Introduction

By way of a very brief overview, the Revivalist position on the meaning of Acts 2 in general, and verse 38 in particular, is based on the following assumptions:

1. That Luke introduced the ‘Pentecost event’ in his ‘Acts’ to identify the universal signs that must accompany the message of salvation, and that it describes the typical process to be followed in order to be ‘saved’.

2. That ‘speaking in tongues’ is the one sure sign or token of having received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

3. Building on from this, that the ‘tongues’ spoken at Pentecost were the same in type, purpose and form as are those that are spoken by some (Revivalists would argue, all) Christians today.

5. That some of the signs that occurred at Pentecost were strictly short-lived and temporary, and so weren’t to be repeated (specifically the audible noise of a violent wind, and the visible, parting manifestation that appeared like fire). But that others were intended to be permanent, and so should be viewed as universal possessions (specifically the ‘speaking in tongues’).

I believe that ‘Tongues in the Temple’ demonstrates that these assumptions don’t bear up under close scrutiny. To very briefly summarise each assumption in turn:

Considering the first, it’s clearly evident that the day of Pentecost held significance for the Jewish nation only – for Israel. Each of the various supernatural manifestations on the Church’s birthday reflected a miracle that was traditionally believed to have accompanied the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai. The purpose of the miracles, however, was to demonstrate the continuity of God’s Covenant with Israel, but that it had been mediated by and through Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Covenant promise of the outpouring of the Spirit on all Israel was, thereby, fulfilled.

The second point is really little more than begging-the-question. Scripture provides ample testimony that the gift of the Holy Spirit isn’t dependent on any outward manifestation, sign or token; and that the separate gift of ‘tongues’ isn’t given to all believers within the Church. Because Acts 2 records a very specific and exclusive encounter, one having a clearly defined intent and scope, it shouldn’t be viewed as a universal declaration of how salvation is effected.

The third assumption also loses effect when Luke’s record of the events is considered. The miraculous languages spoken that day were not the Revivalist ‘unknown tongues’. They were clearly understood, clearly identified human languages, each representing a nation or region that was settled by Jews as a result of the forced dispersion of Israel under Nebuchadnezzar. Given that the Holy Spirit was a covenant promise, and then to all Israel, it was only proper that the ‘lost tribes’ of the Diaspora be included on the day the promise was fulfilled. That God chose gentile languages as a sign of the covenant, also points backward to Mount Sinai. The focus remain fully Jewish, and centers on the role that Israel was destined to play in the redemption of all the nations of the earth.

The next assumption, that all Jesus ‘followers’ spoke in tongues’ at Pentecost, is also demonstrably wrong. When the grammar of the passage is examined, it becomes apparent that only the twelve apostles demonstrated this sign. Further, there is absolutely no mention of the 3,000 that were saved on that day 'speaking in tongues'. We are simply told that, having accepted Peter’s message about Jesus as Christ, they were baptised, and were added to the number accounted as his followers.

The final critical assumption squarely rests on yet a further assumption – that one’s personal experience is the standard by which to accurately interpret biblical context. In other words, the Bible is to be read through personal experience, rather than personal experience being read through the Bible. This is significant. On the day of Pentecost, the miraculous speaking in human languages, each one being understood by members of the assembled audience, was but one of three remarkable audio-visual ‘signs’. The first was the sound of a violent wind, with there being no wind. The second was the visible manifestation of flame, a fire which parted over the apostles, yet without burning them. The third and final sign was the praising of God in supernaturally acquired, humanly recognisable languages. Each of these manifestations is understood in Jewish tradition to have been apparent at the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai. The Christian Pentecost, therefore, must be considered in light of the context of the Jewish Pentecost. Of course, it’s completely illegitimate to hang-one’s-hat on just one manifestation, one which is different in type and purpose to that possessed by Revivalists in any case, in an attempt to set it apart from the other two.

It’s clear that none of the assumptions held by Revivalists are as certain as is, perhaps, believed.

The importance of grammar

The New Testament is written in a form of the Greek language known as the Koine. Greek, being an inflected language is ‘structured’ differently to English. Grammarians have argued that the arrangement and nuance of written Greek promotes a more developed form of precision in meaning than does English. Whether this is true or not isn’t particularly important. What is important, is that it’s the Greek text of the New Testament, and then understood according to the rules of Greek grammar, which should form the basis for establishing our beliefs as Christians. An English translation, whether made in 1611 or 2004, is always a secondary and interpretative source.

Grammar seems to be a subject, the practice of which isn’t particularly well developed in a large number of people. We tend to approach grammar ‘intuitively’ rather than formally, so considerable benefit will be gained by the Christian in brushing-up on his or her English grammar skills, and then applying these to the reading of the English Bible.

This essay will try to explain, as simply as possible, the grammatical implications of Acts 2:38 with reference to both the English and Greek texts. Significant use is made of a grammatical device known as 'syntactical diagramming’, given that a picture is said to paint a thought better than a thousand words.

Precursor

To properly learn the meaning of a verse in isolation, a person should first consider it within the various literary contexts in which it’s found: paragraph, discourse, chapter, book, author, Testament and finally, Bible. It’s only by doing this that a cohesive theology on any subject can be formed, and the risk of imposing meaning upon a given text responsibly minimised.

