Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit" -- Qohelet Web Ministry

[ 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: 15:03:33 06/30/02 Sun
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 15:32:26 06/29/02 Sat

"As for you suggesting you are "thorough." If you truly wanted to be "thorough" then we would have gone through every passage dealign with the H.S., including those of the Old Testament.

We are presently dealing with Luke are we not? If you want to look at every passage concerning the Spirit, we must do it systematically, not just pulling in here are there as we see fit. We must consider "every" passage dealing with the Spirit. We are beginning with Luke.

"So I am not misunderstood, again, you may enter passage into the discussion, but you must first show how they are related and why they are related.

That that was self explanatory, but if you want to have it spelled out, here it is. They are in Luke, which we are studying, they are about the Holy Spirit, which we are currently discussing. Therefore, we cannot ignore them. They may or may not have anything to "add" but we cannot ignore them lest you be guilty of proof-texting.

"As for the "ablative" case: Most Greek scholars promote the 5 case system as the best. There a few exceptions such as your trusty friend AT Robertson. :-) But he doesn't help your case either, no pun intended!"

If you are at least at the intermediate level of Greek, you would know that whether you are using a five or eight case system, there are still various types of genetives. Simply consult an "up-to-date" intermediate grammar, reference grammar, etc. and you will know what I am talking about. As for it not "helping my case," do you even understand the point I made? What "case" are you referring to?

Here is what I wrote in that post:
"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.
"

Context, context, context. Even a first year Greek student knows that you must consider the context to determine the type of ablative (or genetive) that a word is. I considered first the immediate and the larger context in Acts. I didn't pick and choose which context to relate it to. Notice what I wrote:

".
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).

Yet, in spite of the context, you write:

"First, let me refer you to Acts 2:33; "Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear" (ASV).

Note again that what was poured out was both SEEN and heard. Since no man has seen God at anytime, and the H.S. is God, what was poured out was not God (NOT the H.S.). What was poured out was power, "out from" the Holy Spirit. There is the explanation of the context, which completely. and truthfully, explains Acts 2:16-18 (the "this" is the "that"). Jay Dee, there is the context, all of it, and not one part missing. Therefore, the context shows that "apo" is genitive, and it may not explain all of the passage (if ablative) by itself, but it is certainly clear now that it is coupled with the context, especially Peter's summary comments of Acts 2:33. Again, down goes your proposition because it fails miserably with the context.

What was poured out was power? You say, "Jay Dee, there is the context, all of it, and not one part missing." No one has seen God at any time? That is your support for this not being the Holy Spirit?? That is absurd! People have seen "manifestations" of God from the beginning. The cloud, the pillar of fire, the whirlwind, the still voice, the shekinah glory in the temple, etc. In the New Testament, John clearly "saw" the Spirit descending like a dove. This support of yours clearly failed even minor scrutiny.

You brought this verse in, and in a round about way insinuated that I had not considered the whole context. Look again, it is you who have not considered the whole context. "This" and "that" are ambiguous by themselves. What is the "this" and the "that?" You claim that it is merely "power." Yet even this is not supported by the context. Here, let me spell out the context for you.

". . . wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now (Acts 1:4-5)."

Notice, Jesus did not say they would be immersed with power, but with the Holy Spirit

". . . but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 1:8)."

Notice, Jesus did not say power would come upon them, but the Spirit would come upon them. They would receive power when the Spirit comes upon them. Note, it is the Spirit what will come upon them, they they would receive power.

"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance (Acts 2:1-4)."

Notice what happened when the Spirit comes upon them. Here it says they were "filled with the Spirit." The Spirit gave the the ability to speak in other tongues, it "gave them utterance." So, they didn't just receive power, but they received the Spirit who gave them power.

"For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days,' God says, 'That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams; Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit And they shall prophesy (Acts 2:15-18)."

Peter quotes Joel to explain the meaning of this event. "of my Spirit." Is it partative, or an ablative of agency? Look at the context. The verses leading up to this verse make it clear that the spirit would come upon them, that they would be baptized in the Spirit. It also makes it clear that the Spirit would give them power. The prophesy does the same.

"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear (Acts 2:33)."

