Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 20:22 And when He said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. [Acts 1:8; 2:1-3] |
Subject: When was the Holy Spirit first given? |
Bible Note: 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 |