Is Acts 6:1-7 the First Deacon Election?

Posted on March 7, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #12)

The first serious problem that threatened to split the early church of Jerusalem centered around what Acts 6:1 calls “the daily distribution” (N.K.J.V.). No definition is given for what this distribution was, but the apostles described it as serving tables (Acts 6:2). Interestingly, the Greek word used for “tables” in Acts 6:2 is the same Greek word that is used in reference to the money-exchange tables Jesus overturned as part of His two attempts to rid the temple complex of commerce and greed (John 2:13-22; Matthew 21:12-13). With this type of table in mind, two possible definitions have been offered for the serving that was required.

First, the tables could have functioned like stations the church’s widows stopped by each day to receive an allotment of food provided by the church. This would have made the role of serving akin to manning a distribution point. Second, the tables could have been the sit-down variety where the church’s widows were literally served meals each day. This would have made the role akin to being a waiter in a restaurant.

Whichever definition of the serving is correct, what isn’t in doubt is the fact that the Hellenist Jewish Christians (who spoke Greek) thought their widows were getting shafted in the deal. The disagreement eventually reached a boiling point that led the Hellenists to complain to the apostles. Rather than opting to take over the distribution themselves or ask for volunteers to do the job, the apostles called for the church to choose seven worthy men from the membership ranks. These men would become the “table servers” who would be delegated the responsibility of overseeing the daily distribution.

This plan of action pleased the church members, and seven men were chosen. The men were: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas (Acts 6:5). Since all seven names are Greek names it’s possible that all seven men were from the Hellenist group, which would make sense because the Hellenist group was the one doing the complaining. Whatever the exact details were, though, God must have been pleased with their selection because following the election the word of God spread even more and the church’s numbers swelled yet again. This time the new converts even included many of the Jewish priests (Acts 6:7).

So, there’s no question that the Acts 6:1-7 election was a great thing that produced marvelous results. But was it the first deacon election of the church age? Many solid students of the Bible believe that it was and that the seven men became officially recognized deacons for life. There are, however, other equally solid students who understand the election to be a one-off type of deal along the lines of a temporary committee being elected to serve for a limited time to achieve a stated goal.

Having studied this subject quite a bit, I understand how people can reach either conclusion. Therefore, it’s not my intention to use this post to praise one interpretation and bash the other. Instead, I’m simply going to list the evidences that can be used to support each interpretation and let you, the reader, form your own opinion. I will, however, offer my opinion toward the end of this post.

I’ll begin by listing the evidences that support the interpretation that Acts 6:1-7 is not describing the first election of deacons. The evidences are as follows:

  1. While the actual words “deacon” and “deacons” are used in our English translations of the New Testament (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 10, 12, and 13), neither word is used in Acts 6:1-7.
  2. The qualifications (“of good reputation” and “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom”) stated for the Acts 6:1-7 men are not the same as Paul’s list of qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. Not only is the 1 Timothy list much more extensive, it doesn’t even include “of good reputation” and “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” One might think that if Paul was describing the same office as Acts 6:1-7, God would have inspired him to provide a direct tie-in to the Acts passage by somehow restating those two descriptive qualifications.
  3. While the New Testament uses the titles “elder,” “pastor,” “bishop,” “shepherd,” and “overseer” interchangeably to describe the office most commonly referred to nowadays as “pastor,” that office hadn’t been officially established in the church age as of Acts 6:1-7. Even though we understand that the apostles were playing that role in the colossal Jerusalem church, they were still referred to as “apostles.” The fact is, the office of pastor (elder, bishop, shepherd, overseer) isn’t specifically mentioned until Acts 14:23, which tells us that Paul and Silas appointed (“ordained” K.J.V.) elders in every church. All of this raises the legitimate question: “In light of the fact that the pastor is the God-appointed shepherd of the church (1 Timothy 3:4-5; Hebrews 13:7,17,24; 1 Peter 5:1-4), would the office of deacon be formally instituted in the church age before the office of pastor?”
  4. Even though two of the seven men, Stephen and Philip, are mentioned prominently in subsequent stories (Acts 6:8-15; 7:1-60; 8:4-13; 8:26-40; 21:1-14), neither man is ever described by way of the title “deacon.” For example, in Acts 21:8, as part of a story that takes place many years after Acts 6:1-7, Philip is specifically described as “the evangelist” and as “one of the seven.” He is not described as “the deacon.”

Now let me list the evidences that support the interpretation that Acts 6:1-7 is describing the first election of deacons:

  1. Paul, in his writings, does not hesitate to include the office of deacon as part of each local church (Philippians 1:1). He even provides a list of qualifications for the candidate for the role (1 Timothy 3:8-13). The question becomes then: “If the office of deacon did not begin in Acts 6:1-7, when exactly did it begin?” It seems strange that the New Testament wouldn’t even mention the beginning of the office. This possible omission — if that’s what it actually is — is made even more glaring by the fact that the beginning of the office of pastor (elder, bishop, shepherd, overseer) is recorded in Acts 14:23.
  2. Even though the words “deacon” and “deacons” aren’t used in our English translations of Acts 6:1-7, variations of diakonos, the Greek noun from which we get the word “deacon,” are found in three places in the passage. First, the word “distribution” in verse 1 translates diakonia. Second, the word “serve” in verse 2 translates diakonein. Third, the word “ministry” in verse 4 translates diakonia.
  3. In regards to the Acts 6:1-7 qualifications not matching up with the 1 Timothy 3:8-13 qualifications for deacons, that doesn’t necessarily mean the two passages aren’t describing the same office. As evidence of this, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are clearly describing the same office — the word “bishop” is used in both passages — and yet those two lists of qualifications, though similar, aren’t exactly the same.
  4. The word “deacon” comes from the Greek word diakonos, and diakonos literally means “servant.” Obviously, the seven men elected in Acts 6:1-7 did become servants as they served the tables of the Jerusalem church’s daily distribution.

Well, as you can see, there is a pretty solid case to be made for either answer to the question: “Is Acts 6:1-7 the first deacon election?” As for me, I tend to think that it was. For one thing, it’s hard for me to believe that the New Testament would assume the office of deacon in the church without giving us an account of the office’s origin. For another, everything about what those seven men did speaks to deaconship (servanthood).

