Baptized in and Filled with the Spirit: What Did Luke Mean?

A Theological Examination, By David Kowalski

Why I wrote this article

Many years ago, I wearied of hearing some words regarding spiritual experience mistakenly used in the Church, including my own denomination. I consider the confusing misuse of terms discussed below regarding “baptized” and “filled” with the Spirit to be theological malapropisms (mistakenly using one word when another is intended). Yogi Berra was famous for his humorous malapropisms, such as, “It ain't the heat, it’s the humility,” “He hits from both sides of the plate. He’s amphibious,” and “Pair up in threes.” While theological malapropisms do not necessarily cause poor doctrine, they often create confusion or misunderstanding.

As a result of my frustration, I spent much time studying the proper use of “baptized,” “filled,” and other terms related to our experience with the Holy Spirit. In the article below, I believe I have conclusively proven my perspective, even though I still have respected friends who differ. I will let readers decide this issue for themselves.

Introduction: Using biblical words does not necessarily mean we are expressing biblical meanings

Using biblical words does not necessarily mean we are expressing biblical meanings. We must always be careful to be faithful to the original intent of any documents, which is especially important when we seek to understand and teach the Word of God. The following article was written primarily (though not exclusively since other terms are considered) to arbitrate between two competing treatments of biblical terminology regarding the terms “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and “filled with the Holy Spirit.” The author is a Pentecostal in theology and experience but is not necessarily bound by traditional/synonymous Pentecostal terminology.

We will refer to the competing semantic treatments as the traditional/synonymousandstandard/distinctviews. The traditional/synonymousone (generally, though far from exclusively, adopted by Pentecostals and Charismatics) is that the two terms are synonymous. Thus, the traditional/synonymous view claims that when we say someone has been “filled with the Spirit,” we mean precisely the same thing as if we had said they had been “baptized in the Holy Spirit.”

However, the standard/distinct view sees the terms as distinct, with the baptism in the Spirit being durative, a single, non-repeatable, impartation with lasting ramifications. This view sees the experience of being filled with the Spirit as iterative or repeatable, asserting there is one baptism of the Spirit and many fillings with the Spirit. To illustrate, the installation of a well would be durative since the well is dug only once, and it does not need to be installed repeatedly, although the well would have long-lasting implications or benefits. One’s drawing from that well, however, would be iterative (repeatable) since it would be a repeated action over many occasions. Craig Keener reflects on how Luke expresses this idea in Acts:

The significance of the terminology under consideration admittedly does not determine theology proper but hermeneutics (proper interpretation). Hermeneutics should not be treated lightly, though, since accurate principles of biblical interpretation are crucial in guiding us to understand, apply, put our hope in, and obey the Bible’s teachings.

Luke uses these terms “baptized” and “filled” in Luke and Acts, so interpreters must seek to determine his intent in this usage. We must first determine if Luke meant to impart specific and distinct meanings to the terms he uses for experience with the Holy Spirit. We can then seek to understand those intended meanings.

Is Luke a Theologian?

First and foremost, interpreters must decide if Luke is merely a narrator in Luke-Acts, telling a story, or if he was also inspired to convey theology through his written narratives. The role of Luke as a theologian, not only a narrator, has been controversial within Evangelicalism. I. Howard Marshall’s insistence on this theological role for Luke [mfn]I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), 21-52.[/mfn] has been quoted with approval by Pentecostals and Charismatics, most of whom have hailed Roger Stronstad’s work on the subject. [mfn]Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke  (Peabody, MA, 1984).[/mfn] Unless scholars acknowledge this role of Luke as theologian, much theology of spiritual experience is left without an adequate foundation in Scripture. This view of Luke as a theologian can only be maintained and his theology understood if definite, specific meanings are assigned to the terms he uses. This article will briefly examine the meaning of Luke's nine terms to denote differing aspects of the believer’s experience with the Holy Spirit.

An impressive degree of precision can be found through this effort. We cannot escape the need and the search for linguistic precision by pointing to the fact that every word has a range of meanings. In the phrase “the rookie is green,” “green” has a different meaning than it does in “the plant is green.” Nevertheless, context and usage generally make clear which meaning is intended. Though any word has a semantic range of meaning, this does not mean that word meanings are arbitrary.

While we must be careful not to assign a word a more precise meaning than an author intends, we must not refrain from assigning a particular meaning when context and usage demand it. When a word is used the same way in several similar contexts, we must have extraordinary reasons to believe it does not mean the same thing each time. In “the top of the plant is green, the middle of the plant is green, and the bottom of the plant is green,” “green” means precisely the same thing each time, and we can be sure of this despite the semantic range available to the word. We can also be sure that a word does not have a unique meaning in a given context where it usually means something else unless there are extraordinary reasons for believing it does. Thus, if in “the middle of the plant is green,” we would suggest that “green” means “a bush,” we would need specific proof to invest “green” with this meaning, which is foreign to the context. Although bushes are usually green (and the two terms are therefore related in their applications), the words “green” and “bush” are not synonymous. These principles are quite basic to linguistics, but they must be pointed out here because they have sometimes been ignored by interpreters of Luke who have seemingly been imprudent in their study of his writings.

An inductive study of Lucan vocabulary reveals that he is a skilled wordsmith. John Polhill notes that “Luke was a skilled writer. He wrote in fluent Hellenistic Greek with a vocabulary that rivals that of the Greek historians. He knew how to adapt his wording.” [mfn]John B. Polhill, "Interpreting the Book of Acts in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers), 398.[/mfn] We are consequently quite able to say that Luke means one thing or another in his word choices. Without this certainty, we would be left only with traditions and subjective impressions to inform our interpretive presuppositions, and we would have no real way to contend that our presuppositions are more legitimate than those of others who arrive at different conclusions.

We can see this theological significance in Luke-Acts more clearly if we compare Luke’s role as theologian to Paul’s. We view Paul’s writings as authoritative for doctrine because we believe he uses his theological terms precisely and consistently. Most Protestants, for example, reject any tendency to blur the distinction between justification and sanctification. However, they would have no grounds for doing so if they believed Paul used these terms with fluid meaning even within similar theological contexts, and that “justified” could sometimes be synonymous with “sanctified.” We would have to establish our soteriology outside of the Pauline corpus. Likewise, if we cannot find reasonable precision and consistency in Luke’s vocabulary, we must establish some doctrinal distinctives outside the Lucan corpus, which no Pentecostal or Charismatic theologian would want to attempt.

As mentioned above, an axiom of linguistics is that usage determines meaning, and we will find the meanings of Lucan terms by examining his usage in context and any usage that may have influenced him. As we do so, we will find that the Lucan corpus, the Bible as a whole, and pertinent lexical data provide us with enough material to understand Luke’s word meanings, and thus his theological intent, quite precisely.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Equivalent Terms

Although Luke only uses the term “baptism in the Holy Spirit” three times, it is the most carefully explained of his terms for spiritual experience, and is so well defined that we may use it as a controlling term. Since we can know precisely what it means, we can subsequently compare other terms to it to determine their meaning. Luke’s first use of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is found in Luke 3:16:

John had been preaching in “all the district around the Jordan” (Lk 3:3), and Matthew 3:6 tells us that John was baptizing in the Jordan River.

This baptism by John was a picture of what Jesus would do for his disciples. As John immersed people in the flow of the Jordan River, Jesus would immerse his disciples in the mighty flow of the Holy Spirit. Jesus refers to John’s prophecy in Acts 1:5-8, saying this baptism in the Spirit was “what the Father had promised.”

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would “come upon” the disciples, and as a consequence of this event, they would “receive power” and become witnesses to the world.

This is what Jesus spoke of in Luke 24:49 as he told the disciples, ‘And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.’ This “clothing” as the Holy Spirit “comes upon” the disciples differs from the indwelling of the Spirit they received in the new birth described in John 20:22, when Jesus breathed the breath of spiritual life into them, giving them new life within.