Peter didn't say that they received "the promise of power", but the "promise of the Spirit." So what is the "this?" So far, it has been referred to as "immersion" in the Spirit, being "filled" with the Spirit, or the Spirit coming "upon them." It was the Spirit.

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself (Acts 2:38-39)."

This promise of the Spirit was not just for the apostles, it was for all of them.

That, Doug, is the whole context. There is your explanation as to what the "this" and the "that" is in Acts 2:33.

"Here is another reason why even your attempt with the "ablative" fails, if indeed it is in the ablative case. First, the ablative, itself, is the case of separation. It uses the same form as the genitive but its function is distinct, and this is according to Summers. Second, the ablative is the "whence" case (origin or separation), expressed in English by "off, out, from, away, etc.," and this is according to Davis.

The more nuanced parts of Greek (there aren't as many in Koine Greek as in Attic or Ionic Greek, but they are still there) are described in an intermediate grammar. There are at least five different kinds of ablatives concerning the preposition "apo." It is either partitive, or it is an ablative of angency. Either way, the context makes it clear that God gave them his Spirit. They were filled with the Spirit, he came upon them, they were immersed in the Spirit. You cannot ignore the Hebrew text of the passage in Joel.

"
As for the Septuagint. The brightest of the elite Jewish scholars (70 of them) were picked - chosen to translate. The Septuagint was considered the greatest translation of its day and was clearly used and accepted by Jews, including Jesus. Yes, Jay Dee, I'm well aware of the difference between the Greek/Jewish rendering of the Hebrew but that does not support anything at all as the whole, entire context of Joel bears the actual meaning out. Strike two, Jay Dee :-)

So what does the fact that 70 Jewish scholars translated the septuagint? It is still just that, a translation. You still have yet to deal with the Hebrew text of the passage. You acknowledged it, then disgarded it. It literally says that God will pour out his Spirit. That coupled with the context leads to the conclusion that this must be an ablative of agency.

As for the Spirit falling, being shed forth, out pouring, etc, all this is the use of metonymy and Acts 8:14-19 clearly demonstrates this. I have consistently said the use of metonymy is employed but you have not once commented on that, not once. Strike 3.

Sorry, but I have commented on that. I made a comment on this on my very first response:

Thank you for expressing your presuppositions from the beginning. I understand where you are coming from. To have Christ living "in you" or the Spirit dwelling "in you" is of course a figure of speech. It is more of a spiritual indwelling, not a literal, physical thing.

I understand that it is a figure of speech. We they were "filled" with the Holy Spirit, it wasn't as if you could do an x-ray and see it. Enough said.

By the way, I noticed you interpret the Spirit falling on the people, or being filled with the Spirit using Acts 8. This is good and well, BUT you must first and foremost begin with the immediate context as I have done above.

"Asfor the asking of the Spirit; I believe Luke shows us his commentary on Luke 11:13 with Acts 8. That is what I said in my previous post.

And you point is???? That is exactly what I have said in SEVERAL posts. Need we beat this dead horse any longer?

"When did the people of Acts 2 receive the Spirit - then and there? I think not. The Text does not say.

Read again. The text says they were "filled with the Spirit." Jesus said prior to this that they would be immersed in the Spirit, just as was promised during his earthly ministry. So, yes the text does say.

"Again, Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the only two times the expression "gift of the Holy Spirit" is used and both times it is dealing with the miraculous. I have discussed some of this already if you care to read what I have written."

Yes, I have read your posts. However, the more I read from Acts, the more I am convinced that this gift is reffered to in a number of different ways. I had already outlined that in a previous post, but here it is again.

1. The gift of the Holy Spirit
2. Pouring out of the Spirit
3. Being filled with/full of the Spirit
4. Being baptized with the Spirit
5. The Holy Spirit "falling on" a person
6. The promise of the Holy Spirit

They are not each talking about different things, but the same thing. WHy, in chapter one and two alone, it is referred to in at least five different ways.

So it appears I hit a home run to all the strikes you threw. Try again.

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

Replies:

Re: Acts 2 - "gift of the Holy Spirit" -- David Proffitt, 09:27:16 07/02/02 Tue
- Meaningful Post -- Jay Dee, 10:37:51 07/03/02 Wed