When Was Galatians Written?

Some Bible books just leave us guessing when they were written (e.g. James). Some give us enough information to say with a great deal of accuracy (e.g. 1 Thessalonians). Others give us enough information that we can narrow it down but not say for certain (e.g. Colossians). Only Galatians seems to give us so much that it becomes uncertain again! In fact, Galatians gives us so much information that it has led some people (e.g. my old tutor John Muddiman) to call into question the reliability of Acts and put together a different timescale altogether.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to do that. I'm pretty sure that the data from Galatians and Acts can all be true, and all fit together, but only if Galatians is Paul's earliest letter, written somewhere between Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:4. This articles explains why, and shows some of the ways that impacts how we read Galatians. [The title of “Paul's earliest letter” is usually given to 1 Thessalonians, written in Acts 18:5.]

The Council of Jerusalem

The big event connected with Galatians is the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15:4-30. It's often thought that Paul writes about it in Galatians 2:1-10, which is one of the reasons for the confusion. If we read Galatians and Acts carefully, it's clear they are different events. It turns out to be most helpful if we track through Paul's visits to Jerusalem from the time of his conversion onwards.

Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Acts

Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion is in Acts 9:26-30. He was a fairly new convert, having just escaped from a plot to kill him in Damascus. Barnabas trusted him and introduced him to the apostles. He left after another attempt on his life.

Paul's second visit to Jerusalem in Acts is in Acts 11:30. Paul and Barnabas are by this stage elders of the church in Antioch, where, for the first time, lots of Gentiles have become Christians. A prophet called Agabus predicted there would be a serious famine, so the church in Antioch sent aid to the elders of the church in Jerusalem by Barnabas and Paul.

Paul's third visit is to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Some people from Judea had come to Antioch and were teaching that Christians needed to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas were elders of the church in Antioch, but had also already planted churches across Turkey and Cyprus in what we'd now call Paul's First Missionary Journey. Because of the argument, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to sort it out. In Jerusalem Peter and James both spoke positively about the Gentile conversions and it was decided that they did not need to be circumcised, but that Gentile Christians in Antioch should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from eating blood and from sexual immorality. The apostles explicity distance themselves from the people who had been teaching the need to be circumcised (v24).

Paul's fourth visit to Jerusalem is in Acts 18:22 at the end of what is usually called his Second Missionary Journey. He seems to just drop in, having reached Caesarea by boat. We're not told anything that happened, except that he “greeted the church then left for Antioch.”

Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Galatians

In Galatians, there seems to be a conflict between the church in Antioch and Jerusalem, so Paul gives the history of his relations with Jerusalem. His first visit was three years after his conversion, where he went from Damascus to Jerusalem “to get acquainted with Peter” (Gal 1:18). Paul stayed for 15 days and only met Peter and James of the apostles.

Paul's second visit according to Galatians was 14 years later, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus. It was “in response to a revelation” (Gal 2:2). Paul had a private conversation with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, where he set before them the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. They did not require that Titus should be circumcised, and James, Peter and John agreed that he should carry on preaching to the Gentiles. The only requirement they put on him was that he should continue to remember the poor (Gal 2:10).

The situation which led to Paul writing Galatians also happened in Antioch. Peter came to visit (not recorded elsewhere). During Peter's visit, some people arrived from James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem. As a result of their arrival, Peter stopped eating with Gentiles, and the other Jews followed his example. Paul accused him of “forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs”. (Gal 2:14). From the rest of the book, it is clear that there was a problem with people requiring gentile Christians to be circumcised.

Comparing Paul's Visits in Acts and Galatians

The traditional view is that Paul's third visit in Acts is the same as his second visit in Galatians. But that doesn't work. For one thing, Paul's argument in Galatians falls apart if he's missed out a trip to Jerusalem. For another, although both involve conversations in Jerusalem between Paul, Peter and James about Gentiles, the outcomes are different. In Galatians, Paul says he's only asked to remember the poor. In Acts, he's also asked to abstain from food sacrificed to idols. In Galatians, he describes himself as timid and fearful, in Acts he is clearly bold and angry. His conversation in Galatians is in private – in Acts it seems to be in public. It makes most sense to say these are talking about two different meetings.