The prophecy of Jesus (and John) regarding a baptism in the Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and is described by Luke in Acts 2:1-4:

Verses three and four of this passage have a parallel structure. There are four short statements that all begin with the Greek word kai. The first two are purely descriptive, picturing the spiritual reality experienced by the disciples (we examine the other two below). Most scholars believe this description echoes the description of Jesus’ baptism, and they see Jesus' experience as paradigmatic (a pattern) for believers.

French Arrington says, “The disciples’ experience at Pentecost corresponds to the experience of Jesus at the Jordan.” [mfn]French Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 19.[/mfn] Audible and visible signs accompanied Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:21-22 as the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove and the Father spoke from heaven. On the day of Pentecost, there were audible and visible signs, such as a noise like a violent rushing wind coming from heaven, and tongues of fire resting upon each of the disciples.

Most commentators have seen the tongues of fire resting upon the disciples as representing or portraying the Holy Spirit “coming upon” the disciples, clothing them with power. In other words, it is a pictorial description of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Fire is a frequently used picture representing the presence of God in the Old Testament, and it was surely understood this way by the disciples on the day of Pentecost.

The Spirit descends upon Jesus at his baptism, but not until Luke 4:18 does Luke’s gospel give terms to use for the event pictorially described in 3:21-22. In this passage, reading from the scroll of Isaiah, Jesus applies to himself the words “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me” and “He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.” The Holy Spirit “came upon” Jesus and “anointed” him in the same way the Spirit would come upon and anoint the disciples at Pentecost. F. F. Bruce observes, "As Jesus Himself had been anointed at His baptism with the Holy Spirit and power, so His followers were now to be similarly anointed and enabled to carry on His work.” [mfn]F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), 38-39.[/mfn]

In Acts 2:38, we are given another term equivalent to “baptism in the Holy Spirit” as Peter refers to the Pentecostal blessing as “the gift of the Spirit.” By the end of Acts 2, we have been supplied with a group of terms that all signify in some way the baptism in the Holy Spirit: “baptized,” “clothed,” “come upon,” “gift,” “promise,” “receive,” and “anointed.” This list is reinforced throughout Acts. Peter equates “baptized with the Holy Spirit” with “fell upon” and “gift” in Acts 11:15-17 as he speaks of the Spirit baptism of the Gentiles in Caesarea:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as He also gave to us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

“Upon,” either in “come upon” or “fell upon,” is the most frequently used term to describe the controlling term of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” in Luke-Acts, being used eight times (if we include LK 24:49). [mfn]In an appendix is a chart of the uses of the terms examined in this paper.[/mfn]

Though all seven of these equivalent terms speak of the same thing, they have different connotations. “Promise” and “gift” emphasize the divine side of the experience, while “receive” emphasizes the human side. “Baptize,” “clothe,” and “anoint” are more holistic terms. There are other terms we may be tempted to say are used as equivalents to “the baptism in the Spirit,” but which warrant closer inspection before we presume to do so.

Intersecting Terms

“Poured Out”

“Poured out” is used in Luke-Acts only three times in connection with the Pentecostal experience, but it is a significant term. Two of these uses are in Acts chapter. As Peter begins to address the crowd that has assembled in response to the sound they had heard, he tells his hearers in Acts 2:16-21 that what they have seen and heard is a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, which declares God will “pour out” His Spirit “on all mankind,” “even on the male and female servants.” In Acts 2:33, Peter proclaims that this outpouring has occurred, as he says, “Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.” The third use of “poured out” is found in Acts 10:44-47:

The terms “fell upon,” “gift,” and “received” would, by themselves, tell us that these new disciples with Cornelius had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, but the matter is left without any doubt when we discover they have spoken in tongues.

Clearly, “poured out” is associated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Before we decide it is entirely synonymous with the Holy Spirit baptism, we must consider one possibility that would give the word a different semantic range than our controlling term of Holy Spirit baptism. Joel’s prophecy refers to the eschatological hope of Israel, which is that there would come a “day” (era) in which the Spirit of God would be poured out on his people abundantly. Peter tells the assembled crowd that the day has come.

