Who is the "they" in Acts 2:1?

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2002

Answers

Philip,

I know people have strong opinions on this, but I don't think there is any way to state it conclusively. Could have been just the Apostles, could have been the 120. I don't really see what difference it makes.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2002

I have interject on this one...your question should be phrased: Whom are the "they"...sorry but that was irking me.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002

Dear Berry, Evidently it is significant enough for those of the mcgarvian right to make an issue out of it. Of course, that is not surprising as they seem to enjoy making an issue out of just about anything. The point is, if the 120+ were present (even mcgarvian scholars admit that the likely place for the descending of the Spirit was in the Temple courts), than we can conclude that the baptism in the Spirit is for more people other than the apostles. On the other hand, if we follow the "pronoun" argument commonly employed by the mcgarvian crowd, then this blessing was conferred only to the apostles.

In Christ, Philip Watkinson

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002

Dear Mike,

Thanks for the reprimand, but I am speaking about the pronoun "they", so I stand by my post.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002

I don't know anything about the "McGarvian Crowd"....which I guess is used pejoratively here....but I prefer the sound hermenutics crowd....and sound hermeneutics dictates to me....that it simply could not have been the 120.

Reasons:

First.....the 120 were never given the promise of such occurence. It was the apostles who were given the promise. (Acts 1:8)

Second....the crowd asked the question in 2:7...."Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans??"

From this question we learn.....first....that they were all men who received this gift. The crowd of 120 disciples included women. Secondly......we know the 12 apostles were Galilean. We would be hard pressed to prove that all 120 were Galilean.

Third....with the exception of Cornelius in Acts 10...the first Gentile convert....there is not one example of Holy Spirit baptism that came to anyone directly. It was all done through the laying on of the apostles hands.

That is not a "McGarvian"..."Rightest" bend. It is simple fact that anyone can get from reading the text.

Philip....why did you feel the need to "poisen the well" right off the bat by making such a pejorative comment??

It appears to me....it is a little deceptive to ask a question....that you really already have your mind made up about.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002

Danny,

I don’t know about “poisoning the well” as you readily accuse me of, but I will admit to a certain bias. Once, I favored the McGarvian view of this passage like you, but I discovered that my “sound” hermeneutic wasn’t so solid after all. I have discovered that serious competent scholarship can be found in both camps – pro and con. For example, Richardson (Campbell’s biographer and son-in-law), Milligan, Lard, Lamar, et al. were in favor of the same view I espouse today, and even tried to dissuade McGarvey from his “pronoun” argument. Modern RM scholars such as Boatman, Lammiman, Fletcher, etc., as well as noted Evangelical NT scholars such as Beasley Murray all hold that the 120 were present and received the baptism in the Spirit.

The problem you have Danny, is that (in your mind at least) the baptism in the Spirit and the apostolic gifts are absolutely connected one to the other. You have been predisposed (although I highly doubt that you will admit to it) by a conter-reaction to Neo- Pentecostal doctrine. Since Neo-Montanists argue that the baptism in the Spirit is necessarily evidenced by speaking in tongues following, you (and others) have swallowed the bait and have pre-determined that their view (at least with respect to the correlation between the baptism and the apostolic gifts) is true to Scripture. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

I will proceed to respond to your assertions in regard to this passage:

You say: “First.....the 120 were never given the promise of such occurrence. It was the apostles who were given the promise. (Acts 1:8)”

Since you quoted this passage, let’s see what it indeed does say in context:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Acts was written in such sparse language that it is sometimes difficult to determine when one has left one scene and has entered into the next - it is meant to be read as a series of historical events in rapid progression in the early life of the church. The natural train of thought would lead the reader to believe that verses 1 through 5 occur in one place, while verses 6 through 11 take place in a different location - the point being, of course, that there is absolutely nothing in this portion of Scripture that would exclude the 120 from the promise in verse 5. The universal language of John’s promise, repeated in all 4 Gospels, ought to give us a clue as to the nature of the baptism in the Spirit. True, Luke does not say whether there were others present when Jesus spoke this promise, but he doesn’t say that they weren’t either.

Then we move to the next scene, presumably the one where Jesus ascends into heaven. Just moments before he leaves, he gives the words found in verse 8: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth”.

Now, to say that this “power” is the exact same thing as the “baptism” is a leap in the dark, for there exists no correlation in the context. Furthermore, we have an additional problem. According to Luke’s account of the ascension in his Gospel, more than the “eleven” were present:

“33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.”

Unless you are prepared to acknowledge that the “power” promised in Acts 1:8 was promised to these others that were in the company of the apostles, a distinction has to be made between the “baptism” and the “power”.

I will continue with your other questions tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2002