Initial evidence for the baptism in the Holy Ghost

[Pastor James and Lucia Purser]

Does one have to speak in tongues in order to be considered "Spirit Filled." It is my position 1) EVERYONE can and SHOULD speak in tongues 2) but , I also believe that there are many people who are Spirit filled and do not speak in tongues "YET". Is speaking in tongues a or the sign one has been Spirit filled?

Thoughts ......

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

Brother James: I am in agreement with you on this issue Over 500 million people have been baptized with the Holy Spirit and have spoken with New Tongues! I've got some pictures of Azusa St. and Bonnie Brae Pl. and some new ones of the Burial place of William Joseph Seymore. So when you get time check it out at my site here on Praise Chapel. ning. com

[Robert Jimenez]

Pastor James, I think this is a good summary of how I see it as well.

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

The phenomenon of speaking in tongues is expressed in a number of ways in the New testament;
* To speak in other Tongues -Acts 2:4
* To speak in tongues- Acts 10:46;19:6;1 Cor. 12:30; 14:5-6,18,23
* to speak in a tongue- 1Cor. 14:2,4,13
* To speak in tongues of maen and angels-1 Cor. 13:1
* To speak in new tongues-Mark 16:17
* Kinds of tongues-1 Cor.12:10,28
* Tongues-1 Cor. 13:8,14:2
* A tongue- 1 Cor. 14:14,19,26

Now how does one pray in the Spirit without the utterance of tongues?

Is it the idea that one is in the right purpose and frame of mind when he/she starts to pray?

Or is it in the power of the Holy Spirit with the other tongues manifesting enabling us to speak Mysteries (1 Cor. 14:2)?

look at other translations here to get what the Spitit is saying:

1 Corinthians 14:2

2 For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning, because in the [Holy] Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding].
AMP

1 Corinthians 14:2-3
If you praise him in the private language of tongues, God understands you but no one else does, for you are sharing intimacies just between you and him. But when you proclaim his truth in everyday speech, you're letting others in on the truth so that they can grow and be strong and experience his presence with you.
(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

1 Corinthians 14:2

2 For he who speaks in an unknown tongue is not speaking to men, but to God; for no one understands him. Yet in the Spirit he is speaking secret truths. Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech

I think that one must speak in tongues to pray in the Spirit, and i will reinterate my position on those Pentecostals who do not speak in tongues.

Known sin, unknown sin, unbelief, fear,walls,mis-taught, mis-trust,Not Saved to begiun with.

I didn't write this to be mean or anything like that, it is my belief that there is something there that keeps a person from manifesting tongues.

I would like another pastor to comment here on working with people who have had adifficulties speaking in tongues

[Christopher Chapman]

1 johhn 3:24, galatians 2:3-5, and romans 8:16 seems to use the holy spirit as "evidence" to prove that the believers were accepted by god. so my question is if the apostles used the holy spirit as "evidence", why do we need evidence to prove the "evidence"? i mean, it seems obvious that when a person receives the spirit, they know it. that is why the apostles could use it as a way to comfort the believers that they were really god's children. they subjectively knew it and didnt need anything else to prove it. so what other evidence do they need? or is the "initial evidence" for others to know they received it? if so, why do others need to know?

these are some of that i wrestle with, any imput?

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

I am going to go back to what the Bible says "That they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance".
Every one who is filled with the Spirit should speak with new tongues. Acts 2:4; Act 10:44 says that they were filled with the Spirit "For we heard them speak with tongues and manifiy God. and in Acts 19:1-7 And Paul laid his hands upon them and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with new tongues.

from Foundatioins of Pentecostal Theology

H. The Evidence and Results of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
An experience so great and so important as the Baptism with the Holy Spirit undoubtedly will be accompanied by unmistakable evidences, so that the recipient will have no doubts whatsoever that he has indeed received the Promise of the Father. Some of the evidence is manifested immediately, while others continue on a permanent basis as one walks in the Fullness of the Spirit.

1. Immediate evidences.
a) Speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; 19:6). The question of the initial evidence of the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit is one of paramount importance to all who hunger to be filled with the Spirit. It is logical that the supernatural experience of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit would be accompanied by some definite and unmistakable sign by which the seeker would be assured that he had received. There are many operations of the Spirit, but only one Baptism with the Spirit. If there were no particular supernatural evidence of the Baptism with the Spirit, by which it could be distinguished from all other operations of the Spirit, how could anyone be assured of the experience? We believe that the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is that of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. The evidence of the Spirit's fullness on the Day of Pentecost was that of speaking with other tongues by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The manifestation of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was the original outpouring of the empowerment of the Church. It was the pattern for the Pentecostal experience. What the disciples did when they were first filled, we reasonably expect all to do who are filled in the same sense. Inasmuch as the purpose of the anointing was to give power to witness, it is not surprising that the sign of the experience was manifested in their utterance.
In addition to the initial outpouring of the Spirit, as recorded in Acts 2:4, we have the account of the reception of the Spirit by the believers in the house of Cornelius given in Acts 10:44-46a:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
It is interesting, and important, to note how the Jews who came with Peter knew that these Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost experience that the disciples received on the Day of Pentecost. The Scripture says that they knew because "they heard them speak with tongues." This verse reads literally, "for they hearing them continuing to speak with tongues." Their speaking in tongues was no brief confusion of syllables, but a full and flowing speaking of a language which brought amazement to the hearers. Now if those present were convinced that the Gentiles had an equivalent Holy Ghost experience to that enjoyed by the Jews on the grounds of their speaking with tongues, then tongues must be the unmistakable sign or initial evidence of the Pentecostal experience. One can know, today, that his baptism is a genuine Pentecostal experience, equivalent to that of the disci

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

disciple mentioned that they spoke with tongues, is recorded in Acts 19:6. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." This was in the city of Ephesus. The theory, that some have advanced, is that the Spirit's anointing with the evidence of speaking with other tongues was only given when a new racial group accepted the Gospel, such as the Jews at Pentecost, the Samaritans in Philip's revival, and the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. But this theory breaks down here in Acts 19:6, where no new ethnic group can be distinguished. The same could be said of the Corinthians, who certainly spoke with tongues.
Some oppose tongues, as the exclusive initial evidence, on the grounds that tongues are not always mentioned in the Bible in connection with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. It is true that three accounts say nothing of tongues, but the omission is due to the brevity of those accounts. In the record of the outpouring on the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-19) no mention is made of an accompanying sign, but the fact that Simon was willing to pay money for the power to impart the gift of the Spirit shows that some audible or visible sign made the gift spectacular. It is logical to assume that he heard them speak with tongues.
In Acts 4:31 there is no mention of tongues. But this could well have been a refilling of those who were initially baptized on the Day of Pentecost. "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."
In Acts 9:17 we do not read that Paul spoke with tongues when he received the Spirit; but that he did is quite certain from his testimony, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Cor. 14:18).
In this connection, two thoughts should be noted. First, the first and last biblical accounts of the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4; 19:6) mention that the recipients spoke with tongues. Secondly, in every account of outpourings of the Holy Spirit, where any sign is mentioned, tongues is signified. Where no signs at all are spoken of there is strong evidence that the recipients did so speak.
The Pentecostal Fellowship of North America is an association of twenty-two of the largest Pentecostal denominations in North America. The statement of faith, to which all member groups must agree, has as its Fifth Point: "We believe that the full gospel includes holiness of heart and life, healing for the body and the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance."
There are some who teach that the initial evidence of tongues is not always necessary to assure that one has received the Fullness of the Spirit, but that any of the other gifts of the Spirit could be the evidence of the Pentecostal experience. These sometimes mention Acts 19:6 where we read: "they spake with tongues and prophesied." It is never claimed that all that one will do, when filled with the Spirit, is to speak with tongues. Other gifts may well be manifested. All that is claimed here is that the newly baptized believers at Ephesus did speak with tongues - as well as prophecy. Why is it claimed that speaking with tongues is the sign of the filling more than any other gift of the Spirit? Because all of the gifts of the Spirit were more or less manifested in Old Testament times, with the lone exception of speaking with other tongues and its accompanying gift of interpretation of tongues. Note: The word of wisdom - Joshua (Dt. 34:9) and Solomon J Kgs. 3:9-12); the word of knowledge - Bezaleel (Ex. 31:3); faith - Abraham (Gn. 15:6); gifts of healing - Elijah (1 Kgs. 17:17-23) and Elisha (2 Kgs. 4:18-37); working of miracles - Elijah (2 Kgs. 1:10), Elisha (2 Kgs. 6:4-7), and Moses (Ex. 7:10,20); prophecy - Isaiah, David (2 Sm. 23:2), and Balaam (Nm. 24:2); discerning of spirits - Ahijah (1 Kgs. 14:1-6) and Moses (Ex. 32:17-19). God was doing a new thing at Pentecost - something never experienced before - and the sign accompanying it was something never witnessed previously.

[Christopher Chapman]

i appreciate your position and that you have come to believe the doctrine of "initial evidence" but i hope you will allow me to present some reasons i cant quite accept it fully. i hope my brothers will be patient with me in this. i emphasize baptism in the holy spirit very much and also speaking in tongues. so in spirit i think i agree with eveything that has been said. but i have some theological and practical questions.

1. (a practical question) when the baptism is preached nowadays it often includes a teaching on "tongues". i dont see that in the apostolic practice. though i understand why this is done in practice, it seems that it has often lead to focusing more on tongues than the spirit. and though their objection proves nothing, it has lead many to object to penetcostal theology becasue they are "looking from the outside in" and not understanding how we come to emphasize the "least of the gifts" so much. though we know it is not tongues, but the spirit reception we are looking for, from the outside it looks like the toungues. and i am afraid that it sometimes looks this way because it is what we are looking for.

let me note here. i believe that speaking in tongues is the least of the gifts because it is for the individual not the body (unless interpreted). but since it if for the individual it is also the most common gift. and with paul i wish (and 99%, believe it is possible) for all to speak in tongues.

2. (a biblical question) in acts 2 it states that they "all" spoke in tongues. but also that "tongues of fire rested on EACH of them". the tongues of fire is not repeated elswhere, and in acts 10 and 19 we are not told that all of them spoke with tongues. i believe we read that into it. this might be illustrated by asking how many in acts 10 and 19 "prophesied or magnified god". when we ask that and look at the text we would have to say we dont know how many prophesied or maginified god, or how many spoke in tongues. i agree "maybe" they all did, but the passage doesnt say this. and if luke wanted to establish beyond doubt the "initial evidence" doctrine, he would have made it clear. i know we almost see it there because of what of the model we have been taught, but i dont see it there when i just look at the text.

3. (a theological question) my original post (see verses above) refered to the fact that paul and john both used the receiving of the spirit as "evidence". that means that those they were writing to understood without a doubt that they had received the spirit. they didnt need another "evidence" to prove the evidence. i mean to say that the receiving of the spirit is a subjective and self evident experience, it is not something that needs more "proof" (at least to the person receiveing it). the spirit was their "proof" that they had been accepted by god. so do we need "proof" for the "proof"? (note: if one argues that paul and john were speaking of a "different" receiving of the spirit, it must be noted that whatever they were speaking of was something that didnt happen without the knowledge of the receipient. evangelical teaching at this point (and pentecostals have adopted this) would say that what john an paul are refering to is the spirit received at the point of "faith". but that experience is not always being something self-evident, but taken by faith, and could not be used as "proof" that they were children of god)

i am not sharing these to imply that "pentecostals" are wrong. in fact i am very pentecostal. and as a pentecostal i want the pentecostal theology to be as consistent and biblical as possible. i beleive that pentecostal theology is not written in stone, but is still evolving with the new generation of pentecostal thologians. so i am not afraid to leave some things behind in order to advance the biblical case (as i see it) for the holy spirit baptism and all the gifts and blessings that accompany it. i believe that this is the "gift" that the lord spoke of and that he is will

[Pastor James and Lucia Purser]

I agree Chris. Spirit baptism I believe is received by faith , like everything else connected with our faith . Tongues should be a sign that one has been Spirit baptized , but not the qualifier.

