JOEL 2:28-32; cf. Acts 2

(Please have with you a Bible as you read this post.)

1) .THE FULFILLMENT OF JOEL’S PROPHECY IS SPECIFIED by Peter’s statement: “This is that” (Acts 2;16). That fulfillment however may not be considered exhaustive enough. We look at Pentecost as the beginning. As we read further we find the Holy Spirit conferred on the Samaritans, on Paul, on the household of Cornelius and others.

2) “THIS IS THAT” IS UNDERSTOOD by some as referring to the outpouring of the Spirit. And yet they admit that what the apostles experienced was “baptism.” It was outpouring and yet it was baptism? This creates some lexical anomaly of sorts, for we know from the lexicon that POURING (EKCHEO) does not mean BAPTISM (BAPTIDZO). Do not then insist that it is. The lexicons are there for a reason. It is not there to help us defy logic and reason; it is there to help us understand. Lexicographers beginning from Thayer, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker to a host of others have always been consistent in defining both EKCHEO and BAPTIDZO. To these people—lexicographers– these are not the same animal . Therefore you should be consistent too.

Should you insist that pouring also means baptism, you are simply saying that the denominations have been right all along! They pour water on babies and call it baptism!

3) IT IS CALLED OUTPOURING BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS HEAVEN. It is from God himself. It is God’s Spirit himself. God himself said I would pour it out. In relation to heaven, the earth is below. Therefore the word pour is consistent with logic and position and physics. The outpouring was God’s manner of sending His Spirit to men and women on earth.

4) THE MANNER OF RECEIVING THAT SPIRIT VARIED FROM ONE RECIPIENT TO ANOTHER. The apostles received it as baptism, the Samaritans received it through the laying of the apostles’ hands. In the case of the household of Cornelius, the Spirit is said to have fallen on them. In the case of the apostle Paul an ordinary disciple whom the Lord sent conferred that Spirit directly on him.

5) The POURING OUT WAS TO HAPPEN in these last days. The phrase simply refers to a specific period of time. If you think that the phrase includes our present time, the 21st century, the burden of proof lies on you. I am sure that you will have a difficulty proving that, unless you do some scripture twisting and invent some reason to justify that interpretation.

6) Methinks THE VERB “I WILL POUR OUT” DOES NOT MEAN A CONTINUOUS OUTPOURING. Why? Because the meaning and implication of the future simple tense does not demand it. Future simple in the Greek has the same sense as the aorist tense. Both speak of one time action, and never repeatable!

If you insist on your continuous-outpouring-as-baptism interpretation, let me tell it straight to your face: Grammar and lexicons are not on your side; it is on our side!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: