Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2112 | ||
'So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ""Receive the Holy Spirit.' John 20:21-22 Did Jesus first give the Holy Spirit here in John 20:22, or over a month later at Pentecost? If not until Pentecost, what exactly did Jesus do when he breathed on his followers after his resurrection and told them to receive his Spirit? If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost? |
||||||
2 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | kalos | 2113 | ||
"Since the disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost, some 40 days in the future (Acts 1:8; 2:1-3), this statement must be understood as a pledge on Christ's part that the Holy Spirit would be coming." (p. 1627, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) . . . My answer to your last question will likely provoke some controversy. However, it is not my intention to be provocative or controversial. . . . As strange as it may seem, I believe the following with all my heart and understanding, even though I am a member of a leading Pentecostal denomination. . . . Question: "If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost?" My answer: "The disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost." Acts 2:4 *filled with the Holy Spirit.* "In contrast to the baptism with the Spirit, which is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body (1 Cor 12:13), the filling is a repeated reality of Spirit-controlled behavior that God commands believers to maintain. Peter and many others in Acts 2 were filled with the Spirit again (e.g., Acts 4:8,31; 6:5; 7:55) and so spoke boldly the Word of God. The fullness of the Spirit affects all areas of life, not just speaking boldy (compare Eph 5:19-33)" (p. 1635, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). To be "filled with" the Spirit means to be "controlled and empowered by" the Spirit. I might add that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9 "...Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."), it is obvious that not all believers at all times are *filled* (controlled and empowered) by the Spirit. |
||||||
3 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2123 | ||
I agree that this can definitely be a controversial question, and I appreciate your willingness to chime in. I chose it not for the controversy but to challenge myself and others to re-examine our assumptions in light of the Scriptures. Let me make sure I understand your reply. First you quoted MacArthur (one of the current teachers whom I most respect, but whom I doubt on his reading of John 20:22). One of the things I most appreciate about MacArthur is his integrity and transparency. To paraphrase him, he basically states that his underlying assumptions (or earlier foundations within his systematic theology built on other passages) act as a filter requiring him (and you) to reject the most obvious and natural reading of John 20:22. MacArthur is convinced that the Holy Spirit was not actually given until Pentecost; therefore, Jesus didn't give the Spirit in Jn 20:22. If one tries to envision the scene of Jesus "breathing on" the apostles and saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit," it is difficult for me to accept an underlying understanding between Jesus and the apostles that he actually meant "some time in the future" and wasn't intending to do so for another 40 days. It seems that you define "baptism" and "receiving" (of the Spirit) as synonymous but consider "filling" to have a distinct meaning. This I find compelling, although I must admit I'm not fully convinced as to which terms are synonymous with which. As MacArthur points out, there is clearly a potentially repetitive nature to this filling. I'm not convinced that the term "filled" with the Spirit isn't used in two distinct ways -- one referring to a temporary condition of supernatural empowerment (as in Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9 etc.) and another one describing an ongoing condition (Acts 6:3,5; 11:24; 13:52; etc.). My main interest is in seeing what others have to say on this one, though. Thanks again for your input. |
||||||
4 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | kalos | 2130 | ||
Let me begin by saying that nothing I write in this reply is intended in any way to appear argumentative. I very much respect your interpretation. I present my understanding of the verses for your consideration. . . . You write: "MacArthur is convinced that the Holy Spirit was not actually given until Pentecost." May I point out a couple of things to take into account? . . . Luke 24:49 ASV "And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high." In 24:33 the text makes it clear that in v. 49 Jesus is adressing "the eleven [apostles] and those who were with them gathered together." Question: If the Apostles had previously received the Holy Spirit (John 22), then why does Jesus command them "tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high"? . . . Acts 1:8 ASV "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Question: Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past? . . . It is generally understood that the church was born on Pentecost Sunday when, for the first time, believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. . . . Let me clarify something. The Bible in 1 Cor 12:13 says: "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..." This is how we were initially placed into the body of Christ. It occurred when we received Christ as Savior and were born again. If we were "baptized by one Spirit" when we were placed into the body of Christ, then what else could the baptism in or of the Holy Spirit be? Surely there are not 2 or more different kinds of Holy Spirit baptism, are there? . . . Also note that in Acts 2:4, the text there does not say: "And they were all baptized with the Holy Spirit." It uses the word "filled". "And they were all FILLED (emphasis mine) with the Holy Spirit." Filled, not baptized. Not according to the plain text of the Scripture. . . . Don't misunderstand me. I have not taken a stand for or against the gift of tongues. So far I have not said one thing about tongues. What I am talking about is, as you picked up on, the difference between "baptized" and "filled." . . . Then you state: "I'm not convinced that the term "filled" with the Spirit isn't used in two distinct ways -- one referring to a temporary condition of supernatural empowerment (as in Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9 etc.) and another one describing an ongoing condition (Acts 6:3,5; 11:24; 13:52; etc.). " I don't see how any reasonable Bible student could not agree with you on this. It seems quite plain from the Scritpures you cited that, indeed, the Holy Spirit comes upon people at different times to empower them to perform certain ministires or specific tasks. Good point! . . . Surely extremists from one side or the other (tongues speakers or non-tongues speakers) will deliver a tirade against one or both of us telling us how wrong, confused, and inept we are for not taking their side. If I understand you correctly, your aim is the same as mine. I want to base my beliefs on the clear teachings of Scripture and not just blindly accept the teacings, leanings, biases, or filters of any church, denomination, doctrine of men, or alleged teaching ministry. (On the other hand God did give gifted people to the church, including teachers. Let's all use a little common sense and realize that somewhere there may be someone who's studied the Bible a little longer, deeper, and more intensively than we have.) For example, John MacArthur does not claim infallibility for himself. But the fact that he has studied the Bible 30 hours a week for 30 years in the original languages -- that fact may prompt us to consider the possibility, however slight, that just MAYBE he has a better background and skill in interpreting the Bible than most of us do. I know Americans in general and fundamentalists in particular have a distrust of formal education. Except of course when they need a physician or an attorney. Then forget self-taught practitioners. They want a "real" doctor or a "real" attorney. Funny how there's a double standard there. It seems that who handles their body or their financial interests is more important than who shepherds their souls and breaks to them the bread of life. Much more could be said on this topic. And I'm sure it will be. But I'll reserve any further comments until another day. Thanks for your posting, your interest, and the care you've taken to post a reply that is well worth reading. ---JVH0212 |
||||||