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

Let me tackel one question at a time:
I say that it is our position of preaching the Gospel the same way as we teach the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Too many radio and T.V. preachers go on record in the say that tongues is not for today. They influenze people minds and bingo! They are already programed against it.
I don't think that it would be the least important gift because more people speak in tongues that have the gift of working of miracles or the gift of wonder working faith. Some seem to believe that everyman has this wonder working faith when they were drawn to Christ. Or how else do you believe in the Savior? And they quote Romans where it says that God gave to every man the measure of faith, to prove their point. But lets you and me stick with the scriptures. Tongues is more is talked about than any other gift. It is the praying in the spirit, do remember how you sought God for direction when the call came to you? With much prayer in tongues and travil in the spirit. I been with the prayer warriors at H.P. several times and seen pray in the Holy Spirit tongues while interceeding and my wife she prays with the Intercessor team in the South El Monte Praise Chapel. And these ladies pray in tongues while interceeding for the Lost and for our missionaries.
Praying in tongues and interceeding with groanings brings forth the birthing! Brother no one can tell me that they have a wonder working miracle ministry without the praying in the Holy Spirit Tongues! It's impossible to bring forth that ministry into being. I will pray in the spirit and I will pray in my understanding. The two go hand in hand, just like water and wet, hot and burn, and cold and chill.
People have been praying for the Holy Spirit Baptism with the evidence of speaking in other tongues since the days of Azusa St. to the 21st. Century. I wrote of an eye witness account at the turn of the 20th Century how a lady sought for 8 days the Holy Spirit Baptism with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. And she on the 9th day received it! Lets stick with that which we have recieved from the beginning. I personally say that those outside the pentecostal camp who do not have
the Holy Spirit Baptism with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. do not have a right or prividge to instruct me on how to flow in the Gifts, on what the evidence of the baptism is or isn't. Futhermore those who in't got it are trying to tell us who got it on how to use it ! One of those main guys is that low life satan and you know how he lies about us and what we do! Storys of Pentecostals swinging on Shandolears,rolling on the floors, climb over the pews ect,ect. Listen to this skeptic's report on the Azusa St. revival:
Mr. Parham spent much of his time in Los Angeles denouncing the work of the tongues movement. And he described repeatedely that the jerks, fits , spasms, such as he saw it when he was there were not works of the Holy Spirit, but that "when he ( the Holy Spirit) comes, He will make a person dignified and proper in his demeanor" or words to that effect.
He said that when he was in Los Angeles, a wild eyed man by the name, Glen Cook, who he became "wild and jabbers almost incessantly; that he would lay hands on others, hypnotizing them, and cause them to jabber as he did; that the work was either the flesh or the devil; and that Cook its perpetrator was a hyponotist, and was brutish, sensual, and devilish.*
these are the same reports as we hear today from the scoffers who try to tell us that what we got is of the devil! Or that we don't need to speak in tongues!

* Skeptics and Scoffers page 122 by Larry E. Martin

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

Iam working on an anwer to #3 . it is called methodology. I get to you real soon.

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

Chris hear is an answer to your question #2 on the fire at Pentecost why is it not here today?


The Disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21)
The promise of the Father (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4)