The era of the Spirit’s outpouring is here. Significantly, in Acts 10:45, the circumcised disciples were amazed that “the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.” The source of amazement was not so much that these men were receiving a spiritual experience at that moment. Instead, they were expressing amazement that the outpouring that had been given at Pentecost was as available to Gentiles as it was to Jews, indicating a new covenant was in effect.

We are only given these two references to “outpouring” in Luke-Acts, and it seems most plausible that the term refers to the age-long outpouring given in fulfillment of the eschatological hope Joel prophesied. It is noteworthy that Paul, in Acts 19, asked the disciples in Ephesus if they had received the Holy Spirit since they had believed. Paul did not ask these disciples if the Spirit had been poured out upon them, for he knew the Spirit had been “poured out” at Pentecost upon Jews and Gentiles alike. The only question left was whether one had received that outpoured Spirit. Because we live in the era of the outpouring, people may receive the Spirit. “Poured out” refers to something unique that began on the Day of Pentecost but has lasting implications.

To illustrate, let us suppose a small community has had to wait a long time for a bank to open in their town. They rejoice when the bank finally opens, because they can then open accounts. Many people open accounts on the day of the bank’s grand opening, but this is not the last day that accounts will be opened. Because the townspeople live in the era of the open bank, anyone can open accounts on any given business day.

The townspeople may be surprised to learn that the bank was also opened for the benefit of the town's poor people. The first time they see these “lower class” people opening accounts at the bank, they may declare with amazement, “Look, the bank has also been opened for the poor.” Though new accounts may be opened at the bank regularly, there would still have been something unique with lasting implications about the grand opening. To see the “outpouring” as the spiritual equivalent of the “grand opening” of Pentecost fits quite well with the contexts and usage we find in Acts.

However, recognizing this likely limitation of the meaning of “poured out” does not change our theology. Doctrines such as subsequence (the baptism in the Holy Spirit is distinct from and subsequent to (in experience though not necessarily in time) the new birth (as mentioned above) and initial evidence (this Spirit baptism results in speaking in tongues) remain intact without considering this term synonymous with Holy Spirit baptism. “Poured out” intersects conceptually with “baptism in the Holy Spirit” but is not necessarily equivalent to it.

“Filled,” “Full”

“Filled with the Spirit” and “full of the Spirit” have traditionally been used by Pentecostals and Charismatics as semantically equal to “baptism (or baptized) in the Holy Spirit.” Many classic Pentecostal works use “filled” in this way, and visiting the websites of Pentecostal denominations reveals that this usage is still widespread. This Pentecostal usage has also passed into common usage in many Charismatic circles. Despite this tradition and its enduring popularity, there is nothing dangerous or heretical in reexamining Luke’s use of the term to ensure we are using it in harmony with his intent. As with our examination of “poured out,” we do not necessarily question any Pentecostal or Charismatic doctrines when we question the particular usage of “filled.” The doctrines of subsequence, initial evidence, and perpetuity of the gifts can all remain entirely unaffected by this examination.

Norbert Baumert, writing in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology, notes that Pentecostals and Charismatics have inherited much of their terminology from “movements of awakening in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries” and that we have never really freed ourselves from our historical baggage, causing us to be less than accurate in our use of Bible words [mfn]Norbert Baumbert, “‘Charism’ and ‘Spirit Baptism’: Presentation of an Analysis,” in Journal of Pentecostal Theology 12.2 (2004), 148. [/mfn]

We can also observe that the Holiness and Keswick movements of the nineteenth century have heavily influenced Pentecostal and Charismatic terminology. William and Robert Menzies state, "Pentecostals cannot continue to rely on the interpretative methods of the nineteenth-century Holiness movement and expect to speak to the contemporary Evangelical world.” [mfn]William W. Menzies and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 50.[/mfn] We should use inductive hermeneutics rather than inherited tradition to understand our word meanings.

