Ananias, Saul And Spiritual Gifts
In another place in this issue of the Gospel Guardian will be found an article by Brother C. L. Howard. Brother Howard takes exception to some things in an article written by me which appeared in Gospel Guardian of June 18, 1953. I suggest a careful re-reading of that article.
Brother Howard contends in his article that the power to confer "spiritual gifts" was not limited to the apostles of Christ. He thinks he has found an example to sustain his contention in the case of Ananias being sent by the Lord to Saul, that Saul might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
The first quotation of mine which the brother introduces and criticizes is the statement that, "no instance can be found where any one other than an apostle possessed the power to impart these spiritual gifts. Ananias was not an apostle, hence did not have such power. He did not lay his hands on Saul to impart some spiritual gift or to baptize Saul with the Spirit." Brother Howard suggests that "lets see what the record says." The part of the record to which he appeals, is Christ's statement that "all authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." (Matt.28:18) He then raises the question, "could he or did he delegate some of his power to Ananias?" If the brother is trying to imply that Christ delegated to Ananias the power to baptize in the Holy Spirit, or to impart some "spiritual gift then I reply that such an idea is not remotely suggested in "the record." Certainly, Christ told Ananias that Saul was a chosen vessel but this still does not even hint at such an idea that Christ delegated authority to Ananias to impart Holy Spirit baptism or a "spiritual gift" by the laying on of his hands.
Our brother shifts his ground in this same paragraph when he says, "since our brother's contention calls for no less personage than an apostle I think he can be appeased in this idea also." If that idea is not a scriptural idea and his whole contention is that it isn't, then he had better refrain from his attempts at appeasement. We should never attempt to appease an unscriptural idea. Continuing the quotation our brother writes, 'since the word 'apostle' comes from a Greek word meaning — one sent — apostolos-- we have in Ananias one called and sent by the King of Kings — a super — apostle if you please." No Ananias was not a super apostle. Webster defines super as "over, above." The apostles had no one over or above them on earth. I have no disposition to deny that Ananias did exactly what he was sent to do. But to claim that he imparted to Saul some "spiritual gift," such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc., or that he baptized Saul in the Holy Spirit, is to attempt to read something into the text which isn't there.
Brother McGarvey's comments on this passage are so clear and true to the word that I introduce them here. "The statement of Ananias, that he had been sent that Saul might 'be filled with the Holy Spirit,' is commonly interpreted as implying that the Holy Spirit was to be imparted by imposition of hands. But we have seen already that when the Samaritan converts of Philip were to receive the miraculous gift of the Spirit, two apostles were sent to them for the purpose of imparting it, from which we inferred that Philip had not this power. This makes us slow to believe that the power was given to Ananias; yet we would be shut up to this conclusion if there were no alternative. There is, however, an alternative which makes this conclusion not only unnecessary, but high improbable. We have learned, from Peter's first discourse, that all who repented and were baptized received the Holy Spirit; and it follows that Saul received the Spirit when Ananias baptized him. This made his reception of the Holy Spirit dependent on the coming of Ananias, and it sufficiently accounts for the words of the latter, without resorting to the improbable supposition that he was empowered to do that which none but apostles could ordinarily do."
My statement in the former article that "This being filled with the Holy Spirit was affected by Christ baptizing them in the Holy Spirit" is denied by the brother. He asserts that, "This gift took place on the first resurrection day, fifty days before they were baptized with the Holy Spirit." The use made of the expression in Acts 2:4 was the point under consideration, hence I am unable to see why the brother left the text which used the expression "filled with the Holy Spirit." An examination of the context will show that the apostles were "filled with the Holy Spirit" on the day of Pentecost and not "fifty days before they were baptized with the Holy Spirit." Notice Acts 2:2-4, "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Now when did the "sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind" fill the house where the apostles were sitting? I suppose all will answer Pentecost. Well, when did the "tongues parting asunder like as of fire appear"? Again I suppose all agree that this too occurred on Pentecost. How then can my brother seize the next statement, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" and rush to John's record of Christ's giving the commission to the apostles to try to prove that I was wrong. Does he think that the clause "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" was not describing what happened on Pentecost? I was commenting on the use of the expression "filled with the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:4.
The effort at making a distinction between "power" and "authority" seems arbitrary to me. When they received authority as apostles, they received power.
In paragraph 5 of his article Brother Howard gives this quotation from my article, "Regardless of what is embraced in the clause 'filled with the Holy Spirit,' whether it is the ordinary gift promised to all who repent and are baptized (Acts 2:38) or the reception of the power as an apostle of Christ (Acts 1:8), it must be preceded by obedience." He comments on this by asserting, "this assertion, if true, makes void Acts 10:44-47." Now I believe we can best get at this by two simple questions. 1) Did Cornelius receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' of Acts 2:38 before he was baptized in water?? 2) Did Cornelius and his household receive power as an apostle when the Holy Spirit "fell on them"? (Acts 11:15) If the answer to these questions is no, then my "assertion" does not make void Acts 10:44-47.
Let us just stay with what is revealed with reference to this case. The design of the Holy Spirit's falling on Cornelius is revealed to us in what it accomplished and in the use made of it by an apostle of the Lord. Hear the apostle on this point. "If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God, saying, then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:17,18) Here Peter uses this to convince the Jewish brethren that the Gentiles were accepted of God. Again Peter stated, "And God, who knoweth the heart, bore them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their heart by faith." (Acts 15:8,9) Here again Peter states that this "giving them the Holy Spirit" at the house of Cornelius was God's way of bearing witness to the acceptableness of the Gentiles.
The last sentence of the brother's article dethrones the apostles for all who accept his statement. Notice what the brother says in commenting on Cornelius and his household. "He gave them the 'like gift' or the 'same gift' that enabled them to do the same things that Peter did — Peter himself being witness." A few questions brother. If this reception of the Holy Spirit enabled Cornelius "to do the same things that Peter did," what was the need to send for Peter in the first place? When Peter and the other apostles were all "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4) they were inspired, guided by the Spirit into all the truth. (John 16:13,14) Did God give unto Cornelius the 'like gift' to guide him into all the truth? If so, Cornelius was inspired just as Peter, he could "do the same things Peter did." I doubt that Brother Howard still will contend for this.