Everybody was filled with the Holy Spirit
 |
| Icon of the Pentecost (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
What Jesus promised as a baptism is pictured here as a filling, that is, a full, satisfying experience. Some try to make a distinction between being baptized in the Holy Spirit and being filled. Actually, the Bible uses a variety of terms. It was also a pouring out of the Spirit as Joel prophesied (Acts 2:17–18, 33); a receiving (and active taking) of a gift (Acts 2:38); a falling upon (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15); a pouring out of the gift (Acts 10:45); and a coming upon. With this variety of terms it is impossible to suppose that the baptism is any different from the filling.
Remember, too, that since the Holy Spirit is a Person, we are talking about an experience that brings a relationship. Each term brings out some aspect of the Pentecostal experience, and no one term can bring out all the aspects of that experience.
It is clear also, since they were all together and in one accord, that when Acts 2:4 says, “all of them were filled,” the entire 120 is meant. Some writers suppose that only the 12 apostles were filled. However, more than twelve languages were spoken. Moreover, Peter, speaking in the gift of prophecy, quotes Joel, who wrote of sons and daughters prophesying (v. 17; see Joel 2:28). Later, when Peter spoke before a large group in Jerusalem, he said, “ ‘God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them [the Gentiles] by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us’ ” (Acts 15:8). This suggests that the Spirit fell in the same way not only on the 12 but also on the 120 and also on the 3000 who believed on the Day of Pentecost. Clearly, the experience was and is for all. This, however, was a New Testament experience. In the Old Testament, only selected individuals were filled.
As soon as they were filled, the 120 began to speak (and continued speaking) in other tongues (languages). This also was a new thing. Speaking in tongues (Gk. glōssais lalein, which gives us the term “glossolalia”) “was entirely unknown in Judaism, and its appearance would be regarded as a remarkable novum marking an equally remarkable new phase in God’s dealings with His people.” “Began” is significant. It shows, as in Acts 1:1, that what was begun was to continue. This indicates that speaking in other tongues was th
 |
| Pentecostés. Óleo sobre lienzo, 275 × 127 cm. Madrid, Museo del Prado. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
This speaking came “as the Spirit enabled them” (Gk. edidou apophthengesthai autois, “proceeded to give and kept on giving them to speak out loudly and boldly”). That is, they used their tongues, their muscles; they spoke. However, the words did not come from their own minds or thinking. The Spirit gave them what to speak—and they expressed it boldly, loudly, and with obvious anointing and power. This was the one sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit that was repeated.
Some writers call these tongues “ecstatic” utterance. “Ecstatic,” as the word is used today, implies a state beyond both reason and self-control. It also suggests a trance, or mystic state, that makes it nearly impossible for one to move. This sort of ecstatic state or trance was common among the pagans, but “ecstatic” is really an improper term and does not apply either here or in other passages where speaking in tongues is mentioned. There is no evidence that any believer spoke as if forced to do so. They retained their senses and spoke in willing cooperation with the Holy Spirit.
With this in mind we must also recognize that the tongues here and the tongues in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 are the same. Tongues at Pentecost were a sign to unbelievers. God used them to draw a crowd as well as to edify the believers. But when they continued speaking in tongues, the crowd said of them that they were drunk. This corresponds to what 1 Corinthians 14:23 says about uninterpreted tongues. We should also note that there are about four thousand languages now and many more existed in the past (cf. 1 Cor. 14:10). But in a local church, as at Corinth, there are not likely to be many foreigners present. Therefore, the messages in tongues need interpretation (1 Cor. 14:6–13). The fact that they can be interpreted shows also that the speaking in tongues is real language, not gibberish.