But the traditional view also requires two arguments in Antioch between Paul and some people from Jerusalem about circumcision. The first one leads to the Council of Jerusalem, where it is all agreed. But then there needs to be another argument in the same place between the same people which sparks the writing of Galatians. Little wonder that this view has led some to ditch the reliability of Acts!

Who were the Galatians?

It's further complicated by the question of who the Galatians were. Ethnic Galatia is in north-central Turkey, which wasn't visited by Paul until much later, if at all. This confused Calvin (for example), who somehow managed to argue that the letter was written to churches that he didn't think had been founded yet. However, it's more recently been discovered that for 100 years or so (including the time when Paul was around) there was a larger Roman Province of Galatia which included the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, which Paul visited on his first missionary journey in Acts 13-14. These were later split back off into the province of Lycaonia.

So What Actually Happened?

Here's my attempt to say that Acts and Galatians are both right and put all the information together:

Paul's first visit to Jerusalem is described in Acts 9:26-30 and Galatians 1:18-24. It was three years after his conversion, and he wasn't well-known except as someone who had persecuted Christians. He came from Damascus, and Barnabas introduced him to Peter and James. Two weeks later he left, after an attempt on his life.

Paul's second visit to Jerusalem is in Acts 11 and Galatians 2:1-10. It was “in response to a revelation” (Gal 2:2), which was the prophecy of a famine from Agabus (Acts 11:28). This visit was for the purpose of giving aid to the church in Jerusalem. While Paul was there, he would naturally have a private conversation with the apostles about the fact that lots of Gentiles were becoming Christians in Antioch. They said that it was a good thing and only asked that they kept on remembering the poor, which is a natural thing to say after the Gentile Christians have just helped you get through a famine. The private conversation isn't recorded in Acts, but it makes sense that it would have happened.

Some time after that, Peter visited Antioch. After he came, there were some people who came from the church in Jerusalem, and claimed to speak for James (though didn't actually – hence his need to make that clear in Acts 15:24). They said that the Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised, otherwise Jewish Christians should stop eating with them. This might have been because Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were starting to be persecuted as “not really Jewish” because they ate with Gentiles. Their proposed solution – the Gentiles should be circumcised. Paul strongly objected to this and therefore wrote a letter (Galatians) to the other majority Gentile churches which he'd just planted warning them against the teaching. He then set off with Barnabas to Jerusalem to take the argument up with James, who the circumcision group claimed to be speaking for.

When they got there in Acts 15:4-30 (after Galatians had been written), they found that the circumcisers weren't actually speaking for James at all; James and Peter agreed with Paul that the Gentiles shouldn't be circumcised, and that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat together, but suggested a compromise where the Gentile Christians should choose to limit their freedom by abstaining from eating food sacrificed to idols and blood.

That storyline seems to explain all the data well. It also explains other features of Galatians, such as why it seems to be much more argumentative than the discussion of the same issue in Romans, why it identifies the “circumcision group” with James, and why it doesn't have the teaching on the importance of limiting freedom for the sake of the consciences of Christian brothers and sisters which is so characteristic of how Paul handles difficult issues later on (1 Corinthians 8-10, Romans 14).

Dealing with Discrimination

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
Acts 6:1, ESV

How does the early church deal with discrimination? And what can that teach us today?

1. Discrimination is Inevitable

At this stage in Acts, the early church hasn't done much wrong. They are sharing everything they have with each other; they are growing rapidly; they are taking care of the poor. And yet the perception of discrimination arises. Maybe it's because the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews, probably from outside Israel) didn't speak the language as well as Hebrews (Hebrew-speaking Jews from inside Israel). Maybe it's because the Hebrews knew people better or were pushier because they were in their home town and the Hellenists were visitors. But whatever the reason, the Hellenists felt that they were being discriminated against. No human system is ever good enough to completely remove the perception of discrimination against someone.

2. The Perception of Discrimination is Itself a Problem

According to various bodies, if someone thinks they are being discriminated against, then they are. I used to think that was stupid, but as time has gone on, I've seen the wisdom of it. It is importance not only that justice is done but that justice is seen to be done.

3. Avoiding Discrimination Really Matters

The apostles convene a full meeting of the whole church to discuss the issue (Acts 6:2).

4. Discrimination Shouldn't Stop Preaching

The apostles recognise that the problem of discrimination has the potential to stop the central work of preaching and prayer, so they choose 7 other people to deal with it. That's not to say that discrimination doesn't matter – of course it does. It can even be a central issue – God includes all sorts of people in his kingdom, and the Jerusalem Council was convened to deal with the question of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. But other things matter too, and we should take care that dealing with discrimination doesn't stop us from doing those things.

5. The Victims of Discrimination Should Be Put In Charge of Righting It

The Seven are an interesting group. The dispute, remember, was between Greek-speaking Jews and Hebrew-speaking Jews. And the group appointed to sort it out were: Stephen (Greek name), Philip (could be Hebrew or Greek), and Prochorus (Greek), and Nicanor (Greek), and Timon (Greek), and Parmenas (Greek), and Nicolaus (Greek – and he wasn't even ethnically Jewish). 6 of them were from the group that felt that they were being wronged. And that's important, because putting them in charge removes the perception of discrimination as well. The Greek-speaking Jews can't complain that they're being discriminated against because they are now the ones in charge of food allocation.

6. The Non-Victims Should Be Protected

Of course, in trying to right any discrimination, there's the possibility of overreaction. And so it's important that the apostles protect against this as well. The Seven are described as “seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom”. They weren't going to mistreat the Hebrew widows to try to get revenge or anything like that.

Application

So which groups in the church feel discriminated against? Women in ministry can feel discriminated against. And those who oppose women in ministry certainly do feel discriminated against.

The Biblical solution then is to put those who feel discriminated against in charge of the protection against discrimination. Legislation for women bishops should therefore be drafted and agreed on by two groups – godly, committed women in ministry and godly, committed people who oppose them.

Women in the Early Church

One of the key questions in the whole men/women in leadership debate is the role of women in the early church. Here's a good summary of the role of women in hosting churches in Acts. I suspect if I chased this by examining the role of synagogue hosts and so on, it might come to some interesting conclusions.

That is where they meet, the Upper Room, scene of the Last Supper, scene of the Resurrection appearances when the doors were shut, scene now of their waiting for the Spirit. Whose is it? The clue lies in Acts 12, where St. Peter, strangely freed from Herod's prison, knows at whose house they will be gathered for prayer. He knocks, startles the gate-girl Rhoda. It was "the house of Mary the mother of John whose surname was Mark"-- the young man who was to write the earliest of the gospels. The first meeting place of any Christian congregation was the home of a woman in Jerusalem.

Something of the sort happens everywhere. The church in Caesarea centres upon Philip the Evangelist. "Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." ... Joppa church depends on Tabitha, "a woman full of good works and almsdeeds which she did." Follow St. Paul about the Mediterranean. He crosses to Europe because he dreams of a man from Macedonia who cries, "Come over and help us." But when he lands at Philippi it is not a man, but a woman. "Lydia was baptized and her household"--his first convert in Europe, a woman.

Everywhere women are the most notable of the converts, often the only ones who believe. In Thessalonica there are "of the chief women not a few;" Beroea, "Greek women of honourable estate;" Athens, only two names, one of them, Damaris, a woman. At Corinth Priscilla and Aquila come into the story, the pair always mentioned together, and four times out of the six with the wife's name first, a thing undreamed of in the first century. Why? Because she counted for more in church affairs--hostess of the church in her houses in Corinth, Ephesus and Rome, chief instructress of Apollos the missionary, intimate of the greatest missionary of all, St. Paul. Six times in the Epistles greetings are sent to a house-church, and in five cases the church is linked with a woman's name.

John Foster (1898-1973), Five Minutes a Saint, Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963, p. 39

Hat tip to CQOD

The Council of Jerusalem

I was asked a question today about the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. At the council, leaders of the early Church, including Peter, James, Paul and Barnabas, write a letter to Gentile converts commanding this:

The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from sexual immorality.
Acts 15:28-29

How does this work for Christians? This is my answer.

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was sparked by the situation in Antioch in Acts 15:1-2 (which probably also sparked Paul to write Galatians before going to the council).

Antioch was the first largely Gentile church, but it was also largely Jewish. Before then, Christianity had been almost entirely Jewish. But Antioch was a big city, and the new church there was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles as full and equal members. That caused two big questions.

The first one was the question of whether Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to be Christians. Paul clearly argues not in Galatians.

But the other one was that Jews who hung out with and specifically ate with Gentiles ended up becoming less Jewish. Jews had strict food laws; Gentiles didn't; Jews weren't even meant to eat with Gentiles.

Word of that probably got to Jerusalem, and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem them came under a lot of pressure from other Jews because Christianity was seen to mean becoming less Jewish. But Gentiles were also much more promiscuous than Jews, and people started worrying that the Gentile Christians in Antioch were being sexually immoral, which caused even more problems for the Christians in Jerusalem.

So some Jews from Jerusalem (without the permission of the church leaders Acts 15:24) went to Antioch and tried to solve the problem. They told Gentile Christians that they needed to be circumcised and become Jewish. And they told Jewish Christians that they should stop eating with Gentiles. Paul gets very angry at both of those in Galatians, because they end up being salvation issues.

The Council of Jerusalem solves it differently. They expect the Jews and Gentiles to keep on eating together, and they don't tell the Gentiles to become Jewish. But what they do is they ask all the Christians in Antioch - both Gentiles and Jews to keep some of the basic Jewish food laws. That means the Jewish Christians keep a bit more of their Jewish identity, so it doesn't bother the Jerusalem Jews as much. The Council also tells them to avoid sexual immorality, just to make extra sure and so that it's clear to everyone that whatever is going on in Antioch, if it is getting Jews into eating blood and sexual immorality, it's nothing to do with the Christians in Jerusalem.

It's not compromising on any salvation issue, but it's asking the Gentile Christians in Antioch to hold back on their freedom a bit for the sake of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.

But there's also the tension of Jews in full communion with Gentiles starting to abandon their Jewishness (e.g. eating with Gentiles, even eating non-Kosher food). It makes sense that that could cause Christians in Jerusalem to face accusations of not being really Jewish, and then start to get persecuted. In that situation, it makes perfect sense that you'd get some Christians from Jerusalem going to Antioch to tell the Gentiles to get circumcised and the Jews to stop eating with them. That seems overwhelmingly the most likely background for Galatians. So what does it mean for the Council of Jerusalem? It means the command to abstain from blood and from sexual immorality is a compromise to try to keep the Jews in Jerusalem happier (and reduce the persecution) without compromising on salvation issues. The sexual immorality prohibition may well be addressing unfounded accusations from Jerusalem, and the prohibition from blood stopping the Jews in Antioch from becoming less Jewish, while still allowing them to maintain table fellowship with Gentiles. So it doesn't apply to Christians today in the same way. But it probably would if (for example) I was involved in a church consisting largely of Jewish background believers (or Muslim background believers or whatever) where there were a large number of non-believing Jews / Muslims in the general community. It's pretty similar to Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

'Korean' Prayer

This is about the phenomenon of so-called Korean prayer, which I think is a big and potentially very divisive issue.

What is it?

Basically put, it's everyone praying in their own words out loud at the same time. Sometimes they'll all be praying about the same topic, sometimes it'll be split so some are praying about one thing, some another.

Why 'Korean'?

Allegedly, it started in the Assemblies of God churches in Korea. It certainly wasn't used at the presbyterian service I went to while I was there, so it's probably unfair to tarnish a whole nation because of the practices of one group. Oddly, the Assemblies of God is something I used to be pretty much convinced was some kind of cult, but now lots of people I know seem to think is perfectly respectable...

Why is it controversial?

Charismatic-y types seem to be very keen on it, yet to be completely oblivious to the fact that conservative types find it unhelpful and offensive.

This means that 'Korean' prayer leads to conservatives thinking that charismatics care more about being entertaining than they do about faithfulness to Scripture, which isn't always true by any means (though it may be in this case), and is a very unhealthy thing to think for church unity.

What is the problem with it?

On a practical and personal level, I have to concentrate so hard on not listening to what the person / people next to me are saying that I can't concentrate on saying anything of my own. Sometimes I manage to say the Gloria in Excelsis though...

On a doctrinal level, conservatives tend to argue that it's banned by 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 -

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
1 Corinthians 14:26-33, ESV

Although it doesn't specifically address the practice of 'Korean' prayer, it does say that both speaking in tongues and prophecy should be practiced in an orderly way, with each speaking in turn, and when one person starts speaking, other people should be silent. Furthermore, it argues this from the nature of God, which makes it look awfully like it applies just as much to praying.

So why do charismatics do it?

When I ask charismatics about it, many of them haven't really thought about it. Others argue that 1 Corinthians 14 doesn't apply to praying and that the way that Korean prayer is done is orderly, which looks to me like it ignores Paul's argument from God's character, but seems to satisfy them.

They also cite Acts 4:24

And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said...
Acts 4:24, ESV

I suspect it's also because sometimes it's difficult to concentrate when it's just one person, who isn't me, praying out loud - it's a kind of entertainment thing.

So what do I make of Acts 4:24

• Acts is descriptive, not normative
• Even if this bit is descriptive, the Greek word translated "together", homothumadon, means "with one mind", "with common consent", "together". It doesn't imply them all speaking at the same time.
• Even if they does mean all at the same time, in Acts 4:24, it goes on to say exactly what they said when "lifting their voices together" - that suggests it's more of a liturgical thing than anything else.

Conclusion

I think that 'Korean' prayer probably is wrong to do in church, because it looks like it is prohibited by 1 Corinthians 14, and the arguments for it are pretty rubbish. It is especially inappropriate in a service which is aimed at building bridges between conservatives and charismatics (for example).

However, if a church wants to do it that way, no-one objects, and the leaders involved have thought and prayed through the passages, and come to the honest conclusion that it's ok, I'm not going to object.

Cartoon from Cartoon Church.com

Being Filled with the Holy Spirit, Baptism in the Spirit, etc.

There is a lot said and a lot written about people having the Holy Spirit. I thought it would be worth clarifying what I think to be the fairly clear teaching of the Bible and the testimony of experience. I am writing this partly in reaction to reading Greg Haslam's essay “Be Filled with the Spirit”, which I refer to from time to time, but you don't need to have read it to understand what I'm saying.

One of the problems with incomplete teaching from the Bible is that when we have experiences which do not fit with that incomplete teaching, there is a danger of saying that the teaching we received was incorrect, even though it was actually incomplete. So it is with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

All Christians receive the Holy Spirit

This is very much the “traditional position”. All Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they become Christians.

Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:9-11, ESV

There doesn't seem to be any way to deny this. If we don't have the Holy Spirit, we don't belong to Jesus, and we don't have new life. All Christians receive the Holy Spirit.

But just because we have the Holy Spirit, that does not mean that we have the fullness of experience of the Holy Spirit.

And if someone asks “Surely we got it all automatically when we believed?” Dr Lloyd-Jones replied “If you have got it all, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians? Got it all? Got it all at your conversion? Well, where is it, I ask?”

Filled with the Holy Spirit by Greg Haslam in Preach the Word

This having the Holy Spirit but not having a full experience of the Holy Spirit is commonly misinterpreted by Pentecostals as not having the Holy Spirit at all. But as we have seen, all Christians must be indwelt by the Spirit, otherwise they are not Christians. So what more is there?

Some Christians are sometimes filled with the Holy Spirit

It's important when we're talking about these things to use the same language as our translations of the Bible use. That is because otherwise we'll end up talking a different language to the Bible, and we'll misunderstand it.

The Bible does talk about a second-level experience of the Holy Spirit, called in most modern English translations “being filled with the Spirit”.

Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn't always obvious. Being filled with the Holy Spirit generally is, as a quick look through the New Testament shows.

Being filled with the Spirit is mentioned 10 times in the New Testament, 9 of them by Luke. In Luke 1, John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit even in the womb as part of his job of proclaiming Jesus. His parents, Elizabeth and Zechariah, are both filled with the Spirit and the result is that they praise God for what he is doing in Jesus. In Acts 2, the apostles are filled with the Holy Spirit, and speak in tongues, then preach about Jesus. In Acts 4, Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit and preaches, then later all the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit and preach. In Acts 9, Saul/Paul is filled with the Holy Spirit, his blindness is healed and immediately he begins preaching. In Acts 13, he is filled with the Spirit again, and confronts the false prophet Elymas. Again in Acts 13, the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit as they rejoice despite persecution. And in Ephesians 5:18, we are commanded to “be filled with the Holy Spirit”, which is a continuous imperative - “go on being filled in the Holy Spirit”. The consequences of being filled with the Spirit in Ephesians 5:18 are “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph 5:19-21, ESV)

From that, there are a few points we can make about being filled with the Holy Spirit.

• It is a repeatable experience – Peter and Paul are both recorded as being filled with the Spirit on separate occasions.
• It therefore follows that it is not a permanent state, which is also implied by the command to go on being filled with the Spirit.
• It leads to some kind of verbal proclamation, whether preaching, rejoicing, tongues or (in the case of Paul v Elymas) powerful cursing
• It can happen either at the first reception of the Holy Spirit (e.g. Acts 2, 9) or subsequently (e.g. Acts 4, 13)

I strongly suspect that the programmatic reference for being filled with the Spirit is Micah 3:8

But as for me, I am filled with power,
with the Spirit of the LORD,
and with justice and might,
to declare to Jacob his transgression
and to Israel his sin.
Micah 3:8, ESV

Being filled with the Spirit is about being empowered to proclaim God's word.

Because being filled with the Spirit is much more obvious than just receiving the Spirit, it also seems to happen when some kind of external evidence that the Holy Spirit has come is needed. The classic example of this is in Acts 10-11, with the first Gentile converts. Peter is preaching at the house of a Roman centurion called Cornelius (though he has to be told specifically in a vision to go there), and Cornelius and co start “speaking in tongues and extolling God”, which is classic Acts behaviour for being filled with the Spirit. Peter sees this as evidence that they have received the Spirit, and hence that Gentiles can become Christians too, which seems to come as a surprise both to him and to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:18).

Reflecting on my own experience, it seems to me that my conservative background often but not always tends to downplay being filled with the Spirit, and play up receiving the Spirit. It wouldn't at all surprise me if that sort of emphasis was what led to the heresy which observed people being filled with the Spirit and concluded that they were receiving it for the first time.

One of the mistakes which most annoys me at times is in the language we use when talking about being filled with the Holy Spirit. It is not a case of us having more of the Spirit. The Spirit is not a liquid of whom we can receive more. The Spirit is a person. Being filled with the Spirit is not us having more of the Spirit, but the Spirit having more of us. It is being surrendered to the Spirit, so that we are not actively opposing what the Spirit is seeking to do in us.

Baptism in the Spirit

The other phrase used a fair bit in the Bible, is “baptism in the Holy Spirit”. In charismatic circles, I usually hear this used either (heretically) as referring to a reception of the Holy Spirit after conversion or as a synonym for being filled with the Spirit (so Greg Haslam). In conservative circles, I usually hear it as referring to initial reception of the Spirit.

Most of the New Testament references are unclear as to which they refer to. Jesus is said to baptise with the Holy Spirit. which is symbolised by the Holy Spirit visibly descending on him at his baptism. Pentecost is described as being baptism with the Holy Spirit, but as we have seen, Pentecost is both receiving the Spirit and being filled with the Spirit. Ditto with Cornelius receiving the Spirit in Acts 10-11.

But Paul helps us out. In 1 Corinthians 12, he wrote:

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13, ESV

We were all baptised in one Spirit into one body. That makes it pretty clear it's something which affects all Christians and so is to do with reception of the Holy Spirit rather than filling with the Holy Spirit.

Phew.