Finally, in closing, let me point out one last thing about this whole topic. Even if we accept the premise that those seven men were the church’s first deacons, it should be noted that the Jerusalem church didn’t hold a deacon election until the church had upwards of 20,000 members. Contrast this with the fact that many small churches today, with memberships less than 200, try to have seven deacons! You see, if Acts 6:1-7 really is talking about deacons, then it should teach us two things about them. #1: God-approved deacons are scarce. And #2: It doesn’t take many God-approved deacons to get the job done in a local church, no matter how big that church might be. This, of course, makes perfect sense in the light of the fact that God wants every Christian (including all the non-deacons) in a local church to play the role of servant to others.

Posted in Church, Deacons, God's Work, Ministry, Pastors, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Service | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Pastor’s Main Job

Posted on March 5, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #11)

What do you do when one group of members from your church claims that another group is showing favoritism in regards to church benevolence? If you are the 12 apostles — with Matthias taking the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26) — and if your church is the church at Jerusalem, you hold the first church vote to appoint a group of men to fix the problem. In other words, I could also call this post “The Church’s First Business Meeting.”

Please allow me, though, to draw your attention to the motivation the apostles gave for holding that meeting. Faced with the option of taking over the church’s benevolence ministry themselves, they deemed that option unproductive. Rather than take the attitude, “If you want something done right you’ve got to do it yourself,” they chose to delegate. And what was their reason for doing so? We find it in Acts 6:2:

Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” (N.K.J.V.)

I wish churches knew this verse as well as they know John 3:16. You see, those apostles were, for all intents and purposes, the pastoral team of the church at Jerusalem, and as such they understood that a pastor’s primary job is to study God’s word, preach God’s word, and teach God’s word. (For the record, in Acts 6:4 they also add spending time in prayer to the list.)

So, are pastors too good or too aloof to serve tables, mow the church yard, mop the floor of the fellowship hall, change the light bulbs in the sanctuary, order the church literature, and visit every sick person within a 100-mile radius? Hardly. After all, Jesus calls every Christian, including every pastor, to exhibit the same humility He exhibited when He washed the feet of the apostles (John 13:1-17).

No, the issue is not spiritual superiority. Instead, it gets into the realm of Christians having differing spiritual gifts, talents, and abilities. If nothing else, we’re talking here about a church making the best use of its personnel. Basically, while other church members can perform most tasks just as effectively (if not more so) than the pastor, what those other members can’t do as effectively as him is teach the word of God.

Sadly, many pastors today don’t have adequate time to study the word of God so they can properly feed it to their flocks because those pastors spend so much time running around doing this, that, and the other thing for those flocks. This is especially true in smallish churches where the pastor is “chief cook and bottle washer.” For example, I once had a man tell me that I, as the pastor of the community’s local church, was responsible for the spiritual well-being of the entire community. That included all my church members who lived in the community, but it also included not only all the lost people of the community but also all the people in the community who attended other churches. I thought to myself, “Man, that’s a high standard you’ve got there. I guess it’s handy for you that you are not a pastor.”

The fact is, it takes serious time and serious effort to really learn the word of God so that you can rightly divide it and dole it out to others (2 Timothy 2:15). It’s no wonder that 1 Timothy 5:17 says the “elders” (a title the New Testament uses interchangeably for “pastors”) who labor in the word and doctrine should be counted worthy of double honor. That’s another verse I wish churches knew as well as they know John 3:16.

In the end, the apostles handled the Jerusalem church’s benevolence dispute by presiding over the election of a worthy group of men who were granted oversight concerning the dispute. In my next post, I’ll address the question of whether or not this was the first election of deacons. For now, though, let me stick with the primary subject of this post. Those apostles said:

“Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:3-4, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

Notice that in our opening text verse, Acts 6:2, the apostles begin their decision with a word about their main job: “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” And then, in Acts 6:3-4, they end their decision with a similar word: “…but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” It’s obvious that the apostles, who were the pastoral team of the Jerusalem church, wanted to drive home the point to their church members. They wanted those members to understand that the call to the ministry is the call to spend a lot of time in God’s word and a lot of time in prayer. Therefore, we might say that whatever else a pastor is doing, if he is neglecting these duties, he is failing in his calling. Even though many Christians — and dare I say, some pastors — don’t see it this way, this is exactly what the Bible teaches.

Posted in Bible Study, Church, God's Word, God's Work, Individuality, Ministry, Pastors, Prayer, Priorities, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Spiritual Gifts, Talents, The Bible | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The First Church Fight

Posted on March 2, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #10)

The world’s first church, the church of Jerusalem, was colossal in terms of sheer numbers. Acts 4:4 puts the number of men at 5,000. If we assume there was one woman per man, that’s 10,000 members. If we assume there was one woman and one child per man, that’s 15,000 members. Furthermore, both Acts 5:14 and Acts 6:1 speak of multitudes of men and women being added to the fold even after that. So, I feel safe in saying that the church consisted of at least 20,000 people, perhaps considerably more.

In a church that size, internal conflict is inevitable as somebody is going to get mad at somebody else over something. And that’s what happened. The church members classified under the heading “Hellenists” (“Grecians” K.J.V.) brought a formal accusation to church leadership (the 12 apostles) against the church members classified under the heading “Hebrews” (Acts 6:1). Keep in mind, though, that both of these groups were Jews. The Gentiles wouldn’t be ushered into the church age until a bit later (Acts 8:26-40; 10:1-48).

The “Hellenists” were the “out-of-town” Jews. They were Jews who had grown up outside the land of Israel. They spoke Greek in addition to whatever specific languages each of their local regions used, had been raised in Greek culture, and used the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament.) Because they had spent their lives living among the Gentiles, they weren’t particularly obsessed with keeping the Mosaic law. These were the foreign Jews who had made their pilgrimages to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost (Acts 2:5), had heard that group of approximately 120 of Christ’s followers speaking in their foreign languages (Acts 2:6-12), had responded to Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:37-39), and had become part of the Jerusalem church’s original 3,000 members (Acts 2:41).

Their counterparts in the church were the “Hebrews.” These were the “home folk” Jews. They were Jews who had grown up in Israel. They spoke Aramaic, had been raised in Jewish culture, and used the Hebrew translation of the Old Testament. Their lives were dominated by keeping the Mosaic law. Many of them had been living in Jerusalem on that famous day of Pentecost and still had homes there (Acts 2:46). Others of them had made the trip to Jerusalem from their homes in either the northern region of Israel or the southern region of it and had become part of the church.

Church members from different homelands? Church members from different backgrounds? Church members speaking different languages? Church members using different translations of the Bible? Church members placing different levels of importance upon the Old Testament law? Let’s admit that any one of these things has serious potential to destroy church unity. Frankly, we have to marvel that the church of Jerusalem made it without a church fight as long as it did!

