Effusion in Ephesus

An exposition of Acts chapter 19

By Ian Thomason

Introduction

This is the fourth, and final essay, in a series that seeks to interact with the book of Acts. Specifically, these four are offered as a corrective to the Revivalist position concerning the direct and (some would argue) indirect ‘tongues’ passages recorded in Luke’s historiography. Consequently it is recommended that Tongues in the Temple, Acts 2:38, The Spirit and Samaria, and Gentiles and Grace be read preliminary to this account, and preferably in that order. This is to ensure that the developing context of Luke’s record is adequately addressed, and literarily. The preceding essays contain important qualifying information, points relating to: history, literature and grammar, that will not be replicated in this essay, but which provide a degree of nuance that is necessary to properly understanding the thesis of this small work.

Overview

The events that are recorded in chapter nineteen of the Acts of the Apostles took place during Paul’s third, and some would argue final, missionary journey. Conservative scholars posit that the proceedings took place during a two years bracket, from approximately AD 53 – 55, and which address chapters nineteen from verse one, to twenty, verse one. Ephesus, incidentally, proved to be a pivotal city in the mission of the Church. Several of the books of the New Testament were composed there, and the Apostle John later ministered and resided in the city towards the close of his life. In every respect, however, the Church at Ephesus was thoroughly Pauline in character.

With respects to the unfolding history of the expansion of the Christian Church from Jerusalem towards Rome, it is the ministry of Peter, which predominates from chapter two through to the beginning of chapter thirteen, an important transition in direction occurring in chapter six. These early chapters address the period wherein the groundwork of mission was laid, and the course of the gospel first chartered by Christ was set in motion by the Spirit. It is with chapter thirteen, however, that the focus dramatically shifts to Paul as the principal agent of God’s purpose, and the driving force behind the Church’s expanding mission to the world. The remaining fifteen chapters, then, concentrate on the extension of the gospel to the "…ends of the earth."1

Paul as an Apostle

It would be an understatement to suggest that Paul’s call to be an apostle, recorded for us in Acts 9, was challenged by many within the Church for the greater part of his life. Paul himself contrasts his appointment to that of the Twelve, by referring to his call in terms of a birth delivered ‘out of season’ (1 Corinthians 5:10). Though perhaps in some respects he was the "least of all apostles", in many respects he was truly the greatest. In terms of missionary fervor, suffering, pastoral concern, and literary output, Paul had few close equals. Excepting, perhaps, for John. And, of course, we should not forget that the author of the Acts, Luke the physician, was Paul’s personal disciple and ministerial attendant. An appreciation of this important feature goes a long way to properly discerning the meaning of several key passages in the book – not the least of which being chapter nineteen.

Again, an understanding of context is imperative to deriving a proper understanding of message.

Paul at Ephesus – Acts 19:1-7

We learn in Acts 18:24-26, that one Apollos, a converted Alexandrian Jew, and a man well versed in both the Jewish Scriptures and Greek rhetoric – the two tools used to great effect in the spreading of the gospel to a Hellenic audience – had ministered briefly in Ephesus prior to Paul’s arrival. As verse 25 indicates, however, whilst Apollos’ message was certainly orthodox, his understanding was, in some respects, deficient. Most notably, this was so as concerned the doctrine of baptisms.

Whilst Apollos remained at Corinth, Paul journeyed along the road through the interior, and arrived at Ephesus. There he found several disciples, and he asked them: "did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered him, "no, we have not so much as heard that there is such a Holy Spirit." Paul then asked them: "so what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they answered him. Paul then explained: "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He taught the people to believe in the one who was coming after him, in Jesus." Upon hearing this, the disciples were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. And, when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit immediately overshadowed them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in total." 2

Revivalists reckon this account to be an example that supports their positions on baptism, and on ‘tongues’ as the sign of having received the Spirit of God. But, as has been demonstrated in the previous essays, the particulars of this account neither reflect the Revivalist experience, nor the Revivalist message. Consider:

1. Paul, on arriving at Ephesus, encountered a number of ‘followers’. To ascertain the ‘lie of the land’, Paul questioned them as to whether they had received the Holy Spirit. Note, Paul did not ask them what ‘signs’ had accompanied the assumed reception, a position which runs completely contrary to the practice universally followed by Revivalists. Had Paul anticipated a ‘sign’ to function as some sort of ‘proof’, we can rightly expect him to have asked for the disciples to present the evidence of it. However, this is something that he did not do.

2. On learning that these disciples were completely ignorant of the very existence of God’s Holy Spirit, Paul curiously asked them what baptism they had received. Why did he do this? The answer is straightforward. The Apostolic gospel had centred on the understanding that once a person had turned to Christ, and had been baptised into him, the sealing of God’s Spirit was automatic [see Acts 2:38]. Obviously then, to Paul, it was the baptism which the disciples had received, that was somehow deficient. As it transpired, this indeed proved to be the case, given that it was established not to be a Christian baptism at all [see Baptism].

Having been properly educated, the men then willingly, and knowingly, transferred self-ownership to Jesus as the Christ, by consenting to being baptised into his name (his authority). Paul then immediately fulfilled his obligation as an apostle, by performing the signs of an apostle (see Acts 8:17), in that he caused the Holy Spirit to overshadow them, through the laying on of his hands. This point should not be lost on Revivalists: the grammar of the passage clearly indicates that it was the laying on of Paul’s hands, which caused the reception of the Spirit! And, of course, we read that there was more than the utterance of ‘tongues’, there was prophecy as well!

As I have indicated in the essays on Acts chapter eight and ten, there are two sets of parallels in evidence in the book of Acts. These center on (1) the authority of the Apostles as the appointed and empowered representatives of the risen and glorified Christ, and (2) the intimate ministry of the Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation. The parallel passages under consideration are:

Pentecost (Acts 2) >>>>>>>> Cornelius (Acts 10)

Samaria (Acts 8) >>>>>>>> Ephesus (Acts 19)

The first two occasions, the so-called Jewish and Gentile ‘Pentecosts’, were sovereign outpourings of God’s Spirit onto representative racial groups. The second, the inclusion of two separatist religious groups into the Church – Samaritans and followers of the Baptist – required the direct agency and intervention of the apostolic ministry in order for the Spirit to be given.

Acts chapter nineteen, then, principally serves as a divine defence and testimony of Paul’s calling, his equipping, and his releasing by Christ to be an apostle. It is not accidental that the very group, to whom he ministers, was representative of those initially encountered during the commencement of Jesus’ own ministry, and that of his Galilean apostles – disciples of John the Baptist!

Conclusion

Acts 19 does not support the Revivalist position or teaching on the issue of ‘tongues’ as a/the supposed evidence of Spirit-filling, nor does it support Revivalist teaching on baptism either. The passage does, however, admirably affirm Luke’s principle aims in writing his account – to demonstrate, first, the post Resurrection ministry of Jesus as the Christ, next, the unique authority of the Apostles as Christ’s chosen representatives, and, finally, Paul’s ministry as an equal among this select and august group.

Revivalists appear prone to be remarkably selective in their reading of the various Acts accounts, and in their ‘picking-and-choosing’ from them. However, the actual points of contact, which these groups believe (and preach) to exist between their teaching/experience and the biblical records, on closer inspection are found not to exist. Whilst the confidence of the individual Revivalist in his or her experience is certainly admirable, the place where the experience properly fits in Scripture is poles removed from where it is assumed to fit.

Whilst the capacity to pray in tongues is certainly biblical, and is certainly applicable for some Christians, it is not the Scriptural evidence of a believer having been sealed with God’s Holy Spirit in the effecting of salvation. ‘Tongues’ is a gift. It is not, however, the Gift.

Notes

[1] Acts 1:8c

[2] Acts 19:1-7, translation from the Greek by the author