Bearing this in mind, verse 38 forms an integral part of Peter’s Pentecost discourse: the subject of the discourse being the Person and work of Jesus as Christ. The verse is also intimately related to the theme of chapter two: the fulfilment of a Jewish covenant promise. Beyond this the verse forms part of a block in Luke’s historiography, which was intended to demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit and the universality of Christian redemption. It’s for this reason more than any other, that Luke doesn’t provide us with a ‘neat’ or systematic picture of conversion. Doing so simply wasn’t his aim. Next, we learn to appreciate that ‘Acts’ doesn’t function as a didactic book – its principal intent isn’t doctrinal. We have to consult the various Epistles for doctrinal teaching, given that this is what they were written for. Viewed within the scope of the New Testament, we appreciate the centrality of Jesus Christ and his gospel: the power of the cross. When related to the Bible in full, we perceive the will of God in drawing all people back to himself.

Having confessed as much, it is possible to work in the ‘minutiae’ of the text, and to be honest, we should do so. However, we also need to remain aware that our results can only have meaning within the context in which the actual verse applies. In our case, the grammar of 2:38 is only meaningful within the context of Peter’s discourse, which was occasioned by the theological history of Pentecost itself. We have to determine what Luke understood Peter intended for his audience to grasp. It’s this that will be his message to us, today. Authors are intentional in their writing. We can work out Luke’s intention by looking at what he wrote, and how he wrote it.

Divisions

It’s important to appreciate that as Greek is an inflected language, the actual word order (syntax) of a sentence is less important than is the inflection (morphology) of the words within the sentence when determining meaning. Principal clauses need to be identified (they invariably introduce intent), from subordinate clauses (which serve to qualify the meaning of the former, and to provide nuance).

For verse 38, the structure is as follows (with principal clauses in maroon and subordinate clauses in blue):

Contrary to the rendering of the passage in the King James Version, the New International Version (NIV) translates verse 38 as comprising two distinct sentences. The disjunction between the two occurs after the conclusion of the purpose clause:

[Command] [Addressee] [Purpose Clause]

forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The inflected form of the Greek word that occurs in verse 38 is the verb metanoesate. When we conjugate this verb, we discover that it appears in the 2^nd person, aorist aspect, active voice, imperative mood, and plural number. The 2^nd person simply relates to the fact that it is the audience that is being addressed (from Peter’s perspective). That the verb is aorist expresses that the action (i.e. the repentance) is given without further limitation or implication as to it's being completed. Because 'repent' is in the active voice, the subjects being addressed – the Jews – need to perform the action. It’s they who need to repent. The imperative element simply identifies the verb as a command rather than a request.

The verb, ‘be baptised’ is baptistheto, which is the 3^rd person, aorist, passive and imperative singular inflection of baptizo. The 3^rd person element identifies that Peter is the speaker, and distinguishes him from the subjects of his address, the Jews. Peter was advising his audience that he didn’t need to be baptised, but that they did. Again we note that the verb is aorist and again that the mood is imperative. The important difference, however, is that the verb is in the passive voice. This indicates that the Jews are to submit to the action of baptism being performed upon them. If Peter had used the active voice form: ‘get baptised’, then the meaning would have been significantly different. It would have made baptism as necessary as repentance to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. But he didn’t, so baptism can’t be viewed, in this case at least, as a requirement for salvation. Also, because the imperative to ‘be baptised’ is in the passive voice, it’s grammatically subordinate to the imperative ‘repent’.

In effect, then, Peter commanded repentance as being the key criteria necessary for the Jews to receive their Covenant-promised Holy Spirit. It’s true that Peter also stressed the importance of baptism, but he neither stated nor implied that it was an absolute necessity. Therefore, any Revivalist demand that baptism is somehow necessary to being saved, goes well beyond the scope of Peter’s intent as recorded by Luke [see Baptism].

Repentance is the primary action that Peter had in mind during his address, with baptism functioning as secondary. I’ve included two grammar-specific diagrams, the first in [transliterated Greek] the second is the text translated into [English]. Both these represent graphically, Peter’s train of thought and logic.

The conjugation of the verb ‘you shall receive’, or lempsesthe, presents a significant difficulty to Revivalists who wish to defend their common position. The verb appears in the 2^nd person, future aspect, and middle voice, indicative mood. The future aspect points to the action or state, in this case the receiving of the Holy Spirit, as taking place at an undetermined point in the future from the perspective of Peter as he was speaking. The middle voice identifies that the repentant Jews could act for their own benefit by receiving the Holy Spirit, as he’s offered to them by God and Jesus. However, the Jews couldn’t force, coerce or in any way pre-empt the Holy Spirit being given. In other words, the passage dismisses outright, any possibility that the Jews could ‘seek’ for the Holy Spirit. This universal Revivalist practice isn’t biblical. The indicative mood clinches the point, by qualifying the future aspect to indicate that receiving the Holy Spirit is an actual fact, rather than an unrealised condition, a possibility or a wish. To put this in a slightly different way, the Jews that heard Peter could be assured that they received the Holy Spirit, because they repented and were baptised. The same, of course, is true for modern Christians

Revivalists universally appeal to a "1-2-3"-step salvation process, as they believe it’s supported by the text of Acts 2:38. However, the grammar of the passage clearly doesn’t allow such an artificial separation between repentance, baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Although the English text of the KJV might be manipulated to defend such a position, the Greek text in which the passage was originally written doesn’t allow for such a possibility.