Or how does Acts chapter 2 differ from John chapter 20? Like many other questions about Christianity, this one too has become a subject of debate, leading to efforts at systematizing doctrine, and, therefore, eventually, demarcating denominations. It certainly is a subject in the branch of Theology called Pneumatology. Should I even venture to put forth my opinion?

Whenever I come upon such a question, I am always encouraged, and exhorted to proceed, by Kierkegaard. He certainly faced that trepidation to an extreme degree. He was trying to shake awake the Christendom of his people, at a time when everyone in Denmark was assumed to be, by default, Christian. In such an environment, if you stand up to challenge the status quo, you are always exposed to the retort: “Who do you think you are?” Or as the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Who gave you this authority?”

Who gave us the authority?

We see this dynamic in Kierkegaard’s diaries: As he struggled with how best to present the discourses that eventually appeared as Practice in Christianity, he wrote that perhaps the title of the book should include the phrase: An Attempt to Introduce Christianity into Christendom, followed at the bottom of the page with this explanation: A Poetic Attempt— Without Authority.

Without authority, because he was the first to tell you how far from being a perfect Christian he was.

One of Kierkegaard’s answers to this dilemma was the creation of pseudonyms; fictitious authors who could say whatever they wanted, without risk of being ridiculed or doubted, because they were crafted as perfect characters: ideally suited to what the situation required, and thus completely free to express their thoughts, no matter how outlandish. Practice in Christianity, with its unrelenting demand that we be Christians as Jesus required us to be – no excuses, no loopholes –was written by the pseudonymous author Anti-Climacus; the ideal Christian.

Then, writing as the Editor of the book, Kierkegaard says:

In this book, originating in the year 1848, the requirement for being a Christian is forced up by the pseudonymous author to a supreme ideality. Yet the requirement should indeed be stated, presented, and heard. From the Christian point of view, there ought to be no scaling down of the requirement, nor suppression of it— instead of a personal admission and confession. The requirement should be heard— and I understand what is said as spoken to me alone— so that I might learn not only to resort to grace but to resort to it in relation to the use of grace.

Søren Kierkegaard; Practice in Christianity.

Ultimately, Kierkegaard tells us, that what he set forth, he had to set forth… because he needed to hear it. If someone else benefits from hearing it too, because they are just as human as he is, then all the better.  But, there it is: just for me, and you (… and you…) to consider as solitary individuals standing with bared souls before the Almighty Father.

Even so, Kierkegaard stirred up animosity (when you think about it, just as Jesus did) because he was not an “officer” of the established system of Christianity. He was a magister, and preached sermons in his Church, but he was not a bishop or a priest whose living depended on the Church. What right, some asked, did he have to criticize the Church and its priests or, worse, wage an attack on Christendom?

And the answer is: the same right that every Christian has. Because our salvation is not dependent on the established system of Christianity and it is not dependent on the credentials of my pastor or how educated or wise and pious he or she may be. My salvation is the result of a one-on-One relationship between me and God. No one else can pay for my sins or erase them, no one else can open the doors of heaven for me. That was Jesus’ job, once and for all (see the letter to the Hebrews.) My only allegiance, ultimately, is to the Risen Christ and the Father of All.

But – Kierkegaard’s detractors would say – isn’t this anarchy? Aren’t you taking a risk that you might be leading people away from the Church?

Ahhh… that is a delicate question. It, however, is based on a fallacy, that we might call the Pied Piper fallacy. Bluntly: it assumes that people are too dumb to think for themselves… that they can be led astray by a clever enough human voice. Bluntly: If that is true, then either (a) they were never believers in the first place or (b) they were never going to get to Heaven anyway because they –  by our own assumption – were too dumb to even understand what Heaven is.

Ok… maybe that is a bit too blunt.

But it is a fallacy. Because as I have said several times through the study on the Gospel of John: Every single one of us can hear the Voice of the Father.

Let’s not make any excuses.

Nevertheless, as Jesus said, it is a fact that we will be judged by the words we speak (Matthew 12:36). Søren Kierkegaard was acutely aware of how awesome a responsibility it is to speak on behalf of the Kingdom of God:

Therefore, it is a risk to preach, for as I go up into that holy place— whether the church is packed or as good as empty, whether I myself am aware of it or not, I have one listener more than can be seen, an invisible listener, God in heaven, whom I certainly cannot see but who truly can see me. This listener, He pays close attention to whether what I am saying is true, whether it is true in me, that is, He looks to see— and He can do that, because He is invisible, in a way that makes it impossible to be on one’s guard against Him— He looks to see whether my life expresses what I am saying. And although I do not have authority to commit anyone else, I have committed myself to every word I have said from the pulpit in the sermon— and God has heard it.

