VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:23:52 06/24/02 Mon
Author: Jay Dee
Subject: Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit"
In reply to: Doug 's message, "Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit"" on 06:43:19 06/22/02 Sat

"I am certainly not irritated at all by you trying to bring in other passages. However, the passages you are bringing in in have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fulfillment of Joel 2 in Acts 2. Nothing! So, I am sorry you are so irritated on my insistence that the passages you offer are completely irrelevant as they have no direct bearing on any sound exegesis concerning the context (Acts 2) under discussion. You still have failed to show the necessity of entering them into "the mix." If anything, the passages you have offered only point to Pentecost and they do nothing more than deal with the miraculous work of the Spirit.
Also, you have tendency to muddle yourself down in the use of anachronism, which doesn't help your case. Leave the miraculous things of the first century in the first century!"

Like I said, I believe in being thorough. It may be boring to be so thorough, but I believe it helps keep you from coming up with incorrect conclusions. Remember that we are dealing with literary documents here. We need to look holistically at scripture, especially Luke's concern with the Holy Spirit. It's not an anachronism, it is part of the story that builds up to a conclusion in Acts. In order to keep the big picture in mind, it is necessary to look at Luke and Acts, then focus in on the individual sections. As far as leaving the miraculous things of the first century in the first century, I have not, nor am I trying to make a case the miraculous gifts are still happening among us as they were in the early church.

The text does not simply say that He would pour out the Spirit, but rather he would pour OUT FROM his Spirit. Therein lies the big difference between our views. You declare that God would pour out his Spirit. However, God defines that otherwise and actually declares that he would pour OUT FROM his Spirit. God, in His own words, tells us what would be poured out. Jay Dee, it was not the Spirit, Himself, that was poured out, but rather that which came OUT FROM his Spirit. Therefore, Jay Dee, it extremely easy to discern what in fact the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is in Acts 2:38, and it is discernible (all the nay sayers aside) by its own context. To dismiss this fact out of hand is simply to reject the clear context of Acts 2/Joel 2. You have not made one response to my previous comments concerning Acts 2:16,17,18,33,38. Instead you have avoided them like the plague as I thought you would! :-)

Actually, the "apo" is ablative (if you are using an eight case system, rather than a five case system). There are also several types of ablatives, especially concerning the little preposition, "apo." It this case, it could either be partitive, or an ablative of agency. In the later case, it would be "by."

It is interesting to note that the wording is slightly modified from the Hebrew. The Hebrew of Joel 2:28 says,

"I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh"


Luke is actually quoting from the Septuagint. The quotation is literally word-for-word:

"I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh"


If you look just at the Hebrew text, it plainly states that God would pour out his Spirit. The Greek interpretation of this phrase is that God would either pour out "by" or "from" or "concerning" his Spirit, depending on how you take "apo." Usually you determine the type of ablative by the context, which I will consider in a moment.

The question is this: What will God pour out? If you look at the Greek rendering of Joel 2:28 God is going to pour something out of his Spirit. If it is partative, then it will be something that originates with the Spirit. I don't wan't to avoid the context, as you have pointed out. Besides, it is the only way to make more clear what Luke is portraying. If you look at the immediate context, the pouring out of the Spirit is also called the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in verse 38. Is the phrase, "of the Holy Spirit" an objective or subjective genitive? Is it the gift "from" the Holy Spirit, or gift of the Holy Spirit, meaning the Holy Spirit himself? Once again, context will help.

The book of Acts begins with Jesus promising that the disciples would be baptized "in" the Holy Spirit (1:5). He also tells them that they would receive power when "the Holy Spirit comes upon" them 1:7). When it happens, Luke says that "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit (2:4).

As you continue to read through Acts, it becomes clear that it is the Spirit that "falls on" the people, or that they "receive the Spirit," or they are "immersed in the Spirit," etc, etc, etc. The overall text of Acts overwhelminly confirms that the people receive not merely something "from" the Spirit, but they receive the Spirit himself.

If you go outside of Acts and look at this theologically, John confirms the same thing. In the Gospel of John, is clearly says that Jesus would give the Spirit, not something "from" the Spirit.

Obviously, God gave the Spirit.


Now, I grant that this is analogical or figurative speech. It isn't as if God gave the Spirit hiself in the sense that you could cut a person open and find him there. God poured out, filled, or gave his Spirit in Acts 2. Simple as that. When you realize that this is analogical speech (as so much of the language about God in the Bible is), you realize that there really is no difference in speaking of giving the Holy Spirit, or giving something "from" the Holy Spirit. This probably seem ludicrous. I have been building a case for those who received the Spirit actually receiving the Spirit, and not something from the Spirit -- And now I say it doesn't matter because either way it is the same thing. I say this merely to recognize the limitations of language with it's temporal symbols to convey celestial truths.

Jay Dee, I agree with you that there were those who did "receive" the Spirit. However, the terms "receive" and filled with" all have to do with the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit. "Receiving" the Spirit was either before Pentecost and the coming of the OUTPOURING of the Spirit, or during the time following Pentecost when those miraculous endowments existed. There is no passage, in the entire Bible, that speaks about or teaches that folks may "receive" the Spirit as a non-miraculous indwelling.

I agree with this. From what I have been looking at in Luke's writings, it is clear that the Holy Spirit and the miraculous manifestations go hand in hand. In Luke's writings, if you have the Spirit, then there is some sort of manifestation of it in a miraculous way.

"As for "indwelling." I believe the Godhead indwells me, not literally, but representatively through the Word. "

This has always been my understanding. After all, doesn't Paul refer to the word of God as the "sword of the Spirit" in Ephesians 5?

As for Luke 11:13; what is the context dealing with? Prayer, is it not? All commentaries and personal bias aside - the context is dealing with prayer and not conversion!

Agreed. I have never seen this as a reference to conversion. What I found curious about it is the reference to God giving the SPirit to those who "ask" him. Luke never records anyone asking the Father for the Spirit for themselves. However, he does record those asking the Father for the Spirit for someone else. In this case, true to Luke's concern for the Spirit, it was accompanied with a miraculous manifestation.

"These folks did no have the Spirit even though they were baptized."

Actually, the text says they had not "yet" received the Spirit, which indicates it was something to be expected for these believers. Was this something unusual? Could have been. In Acts 2, Peter told the people to repent and be baptized, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8, this didn't happen until AFTER BOTH baptism and prayer. Did the unusual situation have something to do with the non-Jewish mission? After all, Jews typically steered around BOTH gentiles and Samaritans. You see another unusual case of reception of the Holy Spirit with Cornelius. The Spirit fell on him and his household while they were still hearing the word! It seems then, that there was no "mechanical" formula for receiving the Spirit. It wasn't as if the only way to receive the Spirit was just through the laying on of the hands of the twelve Apostles. The Lord gave the Spirit as he saw fit and in his own timing. The only common thread in the reception of the Holy SPirit in Acts is faith in Christ.

From everything I have been looking at so far, those who had received the Spirit/ been immersed in the Spirit/ were filled with the Spirit/ received the gift of the Spirit, received a miraculous manifestation of it. "IF" there is a distinction between a "non-miraculous" "indwelling" of the Spirit, and being "filled with the SPirit" that manifests itself through some sort of miraculous sign, Luke either does not make this distinction, or assumes the non-existence of a "non-miraculous indwelling" as we typically understand it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.