But what was the fight about anyway? What was the charge the Hellenist Jews brought before the apostles concerning the Hebrew Jews? It had to do with that communal system of support by which the church functioned (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35). Human nature being what it is, you just had to figure that the good will that was required for such a system to function smoothly would eventually start to take on some water.

The Hellenist church members accused the Hebrew church members of neglecting the Hellenist widows in regards to the daily distribution of food. Since the church had made it as long as it had without that charge arising, obviously the Hellenist widows were receiving some food each day. The problem must have been that they weren’t receiving as much food as the Hebrew widows. (At least that was the opinion of the Hellenists.) Was this a legitimate complaint? We have no way of knowing because the Bible doesn’t tell us.

Regardless of whether or not the accusation was true, the apostles were now expected to render a verdict. A serious charge had been made and it couldn’t be ignored. So, how would they decide? What course of action would they settle upon? The previous time a problem had arisen within the church, the offending parties had both been struck dead (Acts 5:1-11). Would this new problem result in more deaths? That answer will be the subject of my next post. So until then, stay tuned….

Posted in Anger, Christian Unity, Church, Complaining, Favoritism, Leadership, Pastors, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem" | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The First Church Scandal

Posted on February 27, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #9)

I don’t care how smoothly a church is humming along, it isn’t immune from scandal. The problem is that people can’t help but be people. They are sin-marred individuals who are members of a sin-marred race. We are sinners by birth and by choice, and our fault line can be traced all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Someone might ask, “But doesn’t the indwelling Holy Spirit help Christians in regards to their sin problem?” Yes, He does, but His help is tempered. What His presence inside our bodies does is create a civil war within each of us. On the one hand, we feel the Adamic nature’s pull toward sin. On the other hand, we feel the indwelling Spirit’s pull toward godliness.

Back and forth the tug of war goes. Sometimes we allow the indwelling Spirit’s pull to win the moment. Other times we allow the Adamic nature’s pull to win it. Sometimes we act in a godly manner. Other times we act in an ungodly one. Sometimes we choose God’s will. Other times we choose our will.

I don’t think anybody ever described this inner civil war better than the apostle Paul, who was a pretty fair Christian himself. He wrote:

I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience shows that I agree that the law is good. But I can’t help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things. (Romans 7:15-17, N.L.T.)

This brings us to the story of Ananias and Sapphira, a married couple who were members in good standing of the church of Jerusalem. If they were wolves in sheep’s clothing (lost people masquerading as Christians), the Bible gives no indication of it. Nevertheless, even though they seem to have been authentic Christians who were each indwelt with God the Holy Spirit, they succumbed to the temptation to sin. And their sin created the first church scandal.

The problem centered around that unique financial setup that was one of the distinguishing marks of the early church in Jerusalem. As you might recall, all the members of that church sold their possessions and goods and contributed the proceeds to the church treasury so that the needs of each member could be met from that communal fund (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37). It should be understood, though, that participation in this plan was voluntary, and any member who didn’t go along with the plan was certainly not excommunicated from the church.

So, as the story goes, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of land, and Ananias brought some of the proceeds and laid it at the feet of the apostles as a contribution to the church fund (Acts 5:1-2). Notice, however, that I said he brought some of the proceeds from the sale rather than all of them. Now we are getting at the heart of the problem.

You see, it wasn’t sin for the couple to keep back part of those proceeds for themselves. Again, everything about the church receiving contributions was voluntary. The couple’s sin was them pretending that the money Ananias brought to the apostles constituted all the proceeds from the sale. In other words, the transgression was lying, not money mismanagement. It was a lack of integrity, not a lack of giving.

Peter was the apostle who called out Ananias for the sin. Somehow, someway, Peter knew what Ananias had done. Maybe Peter had heard from someone just how much the couple had made from the sale. Or maybe the indwelling Holy Spirit imparted to Peter the spiritual discernment to know that Ananias was trying to pull something. Whatever the details were, as soon as Ananias laid the money at the feet of the apostles, Peter began his interrogation:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4, N.K.J.V.)

If Ananias had answers to Peter’s questions, he never got to voice them. The very next verse says that when Ananias heard these things he dropped dead on the spot. His death was then quickly followed by some men wrapping him up in a sheet or a blanket, carrying him out, and burying him. No funeral. No flowers. No visitation. Since his wife, Sapphira, wasn’t present at the time, she didn’t even know she was now a widow.

Three hours passed before Sapphira herself came to the apostles, and she still wasn’t aware of what had transpired. Peter, not knowing if she was in cahoots with her husband concerning the sin, asked her, “Was this the price that you received for your land?” “Yes,” she said. That was all the evidence Peter needed to include her in the fatal sentencing, and Acts 5:9-10 is quite graphic in describing her death:

Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. (N.K.J.V.)

You talk about setting a tone for the Jerusalem church! You talk about raising the bar for standards! You talk about throwing a scare into all the members! It’s no wonder that Acts 5:11 says:

So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. (N.K.J.V.)

Needless to say, throughout church history God hasn’t enforced this same standard for Christian behavior in church. What if lying, scheming, pretending to be something you’re not, and trying to play big shot in church were still causes for immediate death in our congregations? If they were our church rolls would be a lot smaller and our church cemeteries would be a lot larger. For the record, I file Ananias and Sapphira in the category of born-again Christians who committed what the King James Version calls “the sin unto death” (1 John 5:16-17; 1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

In the end, though, what the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows us is that sin can arise even in the best of churches. Not every pastor who has an affair with the church secretary is lost. Not every deacon who gets charged with “driving under the influence” is a charlatan. Not every church treasurer who steals from the church was always lurking in reeds, waiting for just the right chance to run off with the money. Not every youth minister whose addiction to pornography gets found out is a spiritual sham with a bogus calling to the ministry.

No, sometimes genuine Christians seriously drop the ball by engaging in grievous sins and exhibiting behavior that is shockingly worldly. But that doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell inside them. It just means that the Spirit doesn’t win every battle of the civil war. Tragically, sometimes those lost battles do collateral damage in our churches just as the sin of Ananias and Sapphira did collateral damage in the world’s first church. So, while I haven’t heard of God striking any church members dead lately, we shouldn’t think He hasn’t poured out other forms of chastisement upon our churches. My guess is that we are just too spiritually dense to recognize those chastisements for what they are.

Posted in Addiction, Adultery, Alcohol, Backsliding, Church, Deacons, Depravity, Discernment, God's Chastening, God's Judgment, Holiness, Hypocrisy, Lying, Ministry, Money, Pastors, Personal Holiness, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Sin, Temptation, The Holy Spirit, The Sin Unto Death | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The World’s First Megachurch

Posted on February 25, 2026 by russellmckinney

A megachurch is generally defined as being any Christian congregation that has a sustained weekly attendance of 2,000 people or more in its worship services. With that definition in mind we can say that the world’s first church was also the world’s first megachurch. You see, Acts 2:41 tells us that Peter’s Pentecost sermon resulted in approximately 3,000 souls getting saved and baptized. Those new believers then “…continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, N.K.J.V.). In other words, they became the world’s first church, the church at Jerusalem.

And the impressive numbers didn’t stop at 3,000. Acts 2:47 says that new converts were added daily. Consequently, Acts 4:4 says that not long after Pentecost, “…the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (N.K.J.V.). While it’s possible this means that another 5,000 new believers were added to the fold, the more likely meaning is that another 2,000 were added to the existing 3,000. Either way, it’s noteworthy that the term “the men” is used. Evidently, the woman and children weren’t even counted in that overall number of 5,000.

Still, though, there was more growth to come. Acts 5:14 says “And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of men and women” (N.K.J.V.). Also, Acts 6:1 says: “Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying….(N.K.J.V.).” Some preachers and commentators contend that we should take that word “multiplying” literally, which would mean that the church (at the very least) doubled in size during that time. Certain translations, however, use the word “increasing” rather than “multiplying.” So, I guess all we can say for sure is that the increase was quite substantial. At any rate, there’s no denying that the church at Jerusalem was the world’s first megachurch.

We need to understand, however, that the Jerusalem church didn’t look like or function like any megachurch we see today. Consider the following:

  • The church had the apostles as its founding pastoral team (Acts 2:42; 4:33-37; 5:1-2). How’s that for a staff?
  • God performed many signs (miracles) and wonders through the apostles, and those signs and wonders caused great fear to fall upon not only the church members but also many of the other inhabitants of Jerusalem (Acts 2:43; 3:1-26; 4:23-31; 5:1-21).
  • All the church members sold their possessions and donated the proceeds to a communal church fund from which every member’s basic needs were met (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 5:1-2). While this setup certainly spoke to the love, unity, and “we’re-all-in-this-together” attitude those believers felt toward one another, it also had its practical purpose. Keep in mind that all those foreign Jews who had chosen to remain in Jerusalem after responding to Peter’s sermon (Acts 2:5-12) had, in essence, left behind their previous lives, including their jobs, to remain in Jerusalem as part of the church.
  • The church met daily — not just on Sunday — in the outer courts of the Temple complex (Acts 2:46-47). The meeting place was most likely the Temple’s courtyard of the Gentiles, which commentators suggest could hold upwards of 200,000 people. Such a large area would be required to accommodate the thousands of church members.
  • In addition to meeting daily in the Temple’s courts, the church’s members also met regularly for meals in the homes of the members who had houses either in Jerusalem or in close proximity to it (Acts 2:46-47). Once again, this was a way of meeting the needs of those foreign Jews who had made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Pentecost and had remained in the city after responding to Peter’s Pentecost sermon.
  •  The result of all this daily activity, to say nothing of the evangelism that was being done by the apostles and the other members of the church, was that new converts were made to the church each and every day (Acts 2:47).

While the church at Jerusalem is oftentimes described as the ideal church, it simply cannot serve as the template for our churches today. Here’s why:

  • We don’t have Christ’s apostles to provide the leadership.
  • God isn’t working the signs (miracles) and wonders through modern pastors the way He did the apostles.
  • Even if a church today could get its members to sell all they have and contribute all the proceeds to a communal fund, that setup was never intended to be the norm. That is evidenced by the fact that nowhere else in the New Testament do we read of any other church operating in that way. Accordingly, Peter never rebukes churches for not following the Jerusalem’s church’s example, and Paul never describes the plan as being God’s standard. For that matter, even the church at Jerusalem didn’t continue to use that system. No, that setup was a temporary, unique situation that addressed a temporary, unique, opening moment in the history of the Jerusalem church.

Of course, what we can do today is glean the important elements from the world’s first megachurch and apply them to our modern churches. These elements are:

  • Holy Spirit baptism
  • the role of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the life of each Christian
  • water baptism
  • assembling ourselves together for worship
  • prayer
  • following the pastoral leadership that God has in place
  • right teaching and correct doctrine
  • evangelism
  • love for our fellow church members
  • unity
  • an understanding that our money is in reality God’s money, which means that we should always use it as He leads us

You show me a church that has all of these elements in place, and I’ll show you a healthy, vibrant, growing church that knows what it believes and puts it into practice. You see, God’s work through His church didn’t end with the early chapters of the book of Acts. That work continues on today in churches all over the world. So, even as we look back with wide-eyed amazement upon the early church at Jerusalem, we must recognize that God isn’t a one-hit-wonder and that He wants to do wonderful new things through our modern-day churches. Our job is simply to let Him.

Posted in Baptism, Bible Study, Christian Liberty, Church, Church Attendance, Discipleship, Evangelism, God's Word, God's Work, Leadership, Ministry, Missions, Money, Needs, Pastors, Prayer, Preaching, Salvation, Scripture, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Service, Stewardship, Sunday School, The Bible, The Gospel, The Holy Spirit, Witnessing, Worship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tongues as a Prayer Language?

Posted on February 23, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #7)

In my previous post, I explained that Acts 2:1-13 teaches that the Biblical definition of speaking in tongues is speaking in a known foreign language that you have never learned. Furthermore, I explained that 1 Corinthians chapter 14 provides us with definite rules for how the gift of speaking in tongues should and should not be employed in a church service. Seven such rules are given.

Unfortunately, however, if you know anything about how modern Christians use their supposed gift of speaking in tongues, you know that those rules get violated prolifically. For example, in a typical Pentecostal/Charismatic church service these days, multiple Christians speak in tongues at the same time, without any interpreter present, and many of the ones doing the speaking are women. The question becomes, then, “Why do these Christians feel such liberty to violate the 1 Corinthians chapter 14 rules?”

The answer is that the “tongues” these Christians speak in are not foreign languages at all. Instead, they are what the speakers refer to as a “prayer language.” And since a “prayer language” is a different thing altogether than an Acts 2:1-13 “tongue,” it operates completely outside any rules laid down in 1 Corinthians chapter 14.

Really, the differences between an Acts 2:1-13 type of “tongue” and a supposed “prayer language” are stark. Note the comparison:

  • The Acts type is a foreign language spoken by some group of people upon the earth, but the 1 Corinthians type isn’t an earthly language at all.
  • The Acts type benefits the listeners, but the 1 Corinthians type benefits the speaker.
  • The Acts type is God the Holy Spirit talking to others through the speaker, but the 1 Corinthians type is God the Holy Spirit talking to God the Father not only through the speaker but also for the speaker.
  • The Acts type requires either listeners who understand the foreign language or (if the tongue is spoken in a church service) a Christian with the spiritual gift of interpretation, but the 1 Corinthians type requires no interpretation because it is spoken to God and He understands it.

And what scriptures do the Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians use to support their notion of a “prayer language”? Here are the most common ones (all from the N.K.J.V.):

  • In 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul says, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” The Pentecostal/Charismatic interpretation of this verse is that tongues “of men” refer to known languages and tongues “of angels” refer to a prayer language that only heaven can understand.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:2, Paul says, “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.” The Pentecostal/Charismatic interpretation of this verse is that if tongues were merely foreign languages, Paul wouldn’t have said that no one understands the speaker and so he speaks to God.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” The Pentecostal/Charismatic interpretation of this verse is that if the person speaking in a tongue edifies himself that can’t be a reference to the tongue being a known language that is understood by others. If it was, the ones who understand the language would also be edified.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:14, Paul says, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.” The Pentecostal/Charismatic interpretation of this verse is that it is possible for Christians to pray words they don’t understand (because the words sound like gibberish to them), but in reality the words are the indwelling Holy Spirit praying for the Christian in the language of heaven.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:23, Paul says, “Therefore, if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” The Pentecostal/Charismatic interpretation of this verse is that Paul can’t be talking about all the church members speaking in foreign languages. If he was, then the unbelievers who happened to come into the church service would hear their languages being spoken and wouldn’t immediately assume that all the church members were out of their minds. Instead, the unbelievers would be just as impressed as those unbelievers were who heard those Christians speaking in their languages on the day of Pentecost.

Okay, so how do those of us who do not buy the idea of there being a second category of tongues — a prayer language — interpret these same verses? We interpret them as follows:

  • In 1 Corinthians 13:1, when Paul talks about speaking with the tongues “of angel,” he’s simply referring to speaking with the eloquence of angels. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament provide multiple stories in which angels appear to humans and speak to them. In all of these stories, however, the angels speak in the common language of the humans. There is no special “angelic” language that only God and angels can understand.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:2, when Paul says, “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but God…,” the setting he has in mind is the local church. The entire chapter is indisputably local church oriented. As a matter of fact, the word “church” is used no less than nine times in the chapter: verses 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34, and 35. With this understood, the point he is making in verse 2 is that a Christian who speaks in a tongue (a foreign language) in a church service can’t be speaking to the others in the service because they can’t understand the language and don’t have a clue what the speaker is saying. God, of course, speaks every language fluently and does understand the tongue.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:4, when Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself…,” the problem is the same one found in verse 2. If a man stands up in a local church in the United States and starts speaking Swahili, the attendees of that service can’t possibly be edified (built up) by that display of speaking of tongues. How can they be when they don’t understand a word the man is saying? Therefore, the only edifying that is going on is the speaker edifying himself. He certainly isn’t edifying anyone else.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:14, when Paul says, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful,” he simply means that the praying that is being done by the indwelling Holy Spirit is spoken in an unlearned foreign language. The Christian doesn’t understand what he is praying because he himself doesn’t know the language and there is no interpreter present. Therefore, that Christian’s understanding regarding that particular prayer is “unfruitful.”
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:23, when Paul talks about the hypothetical situation of a group of unbelievers entering a church service and thinking that tongues-speaking church members have lost their minds, what he doesn’t say is important. He doesn’t say that the tongues in which those church members are speaking are the languages of those unbelievers. Imagine a group of French tourists visiting an American church service on Sunday morning and hearing a bunch of church members speak in foreign languages. If those church members were speaking in Russian, Spanish, Arabic, or Mandarin Chinese — any language other than French — they would have to assume that all those Christians had lost their minds.

And so, we see that there really is no good reason to contend that there are two different types of “tongues” described in the Bible. Scripturally speaking, there is simply no such thing as a “prayer language” of tongues, and the supposed proof texts that get used to support the idea can easily be explained and interpreted in accordance with “tongues” being foreign languages. That’s what I’ve done in this post.

In the end, though, there is no Bible verse that will convince a person who has had an “experience” that their tongues/prayer language isn’t valid and scriptural. I know that. But I also know that human experience never trumps a correct interpretation of the Bible. So, I suppose the debate over tongues as a “prayer language” will rage on until all of us Christians are safely at home with Jesus. Until then, I’ll keep right on interpreting 1 Corinthians chapter 14 through the lens of Acts 2:1-13.

Posted in Angels, Church, Communication, Discernment, God's Word, Prayer, Scripture, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Speaking in Tongues, Spiritual Gifts, The Bible, The Holy Spirit | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

4 Basic Questions About Speaking in Tongues

Posted on February 20, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #6)

We’re in a series on the early church of Jerusalem, and we’ve now reached a place where I’m going to devote a couple of posts to the issue of speaking in tongues. I touched upon this topic briefly in the post “The First Sermon of the Church Age,” but now I’ll delve more deeply into it. And to get us started I’m going to use this post to ask and answer four basic questions about speaking in tongues.

Question #1: What Is Speaking in Tongues?

That group of approximately 120 of Christ’s followers who were first indwelt by/filled with the Holy Spirit manifested that filling by speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-13). And what were those tongues? The story proves beyond all doubt that they were known languages those Christians had never learned. Acts 2:8-11 even provides a list of which languages were spoken. Furthermore, those foreign Jews who heard those tongues said of those Christians, “We hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” You see, “tongues” is just another word for “languages.”

Question #2: Where Does the Bible Mention Speaking in Tongues?

The Acts 2:1-13 passage isn’t the only place where the Bible mentions Christian believers speaking in tongues. Here are the other passages:

  • In Mark 16:17-18, Jesus says that believers will speak with new tongues as a sign of salvation. (Obviously, Christ’s words were fulfilled in Acts 2:1-13.) In addition to speaking with new tongues, He also cites casting out demons, taking up serpents, and being unharmed by poisonous beverages as similar signs.
  • Acts 10:17-48 gives us the story of Peter traveling to Caesara and preaching the gospel to a group of Gentiles who are gathered in the home of a man named Cornelius. That story ends with those Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and being baptized (Acts 10:44-48). The fact that those Gentiles spoke in tongues was significant because it showed that the Holy Spirit they received was the same Holy Spirit the Jews had received on that day of Pentecost (Acts 10:45-46).
  • Acts 19:1-7 gives us the story of Paul encountering a group of approximately twelve “disciples” who evidently were disciples of John the Baptist rather than Jesus. When Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they had believed, they answered, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (N.K.J.V.). This prompted Paul to explain to them the difference between John the Baptist’s ministry and Jesus’ ministry. The group was then baptized, after which Paul laid hands on them. It was then that each member of the group received the Holy Spirit and consequently spoke in tongues.
  • 1 Corinthians 12:10 lists speaking in tongues as one of the spiritual gifts the indwelling Holy Spirit imparts to Christians.
  • In 1 Corinthians 14:18, Paul says, “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all.” (N.K.J.V.)

Question #3: Is Every Christian Supposed to Speak in Tongues?

Does the indwelling Holy Spirit grant to every Christian the ability to speak in tongues? No, He doesn’t. In 1 Corinthians 12:29-30, Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions, the implied answer to each of which is, “No.” The verses say (N.K.J.V.):

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

Question #4: What Are the Bible’s Rules in Regards to Speaking in Tongues

In 1 Corinthians chapter 14, Paul lays out definite rules regarding speaking in tongues in a church service. I offer these rules as the close to this post. They are as follows:

  1. Speaking in tongues is not meant as a sign to Christians to showcase the power of God to them. To the contrary, it is meant as a sign to lost people to showcase the power of God to them (1 Corinthians 14:22). This is exactly what happened with that first case of speaking in tongues that is described in Acts 2:1-13. Even Jesus Himself listed speaking in tongues as one of the signs that would follow those who believe in Him (Mark 16:17-18). Those signs would help convince unbelievers that the gospel message was truly from God.
  2. Because speaking in tongues is not meant as a sign to Christians, it makes perfect sense that no Christian should speak in tongues in a church service unless a fellow Christian who has the spiritual gift of interpreting the foreign languages (1 Corinthians 12:10) is present to provide the understanding (1 Corinthians 14:26-28). Without such an interpreter, the Christian speaking in tongues is basically just showing off because no one else in the service is getting anything out of what he is saying because they can’t understand his words (1 Corinthians 14:6-12; 18-19).
  3. In a church service, a woman should never speak in tongues under any circumstances (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
  4. Even in a church service where a Christian with the spiritual gift of interpreting the foreign languages is present, no more than two or three Christians should speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:27).
  5. Even in a church service where two or three Christians speak in tongues, they should not all speak at the same time. Each one should take turns (1 Corinthians 14:27).
  6. Even in a church service where two or three Christians speak in tongues, just one Christian with the spiritual gift of interpretation should do the interpreting (1 Corinthians 14:27).
  7. In a church service, the spiritual gift of prophesying is preferable to the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-5; 23-25; 39). The reason for this is simple. In prophesying, the words are spoken in the local language the people attending the church service speak. Thus, no interpretation is required and everyone in the service receives the blessing of hearing the prophesying. Of course, the opposite is true when the location is a foreign mission field rather than a church setting. On the mission field, speaking in tongues (the local language of that mission field) is preferable because the words of any prophesying must be filtered through the voice of an interpreter who knows both the language of the one doing the prophesying and the language of the locals.
Posted in Church, Communication, Discernment, Evangelism, Missions, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Speaking in Tongues, Spiritual Gifts, The Holy Spirit, The Tongue, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Filled With the Spirit

Posted on February 18, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #5)

The group of approximately 120 of Christ’s followers who experienced the famous day of Pentecost were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). This means that each of those believers became indwelt with God the Holy Spirit at that time. After all, each of them couldn’t have been filled with the Spirit if the Spirit wasn’t inside them to do the filling. Therefore, we are right to say that Pentecost is the day when the Holy Spirit began to indwell Christ’s followers. But is there a difference between being merely indwelt with the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit? Yes, there is.

Difference #1: Whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, the filling of the Holy Spirit can be experienced again and again and again. As evidence of this, the book of Acts describes how the early Christians were on multiple occasions filled with the Holy Spirit. Just using Peter as an example, he is filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, again in Acts 4:8, and again in Acts 4:31. This shows us that the filling of the Holy Spirit can happen repeatedly to a person. As a matter of fact, commentators have noted that a literal translation of the original Greek of Ephesians 5:18 would read, “…but be being filled with the Spirit…” The idea is that the command is a continual, ongoing thing.

Difference #2: Whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit is mandatory to actually being a Christian, the filling of the Holy Spirit is mandatory to living the victorious Christian life. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit entering into your body and taking up continual residence there. This baptism creates the new birth, which Jesus said is necessary for salvation (John 3:3). It also creates the spiritually regenerative experience that is described in Titus 2:5. You see, you aren’t even a Christian if you haven’t been baptized with the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). On the other hand, even though the filling of the Holy Spirit is not mandatory for becoming a Christian, it is mandatory to living the victorious Christian life. Why are our church rolls weighted down with names of Christians who don’t live much differently than the rest of the world? It’s because those Christians know the baptism of the Holy Spirit but not the filling of the Holy Spirit.

So, with these two differences understood, what does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Well, the answer isn’t anything mystical or weird. It is actually very simple. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be controlled by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Think of it this way: You being filled with the Holy Spirit has absolutely nothing to do with you receiving more of the Holy Spirit; it is all about the indwelling Holy Spirit receiving more of you.

To help you understand this, please keep in mind that the Holy Spirit is a “He” rather than an “it.” He is the third person of the holy Trinity. You wouldn’t refer to either God the Father or God the Son (Jesus) as “it,” would you? Then don’t refer to God the Holy Spirit as “it.” Jesus certainly didn’t called Him that (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7-15).

And why is this such a big deal in regards to our topic for this post? It’s a big deal because to have a person come live with you is to have that entire person come live with you. Imagine someone moving in with you and saying, “You are just getting a third of me right now. The other two-thirds are back at my old place.” Or imagine that person saying, “Here is half of me. If you treat this half well, I’ll send for the other half.” That kind of talk is nonsense. Therefore, it doesn’t make any more sense to say, “I have some of the Holy Spirit living inside me, but I’m still waiting to receive the rest of Him so that I can be filled with Him.”

Again, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not about a Christian receiving more of the Holy Spirit. It is, instead, about the indwelling Holy Spirit receiving more of that Christian. As I said, to be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be controlled by the indwelling Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit is not content to merely dwell inside the body of the Christian, lying dormant like some kind of inactive volcano. He wants to set up a command center inside the Christian’s body, a command center from which He controls (directs, guides, prompts) the Christian.

Unfortunately, the Christian can prevent this control from happening. For one thing, the Christian can grieve the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30). The Christian grieves the Spirit by doing something the Spirit doesn’t want him to do. For another thing, the Christian can quench the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19). The Christian quenches the Spirit by not doing something the Spirit wants him to do.

The Bible’s best passage on being filled with the Holy Spirit is Ephesians 5:18. That verse says:

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. (N.I.V.)

A person who is drunk on wine is under the control of the wine. The wine makes him do things he wouldn’t otherwise do and say things he wouldn’t otherwise say. Similarly, the Christian who is filled with the Holy Spirit is under the control of the Spirit. The indwelling Holy Spirit makes him do things he wouldn’t otherwise do and say things he wouldn’t otherwise say. Of course, the difference between the Spirit’s control and the wine’s control is the Spirit’s control leads to good things and the wine’s control leads to bad things.

And so, what is the upshot of all this in regards to what happened to that group of approximately 120 believers on that day of Pentecost? The upshot is that those believers experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Holy Spirit simultaneously. The moment the Spirit entered into each of their bodies He took control of those bodies. The result of this control was each of those believers speaking in a foreign language he or she had never learned.

Now, I’d love to conclude this post by saying that those believers all remained under the uninterrupted control of the indwelling Holy Spirit for the rest of their lives, but as I’ve already mentioned, that’s not what happened. Unfortunately, allowing the Spirit to maintain 24-7 control is impossible even for the most devout Christian. At some point, every Christian will either grieve the Spirit or quench the Spirit and in so doing take back the control of his or her body.

At that moment, with the Spirit no longer in control, the Christian is no longer filled with the Holy Spirit even though the Holy Spirit continues to dwell inside that Christian’s body. The good news, however, is that all that is required for the Christian to be filled with the Spirit afresh and anew is for that Christian to purposefully give the indwelling Spirit the control (the reins, the steering wheel, the remote control) again. And when that Christian becomes once again filled with the Holy Spirit, will the Spirit cause that Christian to speak in tongues the way He did those Pentecost believers? Ah, that’s a good question, and I’ll answer it with my next post. So, stay tuned….

Posted in Backsliding, Disobedience, Doing Good, God's Work, Obedience, Rebellion, Salvation, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Spiritual Gifts, The Holy Spirit, The Trinity | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Rightly Understanding Peter’s Answer

Posted on February 16, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #4)

Peter’s Pentecost sermon, which was the first sermon of the church age, caused his listeners to ask, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). His answer was, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38, N.I.V.). However, in my previous post, I explained why we shouldn’t take Peter’s words to mean any of the following in regards to salvation or water baptism:

  • the requirement of repentance cancels out the requirement of belief/faith in Jesus
  • water baptism is essential for salvation
  • we must baptize in the highly specific name of “Jesus Christ”

Okay, so if Peter’s answer didn’t actually mean any of those things, why did he use the wording he did? He did it because God the Holy Spirit, who now dwelt inside him, prompted him to do so, just as that same Holy Spirit had prompted him to preach the sermon that had preceded the answer. But why did God prompt such an answer? Well, there are multiple possible factors that might have come into play, and since these factors are all plausible, any one or even all of them might have applied.

Possible Factor #1: The Greek preposition translated as “for” in the words “for the forgiveness of sins” is eis, and it can mean “on the basis of.” For example, eis is used in Matthew 12:41, where Jesus says, “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis, on the basis of) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here” (N.K.J.V.). The point is that it’s possible that what Peter actually said was, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins.” You see, this places the salvation (forgiveness of sin) before the baptizing.

Possible Factor #2: In Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (N.K.J.V.). Catholics interpret these words to mean that Jesus made Peter the first Pope, but that interpretation is preposterous because the New Testament neither names any such office or provides any qualifications for it. The better interpretation is that Jesus giving Peter the “keys” of the kingdom of heaven meant that Peter would be the man who would, in a figurative sense, initially open the doors of the church to the world’s three ethnic groups (Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles) so that any individual who believed in Jesus as Savior could enter.

Under this interpretation, each time Peter used his “keys” to open the doors of the church to a different ethnic group, the grand opening was marked by a special event — either a mass public baptizing, a mass receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit, or both — involving some members of that group. Consider the following:

  • In Acts 2:38-41, Peter opens the church doors for Jews (Acts 2:5), with the event being marked by a group of Jews being publicly baptized and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. This was Peter using his “keys” for the first time.
  • In Acts 8:4-13, Philip preaches the gospel to the Samaritans, who were a mixed race. On the one hand, they were Gentiles because their ancestors had been Gentiles the Assyrians had brought in to repopulate Israel’s northern kingdom after Assyria had conquered that kingdom and carried off its inhabitants. But, on the other hand, those Gentiles had adapted themselves to certain aspects of the Jewish religion and over the ensuing centuries had also intermarried with the Jews. At any rate, regardless of their history, when Philip preached the gospel to the Samaritans many of them believed in Jesus as Savior and submitted to baptism. Interestingly, though, at no point in all that did those believers receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. That didn’t happen until Peter and John traveled from Jerusalem to Samaria and laid hands on them. Only then, with Peter being on the scene, did those Samaritan believers receive the indwelling Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17). This was Peter using his “keys” for the second time.
  • In Acts 10:24-48, Peter travels to Caesarea and preaches Jesus to a group of Gentiles who are gathered in the home of a Gentile named Cornelius. While Peter was in midst of his sermon, the Holy Spirit fell upon those Gentiles, after which Peter baptized them. This was Peter using his “keys” for the third and final time as each of the world’s three ethnic groups (Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles) had now had Peter open the doors of the church to them.

Possible Factor #3: To be baptized in the name of an individual is to submit to that individual and his message. Because the Jews of Jerusalem had been very public in their rejection of Jesus, they needed to be just as public in their submission to Him. By being baptized publicly in Jesus’ name, they dramatically set themselves apart from the unbelieving Jews whom Peter called “this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40, N.K.J.V.). It is also worth mentioning that while every Jew held God and the Holy Spirit in the highest esteem, every Jew certainly did not hold Jesus in high esteem. In particular, they especially hated the title “Christ” being added to the name Jesus because that title meant “Messiah.” Perhaps, then, this is why the indwelling Holy Spirit led Peter to command those Jews to be baptized in the name of “Jesus Christ.” It was that name, after all, that drew the starkest line of division between a believing Jew and an unbelieving one.

Possible Factor #4: The book of Acts is the record of a highly transitional time in the history of God’s dealings with people. The church age begins. Judaism wanes. Jews who are accustomed to living under the Old Testament law begin to understand what it is to live under grace. Gentiles come front and center in God getting His work done upon the earth. Because of all this major upheaval, it is unwise to build any doctrine exclusively around any passage from Acts. As evidence of this, consider the following:

  • In Acts 2:38, the order of conversion for Jews is listed as: repentance, water baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit.
  • In Acts 8:14-17, the order of conversation for Samaritans is listed as: belief, water baptism, Peter and John praying for them, receiving the Holy Spirit.
  • In Acts 10:44-48, the order of conversation for Gentiles is listed as: hearing the word (followed, presumably, by believing), receiving the Holy Spirit, water baptism.
  • In Acts 19:1-7, the order of conversation for the disciples of John the Baptist is listed as: receiving Paul’s teaching about the difference between John’s ministry and Jesus’ ministry (followed, presumably, by believing), water baptism, Paul laying his hands on them, receiving the Holy Spirit.

Does this mean, then, that there are four different plans of salvation? No. It simply means that at the dawn of the church age, God had different ways for how different groups could express their belief in Jesus and their newfound submission to Him.

Posted in Baptism, Belief, Bible Study, Catholicism, Church, Discernment, Evangelism, Faith, God's Work, Repentance, Salvation, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem" | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peter’s Famous Answer

Posted on February 13, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #3)

To say that Peter’s Pentecost sermon was powerful and impacting would be an understatement. His listeners were so “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37, N.K.J.V.) that he didn’t even have to give an invitation to evoke a response from them. Instead, they voluntarily asked him and the other apostles, “What shall we do?”

The answer Peter gave has been debated for centuries and has become a cornerstone verse for more than one denomination. That answer was: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38, N.I.V.).

Actually, Peter didn’t stop there. He also told them, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39, N.I.V.). Furthermore, he warned them with “many other words” and pleaded with them saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40, N.I.V.). Still, though, it’s that part about repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins that gets all the attention. Here’s why those words are so debated:

  • In John 3:16, the Bible’s most famous verse, Jesus teaches that salvation (eternal life) comes by way of belief in Him. Okay, so why then didn’t Peter just say, “Believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”?
  • Why did Peter stress the necessity of repentance?
  • Why did Peter stress the necessity of water baptism?
  • Why did Peter say that the water baptism should be done in the name of “Jesus Christ” when Jesus Himself had said that it should be done in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”? (Matthew 28:19)

Now, it’s been said that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible, and so the correct way to deal with all these questions is to interpret them through the lens of the rest of the Bible. Fortunately, when we do this, we find some real help. So, let’s get to it.

First, there are over 100 passages in which the New Testament uses the words “believe,” “believed,” “believing,” or “believers” in regards to salvation. A handful of examples are: John 3:16; Acts 8:37; Acts 13:39; Romans 1:16-17; and Ephesians 1:13. And then there are approximately 80 New Testament passages that use the word “faith” in relation to salvation. Some examples are: Ephesians 2:8; Colossians 1:4; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:38; and 1 Peter 1:9.

In light of all this, we are left to conclude that the New Testament uses the words “belief” and “faith” interchangeably when the subject is salvation. Four excellent proof texts for this conclusion are: Romans 1:16-17; Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16; and 1 John 5:4-5. Actually, the Greek verb pisteuo (“believe”) and the Greek noun pistis (“faith”) are basically the same word. So, the takeaway is that we shouldn’t trip over the plain teaching of dozens and dozens of verses just so we can make everything about Acts 2:38.

Second, Peter wasn’t the only person who tied repentance in with salvation. Both John the Baptist and Jesus did as well. (For your homework, read passages such as: Matthew 3:1-2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 13:3-5; 16:30; and 17:3-4.) Therefore, it seems that repentance and belief/faith are two sides of the same coin. Let me illustrate. Imagine that Jesus is walking west. Now imagine that a lost sinner is walking east. As Jesus approaches the lost sinner, He says to the sinner, “Follow Me.” Okay, what does the lost sinner have to do to respond to Jesus’ invitation? He has to change his direction. This, you see, is what repentance is. It is a change of direction. This means that if any lost sinner is going to get saved by believing in Jesus, that sinner is automatically going to have to show a degree of repentance (a changing of direction) in order to do that. Jesus and a lost sinner are never going in the same direction.

Third, there are multiple passages that expressly teach that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. For example, John 4:2 says that Jesus didn’t personally baptize anyone. That’s an odd thing for the Bible to say if baptism is necessary for salvation. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 1:13-16 the apostle Paul admits that he didn’t do much baptizing. He even says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but to preach the gospel. Remember that this is the same Paul who also said, “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 1:18, N.K.J.V.).

For that matter, even Peter himself didn’t mention the need for baptism in other teachings he gave on the subject of salvation (Acts 3:12-26; 5:29-32; 10:34-43; 1 Peter 1:3-12; and 2:7-10). And then there is the problem that if baptism is necessary for salvation, it means that God’s plan of salvation for the New Testament age is different than His plan for the Old Testament age. But the 4th chapter of Romans flatly refutes this idea.

Fourth, before we take Peter’s Acts 2:38 answer ultra literally by baptizing specifically in the name of “Jesus Christ,” we’d do well to consult Acts 10:48, where he commands a group of Gentile believers to be baptized in the name of “the Lord” (N.K.J.V., K.J.V.). We also might want to read Acts 19:5, where we’re told that Paul baptized a group of Ephesian believers in the name of the “Lord Jesus.” Do you see what I mean? The New Testament doesn’t provide any consistency in regards to the precise words that should be said during a baptism. This shows us that there are no magic words that have to be spoken verbatim to make a baptism legitimate.

And so, all of this circles us back around to the fundamental question: Why did Peter say, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”? Well, that’s a legitimate question, one that has a legitimate answer, and I’ll provide that answer in my next post from this series. So, until then, I’ll ask you one more time to stay tuned….

Posted in Baptism, Belief, Bible Study, Discernment, Evangelism, Faith, Forgiveness, Repentance, Salvation, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Speaking in Tongues, The Holy Spirit | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment