This question, asked by Paul in Acts 19:2 of some disciples he found
at Ephesus, is sometimes used to provoke a discussion of the nature of
the gifts of the Spirit.

At first glance, we might sat that the issues and the example are
quite clear. Paul had discovered a group of people who had heard the
teaching of John the Baptist, received John’s Baptism for the repentance
of sins, but not heard the Gospel of Jesus or received Baptism in the
Christian manner. When Paul Baptised them "the Holy Spirit came
upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied" (Acts 19:6).

If our purpose was to find a scripture to support the proposition
that "All Christians speak in tongues", then Acts 19:1-6 would
seem to perfectly suit our purposes.

On the other hand, if our purpose is to discover what was actually
going on in Ephesus, and what we can learn about our Christian faith and
practise for today from the scriptures, then perhaps a closer
examination of this passage would prove profitable.

The following points are worth noting:

# If we assume that Acts 19 follows chronologically from Acts 18
(not an assumption I would neccesarily make, but let’s stick with it for
now), then according to Acts 18:24-28 the Gospel had ben preached in
Ephesus by a Jew called Apollos who had been instructed in the Way of
the Lord, but knew only the Baptism of John.

# Priscilla and Aquilla had taken Apollos aside to explain things
more accurately before he continued on his was preaching the Gospel.
(18: 26-27)

# Despite Priscilla and Aquilla’s intervention, when Paul came to
Ephesus he found disciples who knew only the Baptism of John. (19:3)

# When Paul taught the Ephesus disciples about Jesus and the Holy
Spirit, they were immediately Baptised. Neither the content of Paul’s
preaching nor the method of Baptism are recorded. (19:4-5)

# It was only after Paul laid hands on the disciples that they spoke
in tongues and prophesied. (19:6)

# There were about 12 disciples (the Greek text says
"men", and this may be an occasion where "male
persons" are explicitly intended) involved in this activity – the
same number of Jewish men required in later times to constituted a
Synagogue. In verse 8 Paul enters the Synagogue and preaches for 3
months, but his message causes dissention so he pulls the disciples out
of the Synagogue and they begin their "arguing daily" in a
lecture hall. (19:7-10)

There are several questions begged by a closer examination of this
text.

# If Apollos had been corrected, why did Paul still find disciples
who were in error? Was it because Apollos or others were unwilling to
accept instruction and correction from women? Or was it just that there
was difference of opinion and practise amongst the Church.

# Is it significant that Paul’s question in verse 2, and the
manifestations of the Spirit described in verse 6 are in the plural?

# What is the connection with the Synagogue? Why did the author of
Acts think it significant to say that there were ‘about 12″ of the
disciples?

# Obviously there was disagreement over historical and doctrinal
matters, a variety of worship styles, and daily argument amongst the
disciples in Ephesus. Is it any surprise that these elements are present
in the church of today?

It is clear that Acts 19:1-6 has much more to offer than just a
proof text to support the proposition that all Christian speak in
tongues. This group, who had been Baptised according to the practise of
John the Baptist, who had heard the preaching of Apollos and been in the
same community as Priscilla and Aquila, came to a new understanding and
a new experience of God after receiving the preaching, Baptism and
laying on of hands of Paul’s ministry. Some, possibly all of them, spoke
in tongues and prophesied. Even after this event, there was ongoing
argument and dissention within the synagogue, and within the Church once
the disciples had separated from the synagogue.

It is well known that there were people who followed the teachings
of John the Baptist who met together until at least the 3rd century. It
is also well known that there were some within the early Church, just as
there are some in the Churches of today, whose experience of the Holy
Spirit, manifest in giifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and
healing, is so powerful that they find it difficult to believe that
anyone can truly be a Christian unless they share the same experience.
Maybe Acts 19:1-6 is an account of a clash between these two groups – a
clash which seems not to have been conclusively resolved.

Paul’s question, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you
became believers?" is addressed to a group of disciples, a Church.
It is not addressed to any one individual, and as we know from Paul’s
teaching elsewhere, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12-14, it is the
different gifts of the one spirit working through the various members of
the Church in love which makes the Body of Christ (ie the Church) in the
world.

There is not one occasion in the New testament where the
manifestations of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues come upon an
individual. In the scriptures, the Holy Spirit always works through the
Church, and in community. Having said that, it is a fair question to ask
– have you experienced the strengthening of the Holy Spirit in your life
since you became a believer. But tongues and prophecy, which Paul
himself describes in 1 Corinthians 14 as being given to strengthen the
Church, do not satisfactorilty answer this question. Perhaps the
following passage from one of Paul’s other letters may provide a more
adequate ‘self check’ on the presence of the Spirit in your life and
your community.