The expression “promise of the Father” can mean either the promise which originates with the father (go. Ablative of source) or the promise given by the father (GK. Subjective genitive). The term has been given variously interpretative. Paul refers to “the promise of the Spirit” (Gal. 3:14) and “the promised the Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). It is generally understood that he is speaking about then work of the Spirit in regeneration and that the promise aspect must Include Old Testament passages like: Isaiah 32:15;44:3-5; Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-27; 37 :1-14; 39:29; and Zechariah 12:10. James Dunn notes that the language of the Spirit being poured out occurs in some of these passages; this would then tie them in with Acts 2 outpouring. He would not deny that “the [promise of the Father” also includes Joel 2:28-32
One interpretation says that “Jesus’ remarked [‘which you have heard me speak about,’ Acts 1:4] must refer to one of two prior statements regarding the Spirit… Luke 11:13 or 12:12. Neither passage connects the promise of the Spirit to an old Testament text. “In Luke 11:13, Jesus talks about the Father bestowing the Spirit upon those who ask Him. In 12:12, the promise is that the Holy Spirit will teach the disciples what they ought to say when they are brought up before the civil and religious authorities; the parallel passage in Mathew 10:20 specifically mentions the Father. However, we cannot overlook Jesus’ statements about the promise Paraclete in John 14 to 16 as well, since some striking parallel exist between the Paraclete passages and the book of Acts.
No one questions that the expression “the promise of the Father” must include Joel’s prediction of the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-32). That is the primary interpretation for the Acts 2 narrative, for Peter identified the outpouring with Joel’s prophecy (vv. 17-21).
We should note the variety of them found in Acts 1 and 2 which the disciples experience on the day f Pentecost is called: the promise of the Father (1:4; 2:33); baptized in the Holy Spirit (1:5); Receiving the Power (1:8); the spirit coming upon (1:8); being filled with the Spirit (2:4); the Spirit being poured out (2:17); the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38).

The wind and the fire

Three unusual phenomena occurred on this day: ä sound like the blowing of a violent wind,” “what seemed to be tongues of fire,” and speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-4). (It is tempting to see in the threefold manifestation of the Holy Spirit indications of His agency in Salvation [wind], sanctification [fire], and service [tongues].)
The wind and the fire are sometimes called Theophanies--visible manifestations of God. On historic occasions like the giving of the law there came thunder, lightning flashes, a thick cloud, and a very loud trumpet sound (Exod. 19:16); so on this historic day the Lord manifested himself in a most unforgettable way with heaven-sent wind and fire.
We should note, however, that the wind and fire preceded the infilling of the Spirit; they were not a part of it. Furthermore, nowhere else in Acts are they mentioned again in conjunction with people being filled with the Spirit. They were one-time occurrences to mark the full inauguration of a new era in God’s dealing’s with his people. The audiovisual phenomena of wind and fire are reminiscent of the giving of the law on Mount. Sinai (Exod. 19:18; Duet. 5:4); wind is not mentioned in connection with the event, But the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 14:21), as well as other Old Testament special manifestations of God’s presence (2 Sam 22:1; Job 37:10; Ezek. 13:13; 37:9-14).
Wind is an emblem of the Holy Spirit (Ezek. 37:9; John 3:8); indeed, the Hebrew word Ruach means both “wind’ and spirit, as does the comparable Greek word puema. The Greek word for wind is used in Acts : 2 (pnoe) is a form of the same Greek word.

Fire is a associated with the Holy spirit in the Old Testament (Judges 15:14), in the promise that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire (Math. 3:11; Luke 3:16), and in identification of the “seven lamps of Fire” with the Holy Spirit (Rev. 4:5 NASB). Notice the mention of the Hoy Spirit in connection with Zechariah’s vision of the seven lamps (Zech 4:2-6). Max Turner maintains that the description of the Pentecostal Theophany is “full of Sinai allusions with which the reference to clouds of smoke’ in Joel’s citation [by Peter] will especially cohere.*

In addition, the wind and fire phenomena on the Day of Pentecost must be related to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus would Baptize in the Holy Spirit and Fire; the winnowing metaphor with which John follows up his statement certainly contains the elements of a wind, which separates the grain from the chaff, and fire, which consumes the chaff (Matt. 3:11-12; Luke 3:16-17).

I. Howard Marshall comments, “The fire in Acts is surely to be linked primarily with the fire in John the Baptist’s saying the interpretations of John the Baptist’ statement varies significantly. The following are among them:

1. John predicted only a baptism of fire, which would be one of judgment. The Greek should probably be translated “in the Holy Spirit, that is, fire.” The Holy Spirit is the fire.