Although Luke uses the phrases “filled with the Spirit” and “full of the Spirit” twelve times, we will limit our examination to the eleven times he uses the Greek verb pimplemi. [mfn]Luke also uses pleroo in Acts 13:52 to speak of the disciples’ being full of the Spirit.[/mfn] In many ways, the Greek usage of pimplemi parallels our modern use of “fill.” It was most often used to describe a tangible external filling of one thing with something else. It frequently meant abundance or large numbers. It was also used, however, in relation to intangibles, referring many times to a person’s inner state. One could be “filled” with enthusiasm, for example. Psalm 71:7 in the LXX (Septuagint) uses pimplemi to speak of being filled with peace, and Psalm 93:19 in the LXX uses it to speak of fullness of grief in the heart. Standard lexicons [mfn]Walter Bauer et al. eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 658. Also see Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1985), 840-841. As well as J. H. Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1983), 509.[/mfn] and W. E. Vine’s, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, [mfn]W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1952), 427.[/mfn] point out that this word is often used to describe inward satiation and various kinds of emotional excitements.

The phrases “filled with the Spirit” and “full of the Spirit” are unique to the New Testament. Although many Old Testament figures had powerful encounters with the Spirit of God, they were not referred to in these words. [mfn]The term “baptized in the Spirit” is not used in the Old Testament either.[/mfn] Of the eleven times Luke speaks of filling with or fullness of the Spirit, nine have undisputed meanings, and we will examine these nine first.

Luke

1:15 "’For he [John the Baptist] will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filledwith the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.’”

1:41 “When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

4:1 “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness.”

Acts

4:8 “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, ‘Rulers and elders of the people,”

4:31 “ And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.”

6:5 “The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.”

7:55 “But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;”

13:9 “But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him,”

It is worth noting that the above represents nine of the eleven uses of the term in question, and commentators construe none of these to refer to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The reference in Luke 1:15 to John the Baptist’s being “filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb” may seem puzzling, but Ray Summers captures the intent succinctly:

After a careful study of the lexical data and the usage in the nine texts quoted above, we can safely say that in the believer’s life, the general meaning of “filled with the Spirit” and “full of the Spirit” is an inward state of inspiration and spiritual blessing that usually prompts the one so affected to speak or act in an inspired way. While earlier authors would have referred to this as “the unction,” modern Pentecostals or Charismatics might say they mean “anointed” and “blessed” at such times.

Having established the consistent meaning of “filled with the Spirit” and “full of the Spirit,” let us examine the two disputed passages. First, we will look at Acts 9:17:

Examining the context in which Ananias spoke these words will be helpful. The Lord had appeared to him in a vision, telling him to go and pray for Saul of Tarsus. When Ananias objects to this based on Saul’s reputation as a persecutor, The Lord says to Ananias in 9:15-16, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer in behalf of My name.”

Thus, Ananias has Saul’s entire ministry in mind as he prays for him. Certainly, baptism in the Holy Spirit would be a necessary part of a Spirit-filled ministry, and Paul was undoubtedly baptized in the Holy Spirit, but Ananias spoke from a broader context. His prophecy is reminiscent of the one Gabriel gave to Zechariah, which said that John the Baptist would be “filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.”

Rather than speaking with a specific theological designation for a particular experience, both prophecies were delivered with the entire scope of the referents’ ministry in mind. They would be men of the Spirit, mightily used of God. As Stephen’s designation as a man “full of the Spirit” indicated he was characterized by habitual inspiration from and ministry through the Holy Spirit, Ananias’ prayer indicated Paul would be a man characterized by Spirit-led and inspired ministry.

The most debatable use of “filled with the Spirit” in Luke-Acts is found in the Day of Pentecost account in Acts 2:3-4:

The traditional/synonymous Pentecostal view is that Luke momentarily changes his meaning of “filled with the Spirit” in the passage to mean something entirely synonymous with “baptized in the Spirit.” Other scholars contend for thestandard/distinct viewthat Luke means what he usually means by “filled with the Spirit” here and that this ordinary meaning fits in the passage well. After looking at an explanation of and argument for the traditional/synonymous view, we will examine an explanation of and arguments for the standard/distinct view.

Although some Pentecostal and Charismatic authors have seen at least a nuance of difference between “filled” and “baptized,” even in Acts 2:4,17 [mfn]See, for example, Ralph Riggs, The Spirit Himself, (Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1949), 69-70.[/mfn] there has been a tendency among them to use the terms “filled with the Spirit” and “baptized in the Spirit” interchangeably, suggesting that in Acts 2:4 Luke uses “filled with the Spirit” as another way of saying “baptized in the Spirit.” This interpretation is not peculiar to Pentecostals, however. Many classic non-Pentecostal commentaries on Acts claim Luke uses “filled” as a synonym for “baptized” in Acts 2:4.

It seems that the main reason this belief appeals to some commentators is that “filled” is the term used nearest to the description of the Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2:3. Immediately after the Holy Spirit baptism is described, the disciples are said to be filled with the Spirit. This proximity of “filled” to the pictorial representation is an argument in favor of this interpretation, and unless there are sound arguments to be made against this traditional/synonymous view, it must at least be seen as a credible alternative.

There are, however, many arguments that may be raised in opposition to this view. First is the argument that the traditional/synonymous view imposes our agenda upon Luke. It demands that Luke provide us with a denotation for the event he describes, when we have already seen from his description of Jesus’ baptism and anointing that Luke does not seem to feel an urgency to provide a denotation in close proximity to the description. It may well be that for Luke, the pictorial representation of the Holy Spirit baptism suffices for the moment, as he then tells of two effects of the event.

Significantly, both “filled with the Spirit” and “began to speak with other tongues” are preceded by a kai in Acts 2:4, indicating that Luke presents them as effects of the event pictorially described. It is presumptuous to say that the proximity of “filled” to the description demands we treat it as a denotation of the event itself and not as an effect of the event. In the statement “My car rammed into another car, and they both exploded, and several people were injured,” a description of the accident is given rather than a repeated denotation. The explosion spoken of is not synonymous with “accident.” “Explosion” is used with its ordinary meaning, and it merely describes an effect of the accident, while the accident itself is described without being denoted. It should not be thought that a similar construction is impossible for Acts 2:3-4.

It would be unnatural in the illustration above to insert the word “accident,” especially if we precede it with the word “and.” It makes the speaker “stutter,” or awkwardly repeat himself, to have him say, “My car rammed into another car, and we had an accident, and several people were injured,” because this would be essentially the same as saying “We had an accident, and we had an accident, and several people were injured.” The traditional/synonymous Pentecostal/Charismatic view of Acts 2:3-4 has Luke similarly stutter.

The traditional/synonymous view also faces severe lexical difficulties. “Baptized” and “filled” are so divergent in their meanings that they are nearly antonyms. Baptism describes something external, while filling describes something internal. No Greek lexicon offers a possible meaning for “baptized” that is close in meaning to “filled,” and no lexicon offers a meaning for “filled” that is close to “baptized.”

New Testament usage of these words also argues for their being different from each other in meaning. Consequently, we must have extraordinary reasons for believing Luke invests “filled” with a unique meaning in Acts 2:4. It seems the only reason for making such a suggestion is the proximity of “filled” to the pictorial representation, and this “reason” is not convincing. Mark Lee is justified in questioning the traditional/synonymous equation of “filled” with “baptized,” saying, “If you baptize someone in water, you do not conclude they are full of water.” ^[6]

We must also consider Pauline usage of “filled with the Spirit,” since Paul is likely to have influenced Luke’s vocabulary. Paul commands the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit in an exhortation he gives in Ephesians 5:18-20:

From the context, we can observe that Paul uses “filled with the Spirit” in a very Lucan way. He wants the Ephesians to have an ongoing spiritual walk characterized by frequent experience of and fellowship with the Holy Spirit. Regarding this text, A. Skevington Wood comments, “The present tense rules out any once-for-all reception of the Spirit [in this passage] but points to a continuous replenishment.” [mfn]A. Skevington Wood. “Ephesians” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.11, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 72.[/mfn]

While the traditional/synonymous view has serious obstacles to overcome, the standard/distinct view does not seem to. The standard view sees the Holy Spirit baptism pictorially represented in Acts 2:3 and two effects of that baptism denoted in verse 4.

This approach retains the regular meaning for “filled with the Spirit” without doing any violence to the text or one’s theology of experience with the Holy Spirit. This view believes Luke describes in verse 4 the overwhelming internal blessing the disciples experienced when they received the reality of the Holy Spirit baptism. Thus, the baptism is an objective reality, and the filling is a subjective effect. Everett F. Harrison effectively expresses this view:

Note that Harrison is not asserting that the Holy Spirit baptism automatically belongs to every believer upon salvation (as some authors have suggested it is); he is saying that the Holy Spirit baptism is a reality that is received once by the individual as opposed to the continuous replenishings disciples receive as they are repeatedly filled.

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is objective and durative. Filling with the Spirit is subjective and iterative. The fact that the aorist tense is used with “filled” in Acts 2:4 should not stop us from seeing the filling’s iterative nature. Iterative means “repeatable.” Every repeated act of any kind is described each time in the past tense, but this does not mean the act is unrepeatable. In “the professor taught the class,” “taught” is in the past tense, but is still iterative or repeatable. “The professor died,” however, is a durative statement since, although death comes to all people, it will only come once to this particular professor. W. Graham Scroggie reflects this distinction between “filled” and “baptized” in his commentary on Acts:

Distinguish between the Baptism and the Infilling of the Spirit. Both blessings were vouchsafed on the Day of Pentecost; but, whereas the Baptism is once for all, the filling is oft repeated. Baptism and filling are opposite figures. In the former, the vessel is in the element; in the latter, the element is also in the vessel. [mfn]W. Graham Scroggie, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 31.[/mfn]

Perhaps the most lucid explanation of this distinction is that made by George Eldon Ladd:

We conclude that in Acts 2:3-4, Luke tells us the disciples had a powerful, subjective, inward experience with the Holy Spirit on the occasion of their Holy Spirit baptism. This account should not surprise us. If the disciples had these powerful, subjective, inward experiences on occasions after their Holy Spirit baptism, it would be strange to find that they did not have such an experience on the day they received their Holy Spirit baptism.

A plumber may fill a tub with water at the time he or she installs it. However, the filling of the tub is not synonymous with the installation of the tub, even at the initial event when the tub was installed. This filling is analogous to the spiritual filling Luke speaks of in Luke-Acts, which is not synonymous with Spirit-baptism even at the initial event of receiving that baptism.

There is one baptism and many fillings. To say there is one filling and many refillings is a self-contradictory statement. It is as illogical as saying “there is only one vacation, but there are many later vacations.” If “filling” is genuinely synonymous with “baptism,“ the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not durative, and one must continually seek to be “rebaptized” in the Spirit. However, since the two terms are not synonymous, we can assert that once one has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, he or she need not seek that specific blessing again. The gift of the Spirit will not be taken back. It is important, though, that we recognize this baptism is not the end of our experience, and that we go on to live a life characterized by repeated fillings of the Spirit, which move us to inspired speech and actions.

Conclusion: Lucan Theology of Spiritual Experience

In our study of Lucan vocabulary, we have observed that Luke uses his words clearly and consistently. Consequently, we can precisely construct a theology from Luke and Acts. We learn from Luke that believers can receive an experience called the baptism in the Holy Spirit that leads the recipients into many blessed experiences with God, wherein they are subjectively satiated and inspired as they serve him. Christians can be baptized in the Holy Spirit and, as a result, live Spirit-filled lives.

More articles by David Kowalski

© Copyright 2025, David Kowalski. All rights reserved. Links to this post are encouraged. Do not repost or republish without permission.

Appendix A: Luke’s Terms in the Gospel of Luke for Experience with the Holy Spirit

Appendix B: Luke’s Terms for Experience with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts

Appendix C: Comparison of the Lucan Meanings  of "Baptized" and "Filled"

Baptized

Filled

Subject is immersed

Subject is filled

Subject is empowered

Subject is inspired

Experience is durative

Experience is iterative

Experience is objective

Experience is subjective

Appendix D: Lucan Uses of “Filled” and “Full” (Pimplemi)of the Holy Spirit

Luke

1:15 "For he [John the baptist] will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filledwith the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness

Acts

2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people,

4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.

6:5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.

7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

13:9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him,

13:52 And the disciples were continually filled (pleroo) with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Bibliography

Arrington, French. The Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988.

Baumert, Norbert “‘Charism’ and ‘Spirit-Baptism’: Presentation of an Analysis, “Journal of Pentecostal Theology 12.2 (2004).

Bauer, Walter, William Arndt, Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick Danker, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Bissantz, Annette S. and Keith A. Johnson eds. Language Files. Reynoldsburg. Ohio: Advocate Publishing Group, 1985.

Bolinger, Dwight, and Donald A. Sears. Aspects of Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1968.

Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954.

Brumback, Carl. What Meaneth This? Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1947.

Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Edwards, Jonathan. “Union in Prayer” in The Works of President Edwards vol. 3. Sereno Dwight ed. New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1858.

Gee, Donald. Toward Pentecostal Unity. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1961.

Green, Michael. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.

Harrison, Everett F. Interpreting Acts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Hopkins, Evan H. “The Fulness of the Spirit,” in Keswick’s Authentic Voice. Herbert F. Stevenson, ed. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott Publishers, 1959.

Horton, Stanley. The Book of Acts. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1981.

Hull, J. H. E. The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles. Cleveland, The World Publishing Company, 1968.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Kaiser, Walter. Toward an Exegetical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Keener, Craig. Acts. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of The New Testament: Abridged in One Volume. trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Lee, Mark. “An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism,” Pneuma vol. 26.1 (Spring 2004).

Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Marshall, I. Howard. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House: 1989.

McBride, Alfred. The Gospel of the Holy Spirit. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1975.

Menzies, William, and Robert Menzies. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Moody, D. L. “Secret Power, or the Secret of Success in Christian Life and Work” in Late Nineteenth Century Revivalist Teachings on the Holy Spirit. Donald W. Dayton, ed. New York: Garland Publishing, 1985.

Morris, Leon. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Mullins, E. Y. “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia vol. 1. James Orr, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1939.

________. “Holy Spirit” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. James Orr, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1939.

Polhill, John B. “Interpreting the Book of Acts” in Interpreting the New Testament. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery eds. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001.

Rice, John R. Filled With the Spirit: The Book of Acts. Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1963.

Riggs, Ralph M. The Spirit Himself. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1949.

Ryrie, Charles C. The Holy Spirit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Scroggie, W. Graham. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Shelton, James B. “Filled With the Holy Spirit” and “Full of the Holy Spirit”: Lucan Redactional Phrases,” in Faces of Renewal: Studies in Honor of Stanley M. Horton. Paul Elbert ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988.

________. Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1991.

Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984.

Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1973.

Synan, Vinson. The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1974.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Christian Copyrights, 1983,

Thiselton, Anthony C. “Semantics and New Testament Interpretation” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. I. Howard Marshall ed.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.

Torrey, R. A. The Holy Spirit: Who He Is and What He Does. United States: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1927.

Turner, Max Power From on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1952.

Williams, Ernest S. Systematic Theology, vol. 3. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1953.

Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

Wood, A Skevington. “Ephesians” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol. 11. Frank E. Gaebelein ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Endnotes

The post Baptized in and Filled with the Spirit: What Did Luke Mean? appeared first on Apologetics Index.