(Galatians 5:14-24 NRSV) For the whole law is summed up in a single
commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." If,
however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not
consumed by one another. Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify
the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the
Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these
are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But
if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the
works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels,
dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like
these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such
things will not inherit the kingdom of God. By contrast, the fruit of
the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity,
faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such
things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh
with its passions and desires.

Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell

Addendum:

From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Received the Holy Spirit?
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:49:40 GMT

**Chris, before responding please read this post. About 2/3 of the way
through I have suggested that we drop this thread and start a new and
possibly more interesting one. If you want to do so, you can save
yourself the trouble of responding to this.

Also please note that I am at a conference in Melbourne until the
weekend, and my internet access is intermittent and expensive (I have
to phone home to Perth), so I will only be able to respond once each
day, and that will probably be late at night.

Cheers

I wrote:

>>If our purpose was to find a scripture to support the proposition that
>>"All Christians speak in tongues", then Acts 19:1-6 would seem to
>>perfectly suit our purposes.
>
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 09:06:11 GMT,  (Christian
Graus) wrote:
>And it's in the Bible.  Wow.  What an admission !!!

Chris, it is a pity that you cannot enter into a discussion without
starting from a point of sarcasm (or is this meant to be humour?). You
are aware, as I am, of the many texts in the Bible which prove beyond
all doubt that some members of the NT Church spoke in tongues, and we
both know from experience that this is true in the Church of today as
well. You, and your church, subscribe to a definition of "Christian"
which excludes people who do not speak in tongues, but I hope you
would have the charity and intelligence to acknowledge that people of
faith and goodwill who study the scriptures earnestly seeking the word
of the Lord do not always (I would argue seldom) agree with your
definition. 

The point of my post was to show that Acts 19:1-6 is not a conclusive
proof text for the proposition that All Christians Speak in Tongues
(hereafter, as is the convention on this newsgroup, ACSIT). As you
know, I believe that 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 consist of a
sustained argument by the apostle Paul specifically against the ACSIT
position, but we have in the past agreed to differ on that matter. I
acknowledge that you read those chapters differently, and I hope you
can acknowledge that I read those chapters differently and leave them
out of this discussion as far as is possible.


>
>># If we assume that Acts 19 follows chronologically from Acts 18 (not
>>an assumption I would neccesarily make, but let's stick with it for
>>now), then according to Acts 18:24-28 the Gospel had ben preached in
>>Ephesus by a Jew called Apollos who had been instructed in the Way of
>>the Lord, but knew only the Baptism of John.
>
>The rest of this is based on an assumption you'd not necessarily make
>? 

No, but part of it is. Acts 18:24-28 actually does not make much sense
if we read it as immediately preceding the events described in chapter
19. It may be a bit of past history, recorded to set the scene, but
even so it does not adequately explain why the disciples Paul found
knew only the Baptism of John. 

What did Priscilla and Aquila acheive, I wonder?

>
>>#  Priscilla and Aquilla had taken Apollos aside to explain things
>>more accurately before he continued on his was preaching the Gospel.
>>(18: 26-27)
>
>># Despite Priscilla and Aquilla's intervention, when Paul came to
>>Ephesus he found disciples who knew only the Baptism of John. (19:3)
>
>># When Paul taught the Ephesus disciples about Jesus and the Holy
>>Spirit, they were immediately Baptised. Neither the content of Paul's
>>preaching nor the method of Baptism are recorded. (19:4-5)
>
>*sigh* - as has often been stated, the word baptizo means to
>immerse,and to clean only by extension. ...

Chris, as you know, no-one who has studied NT Greek would agree with
the above sentence. If you took the time to study NT Greek, you would
save yourself from the embarassment of making such statements. 

>># It was only after Paul laid hands on the disciples that they spoke
>>in tongues and prophesied. (19:6)
>
>True - when they received the Spirit.  This does not however mean that
>we cannot receive the Spirit without an apostle to lay hands on us, it
>is between men and God.

So the Baptism was essential, the speaking in tongues was essential,
but the laying on of hands was not. I can see how this proceeds from
the teaching and practise of your church, but I cannot see the
distinction in the text.

>
>># There were about 12 disciples (the Greek text says "men", and this
>>may be an occasion where "male persons" are explicitly intended)
>>involved in this activity - the same number of Jewish men required in
>>later times to constituted a Synagogue. In verse 8 Paul enters the
>>Synagogue and preaches for 3 months, but his message causes dissention
>>so he pulls the disciples out of the Synagogue and they begin their
>>"arguing daily" in a lecture hall. (19:7-10)
>
>>---
>
>>There are several questions begged by a closer examination of this
>>text.
>
>># If Apollos had been corrected, why did Paul still find disciples who
>>were in error? Was it because Apollos or others were unwilling to
>>accept instruction and correction from women? Or was it just that
>>there was difference of opinion and practise amongst the Church.
>
>Perhaps it was that these people had been spoken to by Apollos prior
>to his correction ? I'm sure there was difference of opinion in the
>church, but Paul obviously did not accept this, or he would not have
>corrected them.