Søren Kierkegaard; Practice in Christianity.

And so, there it is: Whatever we say, even in an empty room, is being said in the Presence of God. It is He who judges our words and our lives to see if we are True (that is, among other things, self-consistent in our handling of the Word). And although I have no authority to require you, my solitary reader, to live by my words, I have determined to live by them myself.

When did the apostles receive the Holy Spirit? (Some controversies.)

Acts 1:1-5 I composed the first discourse, O Theophilus, concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up; to whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs; being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God; and, being assembled with [them], commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which [said he] ye have heard of me. For John indeed baptised with water, but *ye* shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit after now not many days.

The future tense of that event there is undeniable. Which forces us to pause at this point and ask: What is the difference between this baptism of the Holy Spirit and the fact that Jesus, in John 20:22-23 … breathed into [them], and says to them, Receive [the] Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained?

We can go through various commentaries, sermons, and websites that purport to answer this question. But in many cases what I find sounds to me like the classic example of the fallacy called “begging the question”, defined as follows: when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

In other words, the person answering already has a favorite theory and therefore gives an answer that leads you only to that theory, even if that answer is not logically rigorous and could not stand by itself.

Examples of dubious answers:

1_The claim that John’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel (and Acts) are two different competing narratives, with their own pet biases (even to the claiming that John invented the “doubting Thomas” story.) Why is this a non-answer? Because as soon as you make that claim, you are stating that either John or Luke or both are lying. But if either or both are, then you do not believe that the New Testament is Scripture, delivered to us as intended by the Holy Spirit. In other words, you deny the veracity of the record. And at that point, why should we believe anything stated in that record. If it is not True, then why should we believe anything else it says, anything else about Jesus?

2_There is a theory that says that Jesus breathed on them the Holy Spirit in John, only to some sort of partial extent: namely, to the extent that was necessary to “tide them over” until Pentecost when they would receive the full power required to carry out their mission. Supposedly, proof of this interpretation is that if they had had the Spirit “fully” when Jesus breathed on them, they would have done great accomplishments like the ones recorded in Acts at Pentecost. The fallacy here is a kind of false dichotomy: It assumes that when you “fully” have the Holy Spirit you cannot help but do great works of power, but before that you just go about your business in hiding: as if these were the only two possible explanations. Isn’t there another scripturally backed possibility? I will argue there is.

3_An additional argument is made that Jesus said in John’s gospel that they would not be able to receive the Holy Spirit unless He went away to the Father. Then it is stated that that “going away” did not happen until just before Pentecost as related in Acts, where we see his ascension into Heaven. And so, the “breathing” in John 20 could not have been it because he had not yet ascended. Further, I saw someone imply that the fact that Jesus actually “breathed” on them proves this viewpoint because that meant He still had His human body and had not ascended.

Again, we should readily see the fallacies here. First of all, if Jesus’ breathing on them proves He still had His human body, how did He walk through walls to appear before them suddenly in the upper room on Sunday night? But if that is His “resurrection body”, then that explains the fact that He can appear and disappear at will and sometimes be unrecognizable. (As I discussed in the Study on John’s gospel). The same resurrection body that ate with them a couple of times after His resurrection, surely could breathe on them.

However, the key part of the fallacy here is the claim that Jesus’ going away to the Father only means His final ascension as recorded in Acts 1. That is hard to defend in light of the prophecy that says…

Psalm 68:18 18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts in Man, and even [for] the rebellious, for the dwelling [there] of Jah Elohim.

This prophecy is explained by Paul as referring to Jesus’ rising from the dead (not the “final ascension”):

Ephesians 4:4-10 [There is] one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all. But to each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the gift of the Christ.

Wherefore he says:

Having ascended up on high, he has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men.

But that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens, that he might fill all things…

Now what is Paul alluding to here, when he says Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth and then ascended leading captivity captive? To me the simplest explanation is the one that agrees with…

1 Peter 3:18-19 for Christ indeed has once suffered for sins, [the] just for [the] unjust, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in flesh, but made alive in [the] Spirit, in which also going he preached to the spirits [which are] in prison…

The prophecy must be referring to the day Jesus died: He entered Sheol, wrestling away from the devil the power of death (see Hebrews) proving to the devil and the spiritual powers of the entire universe that He had triumphed. If we then take Jesus’ parable about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, literally, then Jesus must have stepped into that part of Sheol called Abraham’s bosom, where all the people of the Old Testament who had believed in the Promise of the Messiah (from Adam, through the Flood, to that point in time) – all those that thus had died in the hope of Glory – were waiting for Him. It was them, whom He led on high… They are the captivity that He led “captive”. He took them with Him to Heaven.

Now, when did this happen? At the ascension in Acts? No, because Matthew tells us there were witnesses to this event!

Matthew 27:50-53 And Jesus, having again cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost. And lo, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose, and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many.

That event in Matthew makes sense if Psalm 68:18 got fulfilled at that point. Jesus took them in his train to Heaven. Which means that, from that time on, He fulfilled the statement to the apostles, that unless He left them, they could not receive the Holy Spirit.

Which means that when He breathed on them in John 20, there is no reason to assume that that was not the fulfilment of that promise.

Then what happened in Acts chapter 2? Why is that called the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Why not?

Baptism with water manifests, in this world, the (very real but invisible to human eyes) spiritual transition of the believer from the kingdom of the world to the Kingdom of God. The baptism with the Holy Spirit also manifests, in this world, another transition: the (very real but invisible to human eyes) transfer of supernatural power from the Kingdom of God into a human vessel ordained to work in the kingdom of the world.

God does not change. Scripture cannot contradict itself… So, if this is true, it should have always been true. What does the Old Testament tell us about the human experience with the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit in action in the Old Testament

Going through the Old Testament we find several instances of people receiving the Holy Spirit. In general, it is not a phenomenon available to everybody but, rather, to a particularly selected set of individuals. (This should not be a surprise. Jesus explained why this was so to His disciples when He told them, He had to leave first… Which obviously means He had to arrive before that.)

Prophets are certainly part of this set of people singled out in the Old Testament to receive the Holy Spirit. No one would doubt that God’s Spirit was with Moses. This is stated explicitly in that passage in Numbers…

Numbers 11:16-17 And Jehovah said to Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and their officers; and take them to the tent of meeting, and they shall stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, and thou shalt not bear it alone.

Here we see that that particular “filling” with the Spirit in Moses’ life was associated with both his role as prophet – able to speak forth God’s word – and the role as leader – responsible for the people of God.

Thereafter, these are the two professions in the Old Testament that require this infilling with the Spirit. For instance: Saul, the first King. He gets anointed by Samuel (oil representing the Spirit) and as he leaves Samuel, the prophet gives him a set of instructions…

1 Samuel 10: 6-11 And the Spirit of Jehovah will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man. And it shall be, when these signs shall come to thee, thou shalt do as thy hand shall find; for God is with thee. And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and behold, I will come down to thee, to offer up burnt-offerings, [and] to sacrifice sacrifices of peace-offerings: seven days shalt thou wait, until I come to thee and inform thee what thou shalt do.

And it was [so] that when he turned his back to go away from Samuel, God gave him another heart; and all those signs came to pass that day. And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him before saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?

This passage is fascinating on several counts.

First of all, as I said last time, I believe that the biggest difference that occurs in our lives when we are born again is an opening of our eyes to the reality of the Kingdom of God.

Before that point we may have been ushered to the Presence of God by our realization of our failures, or by a desperate need for help, or maybe just by logic (by the realization that this world does not satisfy and that we are nothing compared to God, and that if He really IS then I need Him). But, however it happens (and we cannot rule out the fact that God Himself may be prodding us along in the background to come to that point), what we need to realize is that at that point we really don’t get it. We really do not understand who God is or why He does what He does.

Saul himself was at that point in 1 Samuel Chapter 9. When the prophet told him…

1 Samuel 9: 20b-21 (NIV) “…to whom is all the desire of Israel turned, if not to you and your whole family line?” Saul answered, “But am I not a Benjamite, from the smallest tribe of Israel, and is not my clan the least of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? Why do you say such a thing to me?”

Clearly, Saul did not understand; but he respected the prophet and his God.

But after the Spirit came upon him, as we saw: God gave him another heart… and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

God gave him another heart… Exactly as He had promised through Moses:

Deuteronomy 30:6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

This promise is reiterated for all us in Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 36:25-27 And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances, and ye shall do them.

I firmly believe that this is what happens when we are born again.

God sovereignly, supernaturally, as only He can do, gives us a new heart.

And we can now see the Kingdom of God.

And once that has happened, then we are ready, and capable of receiving the Power of the Holy Spirit… at the right time of His choosing.

So far, then, I would claim that King Saul’s Old Testament experience with the Holy Spirit exhibits precisely these two aspects of the work of the Spirit: There is first, the born-again awakening of our spirit to the reality of the Kingdom of God: We get a new heart. And that is followed by the Spirit infilling us with power when the Spirit decides it is time to exert that Kingdom Power in a given situation in this Earth.

Now, if we go back and reread those verses from the Old Testament with New Testament eyes… Isn’t that describing the work of the Holy Spirit as it happened in the New Testament? I mean, That passage from Ezekiel goes as far as mentioning being sprinkled with water and washed from all our sins! Isn’t this a clear foreshadowing of baptism? Sins taken away. A new heart and a new Spirit within us: with the result that we are able to walk with God. And then, as the situation requires, that Spirit expresses itself in us through supernatural gifts: So, King Saul prophesied with the band of the prophets.

(And this prophesying, I have always thought, is describing an ecstatic kind of state, where the band of prophets is just going across the land, singing, dancing, and praising God. It clearly is an unusual sight that ordinary observers readily interpreted as extraordinary. Thence, the comments made about Saul.)

My point is: the same Spirit that gave Saul a new heart, moved him to join in the prophesying. The only difference between these two operations of the Holy Spirit is that when the supernatural Power event is produced, it is described or highlighted by saying the Spirit of God came upon him.

Throughout the Old Testament we see this wording several times.

Judges 6:34 And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Gideon, and he blew the trumpet, and the Abiezrites were gathered after him.

Supernatural leadership.

Judges 13:24-25, 14:5-6 And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson. And the child grew, and Jehovah blessed him. And the Spirit of Jehovah began to move him at Mahaneh-Dan, between Zoreah and Eshtaol…And Samson went down, and his father and his mother, to Timnathah; and they came to the vineyards of Timnathah. And behold, a young lion roared against him; and the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, and he rent it as one rends a kid, and nothing was in his hand.

Supernatural strength.

1 Samuel 16:13 And Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren. And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon David from that day forward.

This is why, even before he actually became King, David’s playing of the harp had supernatural power to deliver King Saul from the injurious spirit that plagued him after he rejected God’s complete authority. Plus we know David also had the gift of prophecy because Jesus calls him a prophet. I believe we see that gift at work every time he consults the Urim and Thummin to hear God’s counsel for whether or not to engage in battle.

And then consider the prototypical prophet of power: Elijah. He prophesies and does miracles, seemingly at will. But, in particular, when he is about to do something superhuman, it says explicitly: 1 Kings 18:46 And the hand of Jehovah was upon Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before [the chariot of] Ahab to the entrance of Jizreel.

And we could go on with the other prophets where the Spirit of God comes upon them to give them supernatural courage and boldness to proclaim His message.

The bottom line is that Scripture is self-consistent. The God of the Old Testament is the Heavenly Father of the New Testament. He never changes. Therefore, no difficulty is presented by the narrative of John 20 followed by that of Acts 2.

The apostles received the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them in John 20. Then the Spirit came upon them in power in Acts 2; meaning that that was an appointed moment when the supernatural activity that God had ordained was supposed to happen.

Thereafter, when the writers of the New Testament want to highlight this supernatural empowerment to accomplish the work of God, they use the phrase: Filled with the Spirit. As in…

Acts 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.

You are not missing anything

So, my solitary reader, if you have gotten this far, let me ask you a question: Have you given your life to Jesus, as Lord? In other words, have you believed on Him for your salvation? If you have, according to John 5:24, you have already passed from death to life. And in Jesus’ language, that life means eternal life, according to John 3:16.

Which means you are now a child of God, living in the Kingdom of the all loving, all powerful Father. That is a fact. He proved His Love, now it is up to us to live in His Love. We know we live in His Love, if we obey Him. (And we can because, remember, He gave us a new heart!)

As we walk through this world, in His Love, following His steps, seeking to continue to do His work, we prove to ourselves and the universe that we are His disciples. And therefore, as Jesus promised in His prayer to the Father, our relationship with the Father and the Son is in no way different from the one Jesus’ disciples had. What they received, we have received.

The Holy Spirit has already made His home in our hearts. And He will carry out all the work Jesus has appointed for Him to do in our lives.

That means that whenever the occasion arises when supernatural Power from the Kingdom of Heaven needs to burst into this world, and you and I are there as willing vessels, then that supernatural Power will flow.

Why not?

What power could ever stand in God’s way?

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which [is] in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you feel you are missing something, there are only two people that can help you see what is going on: One, is you. We need to examine our lives regularly to make sure that we are willingly, purposefully, walking in the steps He has assigned to us. The New Testament has plenty of advice about how we can live our lives and avoid the stumbling blocks that the world and our flesh (and yes, the devil) throw at us. The writer of the book of Hebrews calls it, “the sin that so easily entangles us.” Paul calls it, “grieving the Holy Spirit.” (Jesus talked about it too in the parable of the Sower). Often, we are our worst enemies.

But there is a second One: The Spirit of Truth, Himself. He has His mission: to lead us into all Truth, to empower us for the work of the Kingdom. We talk to the Father and to Jesus in prayer.  Nothing prevents us from talking to the Holy Spirit… after all, He resides in the Temple of our heart. As it was with Jesus, it is with Him: All we need to do is ask and He will listen. And surely he will explain and show us the way.