2. John predicted only a baptism for the righteous, which would be “in the Holy Spirit, that is, fire.”

3. There are two baptisms, one in the spirit for the righteous and one in fire for the unrighteous. The first is fulfilled in the Book of Acts, the second is eschatological. John, as with some Old Testament prophets, telescoped the two events; he failed to distinguish; between the time of the Spirit baptism and the time of the fire baptism.

4. There is a two-fold aspect to the one baptism: Spirit for the righteous, fire for the unrighteous. It is a single baptism which, form John’s perspective, would be experienced by all. : The Spirit is purgative and refining for those who remained impenitent. Rodger Menzies dissents, saying, “We search in vain for a reference to a messianic bestowal of the Spirit which purifies and morally transforms the individual. “ In his view, the cleansing is national, not personal. This position is sometimes argued based on a single prepositional for the two objects in the Greek text: not “in the Holy Spirit and in fire, “but in the Holy Spirit and fire.”

With the precise meaning of John the Baptist’s statement continues to be debated, there is little doubt that Jesus invested it with new or at least additional meaning. The disciple, He said, would receive power that would be intimately connected with their evangelizing mission (Acts 1:8). Furthermore, the fire on the Day of Pentecost was not destructive in nature. It more closely resembles the fire in the burning bush (Exod. 3:2-5; Acts 7:30) and speaks of the presence and holiness of God. Significantly, the only other symbolic reference to fire in the book of Acts relates to the burning bush incident, unless one interprets to the fire in Joel’s prophecy symbolically (Acts 2:19).

Stanley M. Horton suggests that in view of its occurrence during the Feast of Pentecost, the fire signified God’s acceptance of the Church body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). He draws attention to Old Testament incidents where the fire came down on an altar, as with Abraham, and at the dedication of both the Tabernacle and Solomon’s temple.

Douglas A. Oss says that fire is associated in the Old Testament with God’s sanction of prophetic activity such as prophetic speech (Jer. 5:14; 23:29; Ezek. 1:4t o 2:8) and judgment (Ezek. 15:4-8; 19:12-130. He concludes: “The tongues of fire” in Acts 2:3 may very well have symbolized God’s own sanctioning of the church’s prophetic activity.

* M. Max B. Turner, Power from on High: Sheffield England. Pg 224

Source: The Holy Spirit A Pentecostal Perspective By Anthony D. Palma . Pages 136-140 Legion Press div of Gospel Publishing house
Springfield, Mo. ( Assembly

[Christopher Chapman]

i agree that the holy spirit is the promise of the father. i dont separate what luke and paul have to say about the issue. i think they are just talking about different aspects of the same receiving of the spirit. paul talks more in terms of gifts for the church, confirmation as children of god and holiness. luke speaks more in terms of power for witness since that is the context of acts. ( i think this is one place pentecostal theology has sought compromise with our evangelical brethren over a more "full" pentecostal view)

the fire that john the baptist spoke of was clearly the fire of judgment on the nation. that is why in the context he said the chaff would be burned with fire. it is not referring to the holy spirit baptism. this is why john was later confused about jesus. he asked if jesus was the one or they should wait for another, because he had not poured out the holy spiriti (john 7 - until he was exalted) and he had not yet judged the nation of israel, which he later did in ad 70 (luke 21). (note-though it is not the context it is a very common for us to say he baptizes with the "holy spirit and fire" to mean the fire (zeal, power, glory of the holy spirit). this is not the context and interpretation but it is a very common and acceptable (to me) way to talk about the holy spirit power. (malachi 3-4 also talk of this judgment on post exhilic israel in conection with christs first coming and john the baptist.)

the tounges of fire of course have a different meaning, more like the burning bush, as you said.

i guess my number 2. question above more had to do with whether luke intended us to see tongues as the only infallible sign of spirit baptism. if he said "all" and "each" it would be more clear to me. but of course i see it was the most common outward evidence. and it is possible that every individual in acts 10 and 19 did speak in tongues when they were baptized. i just wanted to note that it doesnt say "all" and "each". i understand and accept why the traditional pentecostal position has been to say that tongues is the undeniable and clear "initial evidence" that someone has received the spirit baptism.