There is ALWAYS difference of opinion in the Church. That is what
makes life interesting, and it is a major point of growth.

>
>># Is it significant that Paul's question in verse 2, and the
>>manifestations of the Spirit described in verse 6 are in the plural?
>
>(Acts 19:2 NKJV)  he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit
>when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard
>whether there is a Holy Spirit."
>
>I'd like to know which part of the question is plural and how it
>affects the question ( seriously ).

The question is "did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became
believers?" (so the NRSV, NJV and the Greek text). The word
"believed/believers" is plural. It affects the question because in
scripture both faith and the action of the Holy Spirit are corporate -
they happen in community. 

>
>(Acts 19:6 NKJV)  And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy
>Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
>
>Prophecy refers to a forth telling of Gods word, and in a case such as
>this would be linked also to the gift of knowledge, being that they
>would have spoken of the new found knowledge of God they would have
>had by receiving His Spirit.  Most people I've seen receive the Spirit
>I would describe as having spoken in tongues and prophecied.

By your definition above I have prophesied but not spoken in tongues.
God, my Church, and the people amongst whom I minister, all affirm (as
far as I can tell) that the Holy Spirit acts in my life and ministry,
so I would have no hesitation in answering the question "did you
receive the Holy Spirit..." with a resounding YES. 

>
>># What is the connection with the Synagogue? Why did the author of
>>Acts think it significant to say that there were 'about 12" of the
>>disciples?
>
>12 is an important number in the Bible, and this is a good question.
>
>># Obviously there was disagreement over historical and doctrinal
>>matters, a variety of worship styles, and daily argument amongst the
>>disciples in Ephesus. Is it any surprise that these elements are
>>present in the church of today?
>
>No, it is no surprise that then, as now, the Gospel is diluted and
>perverted by ignorant and unfaithful men, but this never changes that
>God knows what He said and has no division with Himself.

God has no division within himself, but the Church, made up as it is
of sinful and fallible people, will always have division.
>
>>***
>>
>>It is clear that Acts 19:1-6 has much more to offer than just a proof
>>text to support the proposition that all Christian speak in tongues.
>
>This is true.  None of the other issues however change the fact that
>Paul, before he knew these people had only received Johns baptism,
>asked a question that supports Acts 8 in indicating that belief does
>not guarantee the Holy Spirit or salvation.

They were disciples. Before and after the visit of Apollos there were
differences, and the "arguing" of verse 9 seems to indicate that there
were divisions even after Paul's Baptism. Nothing in the passage
indicates that salvation was at issue here - Paul merely introduced
them to a teaching and Baptismal practise in which he found some
members to be deficient.

>
>>This group, who had been Baptised according to the practise of John
>>the Baptist, who had heard the preaching of Apollos and been in the
>>same community as Priscilla and Aquila, came to a new understanding
>>and a new experience of God after receiving the preaching, Baptism and
>>laying on of hands of Paul's ministry. Some, possibly all of them,
>>spoke in tongues and prophesied. Even after this event, there was
>
>The Bible does not muddy the waters as Nigel does.  They all spoke in
>tongues and prophecied.  This is in line with the record of Acts 2 and
>10, and 1 Cor 12:7.

If the word "all" appeared in verse 6, you would be correect.Acts 2
says that all present spoke in other languages (not the same as
speaking in tongues). Acts 10 is like Acts 19 - some people certainly
spoke in tongues, but the text does not require the interpretation
that all present spoke in tongues. 1 Cor 12:4-10 specifically says
that there are varieties of gifts from the same spirit - and one of
those gifts is speaking in tongues. Verse 11 goes on to say that the
gitfts are allocated individually, as the spirit chooses. 

>
>>ongoing argument and dissention within the synagogue, and within the
>>Church once the disciples had separated from the synagogue. 
>
>There will always be backsliders.
>

There will also always be honest difference of opinion. 

People of goodwill, even Christians, can say, do, and believe
different things and still be brothers and sisters in the Lord.

>>It is well known that there were people who followed the teachings of
>>John the Baptist who met together until at least the 3rd century. It
>>is also well known that there were some within the early Church, just
>>as there are some in the Churches of today, whose experience of the
>>Holy Spirit, manifest in giifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy
>>and healing, is so powerful that they find it difficult to believe
>>that anyone can truly be a Christian unless they share the same
>>experience. Maybe Acts 19:1-6 is an account of a clash between these
>>two groups - a clash which seems not to have been conclusively
>>resolved. 
>
>No, Acts 19 is a record of non-Christians who had a belief in God and
>the message of John receiving the Gospel, with the same signs given to
>all Christians in Acts 2 and 10, and arguably Acts 8.  It is further
>proof that scriptures which promise salvation to believers are less
>than specific and rely on verses telling us who Jesus was and what we
>must believe of Him to be saved.

