with the Spirit.’ was, in the inspired apostle’s concept, to allow ‘the word of Christ’ to dwell in you richly.”[11]

The measures of the Spirit view provides the commentator much needed expositional space. It allows its proponents to make any passage or phrase refer to either the prophetic ministry of the Spirit or the non-prophetic, ordinary ministry of the Spirit. Often, passages will be readily applied to both. Boles aptly summarizes this interpretive fluidity:

It may be difficult to distinguish the difference between all of the terms which are found in the New Testament concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in his miraculous manifestations. It is difficult to distinguish the difference between “being full of the Spirit” and being “filled with the Spirit.” These expressions seem to have been limited to the early days of the church. . . . There is a sense in which the Holy Spirit in the “ordinary measure” dwelt with all Christians; in this measure he dwells with Christians today. In this sense all of the references to the indwelling of the Spirit in Christians find their application [emphasis added]. The more faithful a Christian is the more of the Spirit of Christ he has; the more consecrated Christians are the richer and fuller are the blessings of the Holy Spirit.

Objections to the Measures of the Holy Spirit

For at least the following reasons, this work holds that the measures of the Spirit view is incorrect.

Weak Textual Basis

The measures of the Spirit construct is founded on the suggestion that John 3:34 limits the unmeasured reception of the Holy Spirit to Jesus. However, it must be noted that of all of the major English translations, only the King James Version includes the needed words “unto him” at the end of the verse. The reason for the absence of these words in other translations is that no standard Greek text includes those words. By italicizing “unto him” in its text, even the King James acknowledges that those words do not appear in the original text.

Without the inclusion of “unto him” in the verse, John 3:34 not only does not establish the measures view, but it also strongly suggests that the whole construct is incorrect. In the English Standard, the passage reads, “For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.” Taken for what the words simply state, this rendering affirms that the one sent by God speaks His words because God does not measure out the giving of His Spirit. While the context of John 3:34 is speaking of the Christ, without the suggestion added by the words “unto him,” there is no textual reason to limit the application of this truth. Instead of affirming a special connection between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, John 3:34 establishes that all God’s prophets had an unmeasured access to the Spirit. That is precisely why prophets are always full of the Spirit and those who are full of the Spirit are always prophets and/or prophetically empowered.

Whenever a prophet is sent to speak in the name of God, that prophet speaks God’s word, only God’s word, and all of God’s word because God gives Him full and complete access to the Holy Spirit’s prophetic ministry. If that statement can be rightly drawn from John 3:34, then the entire measure of the Holy Spirit paradigm is shown to be lacking a textual foundation.

Not Enumerated in Scripture

Another mark against the measures view is the lack of enumerated measures in the text of the New Testament. Proponents of the measures view must draw distinctions among the different metaphors in the New Testament which describe the Spirit’s work. As in most constructs of this view there are four or five differing measures, there must be at least that many different measures expressed in the New Testament. Therefore, gifts of the Spirit must be distinct from the gift of the Spirit; there must be a separation between baptism of the Spirit and being full of the Spirit; having the Spirit cannot be simply the result of being given the Spirit and so on.

Yet, the scriptures use the images of the Spirit’s work interchangeably. For example Acts 8 includes at least five major phrases about the Spirit’s work found in the New Testament.[12] Further, nearly all of the New Testament’s images of the Spirit’s work appear first in the Old Testament before the alleged measures of the Spirit dispensation began. It is impossible to apply a consistent meaning to each of these phrases and still find four or five different measures to the Spirit’s work.

One would be justified in expecting to find such a nuanced and significant doctrine in the New Testament to be enumerated clearly in scripture or to be described in language fixed sufficiently in its meaning that the Bible student could speak of it with certainty. Neither expectation is met concerning the measures of the Spirit.

Spirit Metaphors are “On” or “Off”

In the New Testament no man is half-filled with the Spirit. No man almost or partially has the Spirit. Every statement of the Spirit’s work is either “on” or “off.” Either men have the Spirit or they do not have the Spirit. Either they are full of the Spirit or devoid of the Spirit.

Proponents of this view argue that because some were full of the Spirit there were those who were less than full or had a lesser dispensation of the Spirit. Yet, they then argue that “full of the Spirit” refers to both blessings. They are forced to that conclusion because no other biblical phrase exists to describe the needed lesser measures of the Spirit. Therefore in their view, Jesus who had the Spirit without measure, the apostles who had the baptismal measure, early saints who had a miraculous measure, and Christians en masse are all filled with the Spirit. Yet, each classification was given a differing amount of the Spirit and/or His power. With such an uncertain application of the word “full,” it is understandable why many Bible students have little confidence in their understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work.

No Duality Exists in the Spirit’s Work

Perhaps the strongest objection to the measures construct is that the needed duality in the Spirit’s work is unknown in scripture. The whole argument of this work is that the work of the Holy Spirit with man is founded in the prophetic. It has been established that from the first recorded instance of man’s being filled with the Spirit of God (Bezalel and Oholiab) to the last statement of that filling (Ephesians 5:18-19) being full of the Spirit has a single meaning. Any person who is filled with the Spirit is a prophetically empowered. The details needed to establish that argument is the thrust of this work and cannot be rehearsed in such a brief portion of it.

Yet, it must be understood that the measures paradigm exists simply to explain an expositional trap which should not exist in the first place. The snare is created when it is rejected that Joel’s prophecy actually refers to “all flesh” in the early church. By refusing to consider that truly “all flesh” in the church had access to prophecy, visions, and dreams, modern expositors who reject the charismatic understanding of the Spirit are placed into an interpretive dilemma. On the one hand they recognize that images such as “full of the Spirit” clearly express prophetic empowerment. Yet, they also understand that the New Testament text also uses those images as universal blessings. Since, as they believe, the prophetic could never have been universal, the expressions of the Spirit’s work must sometimes be prophetic and other times cannot be. Thus, at baptism all the saints in Acts 2 received the Spirit in a non-prophetic manner; however the receiving of the Spirit in Acts 8 just as certainly must refer to only the prophetic. The limitation expositors place upon Joel’s words is the sole cause for the need of such a variable application of biblical words.

If Joel’s words are allowed to mean that “all flesh” truly was given access to the prophetic powers of the Spirit, the need for the measures paradigm evaporates. As has been established in the argumentation of this work, the fulfillment of Joel 2 was both universal and temporary. Once that is understood, one can see clearly, without succumbing to the errors of the modern continuationism movement, how the Spirit filled all of the early saints.

Conclusion

In closing, it should be noted that most views which rely on the measures of the Spirit model are not fatal to one’s faith. While this author is strongly opposed to this view and does believe it lacks a sure biblical basis, he does not view this matter as an issue of fellowship. Further he does not condone contentious arguments over the matter. The expositors quoted in this article are men for whom he holds the utmost respect. Their biblical knowledge is substantial and their influence on God’s kingdom immeasurable this side of eternity. We must be careful not to damage the Lord’s kingdom as we argue for the truth.

However, this work does hold that their collective position on the measures of the Holy Spirit is an unneeded complication to one’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. It exists to address an issue that is removed by a proper understanding of the expansiveness of the Spirit’s prophetic ministry in the church. Once the universal reach of the Spirit’s prophetic ministry described in the New Testament is appreciated, uncertain construct like the measures doctrine can be laid aside.

[1] H. Leo Boles, The Holy Spirit, His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company: Nashville, 1983) p. 126.

[2] Gus Nichols, Lectures on the Holy Spirit (Montgomery, AL: Southern Christian University, 1994) p. 133.

[3] Ibid., p. 133-4.

[4] It should be noted that some proponents of the doctrine of the measures of the Holy Spirit also believe that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian only in a representative manner affected through, and only through, the influence of God’s word. Individuals in this camp are usually careful to state the measures of the Spirit are not measures of His person, but differing amounts of power. Guy N. Woods argued, “It is vital to remember in any proper study of the work and influence of the Holy Spirit that the measures of the Spirit were measures of amounts of power which the Spirit exercised through those endowed, and not literal affusions of the essence of deity – the Spirit. The Spirit is a person – not merely an influence. The influence which the Spirit wields today is solely through means – the word of God which he (the Spirit) gave us.” Guy N. Woods, Questions and Answers Open Forum Freed-Hardeman College Lectures – Volume 1 (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College, 1976) p. 51.

[5] Op. Cit., Nichols, p. 121.

[6] Op. Cit., Boles, p. 171. 

[7] That the prophetic powers of the Spirit were limited to only a few saints is stated as a part of Boles’ (and most others) view of the limited distribution of the prophetic powers of the Spirit. This work argues that those powers were intended for universal distribution.

[8] Op. Cit., Nichols, p. 128.

[9] Ibid., p. 134.

[10] Op. Cit., Woods, p. 50.

[11] Ibid., p. 279.

[12] Acts 8 refers to receiving the Spirit, the falling on of the Spirit, the giving of the Spirit, the laying on of hands, and the gift.