I doubt that we are going to achieve anything by re-hashing the ACSIT
argument, so can I suggest a new tack. I would be very pleased to read
a post from you setting out "Who Jesus was and what we must believe of
him to be saved". Frankly, that would be much more interesting to me
than a further followup on this thread. I won't even respond, unless
you want me to.

>
>>Paul's question, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you became
>>believers?" is addressed to a group of disciples, a Church. It is not
>
>This is REALLY wrong.  If they didn't have the Spirit, they were not
>part of the church.  And there is no such thing as 'a' church, THE
>church consists of all Christians, regardless of what they call
>themselves for reasons of association, who live by the Gospel.

Paul adresses his letters to "the church in ...", and Christians have
always used the term to mean the 'local association of believers', as
well as the wider meaning of the 'mystical union of all true
believers', and the pragmatic meanings of 'heirarchical organisation'
and 'buillding set apart for Christian worship'. In the English
language we always have to infer which meaning of "Church" is meant 
from the context.

Paul's letters to the churches contained admonitions and corrections
because some members of the Churches were believing and doing things
that Paul thought inappropriate. He does not say "If you don;t accept
my teaching, you are not part of the Church", and I do not think any
contemporary Christian, be he Pope or Graus, has the scriptural (or
any other) authority to do so either.
>
>>addressed to any one individual, and as we know from Paul's teaching
>>elsewhere, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12-14, it is the different
>>gifts of the one spirit working through the various members of the
>>Church in love which makes the Body of Christ (ie the Church) in the
>>world. 
>
>This is correct, and this is why every Christian has every gift, but
>does not use them all constantly.  In the passage Nigel refers to the
>church is told how the voice gifts should be used.  Nigel, in the
>Anglican church do you hear 2-3 tongues, interpreted, and 2-3 prophecy

That is a part of the worship in some congregations. In Anglican
worship, as it has evolved down the century, the gifts of tongues and
prophecy are more often used in smaller gatherings such as house
groups, and not so often in the main Sunday acts of worship. They are
a part of the experience of the Church, just as they always have been.

>? Do you deny that chapter 14 indicates all Christians have all of
>these gifts ?

Yes, I do. Chapters 12 and 14 specifically state that the gifts are
given according to the Spirit's will, for the building up of the
Church, and we should not expect that all of them are given, received
or used by every person or at all times.

>
>>There is not one occasion in the New testament where the
>>manifestations of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues come upon an
>>individual. In the scriptures, the Holy Spirit always works through
>>the Church, and in community. 
>
>Only because Acts is a record of the Acts of the Apostles.  God DOES
>indeed use the people in the church to send His message - the angel
>who came to Peter in Acts 10 could as easily have gone right to
>Cornelius, so too the angel who told Ananias to speak to Paul.
>However, the message is personal and there is no reason a person
>calling to God alone cannot be saved.

Your last sentence contradicts both my words and yours. My point is
that the action of the Holy Spirit in the NT is always corporate - it
happens in community, not to the individual. You may like to argue
that the Spirit CAN act in the life of an individual, but you would
have to rely on experience and evidence from outside the NT to support
your argument.

>
>>Having said that, it is a fair question
>>to ask - have you experienced the strengthening of the Holy Spirit in
>>your life since you became a believer. 
>
>Which is a distortion of Pauls question - he asked have you RECEIVED
>the Spirit since believing.  Of course this is synonymous with the
>strengthening of the Spirit, but Nigels paraphrase makes this unclear.

If "Have you received the Holy Spirit..." is synonymous with "have you
experienced the strengthening of the Holy Spirit...", in what way is
my paraphrase a distortion?

>
>>But tongues and prophecy, which
>>Paul himself describes in 1 Corinthians 14 as being given to
>>strengthen the Church, do not satisfactorilty answer this question.
>
>
>This is true in a way.  All Christians speak in tongues as
>manifestation of the Spirit,...

Sorry Chris, but the author of 1 Corinthians 12-14 would disagree with
you there.

> ... however the gifts are not all the church
>is given, and the fruits are spoken of far more as evidence of a
>Christian walk, which makes them to best check of how we are going
>post salvation.  Tongues remains the manifestation of the Spirit, how
>we pray in the Spirit and therefore how we build ourselves in the
>faith and keep ourselves in Gods love.  Without this gift we are just
>a bunch of nice people who are still headed for the grave.

We can agree that the fruits of the Spirit are the best check of how
we are going  in our Christian lives. Perhaps we can agree to disagree
on the issue of "All Christians speak in tongues", which really does
not seem ot have much to do with it.

>>Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?
>
>Yes, 

So have I

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell