|
Author
|
Topic: Receive the Holy Spirit?
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
I did cursory read a couple of the paragraphs and it seems to be pretty good stuff that needs to be examined closer.
My current immediate response is that Jesus at least gave the disciples limited power of Holy Spirit to suffice for ministry, because it does seem to me that the disciples ACTUALLY went out to preach Jesus and heal the sick.
To think that the disciples did NOT do the preaching and healing after being breathed upon would contradict the Bible text that they "came back rejoicing":
John 20
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Luke 10
9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
So it seems to me that the Lord Jesus gave the disciples power to do these things for this ministry, but it had to await the death and resurrection of Jesus for the Holy Spirit to be our constant Counsellor Who has come alongside.
To be tasked for a ministyr is one thing, and with God nothing is impossible, but to have the constant Counsel of the Holy Spirit required the subsequent death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
love, Eden
IP: Logged | 
|
|
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Dear Carol Swenson, is there a book by the same title that I can buy, perhaps used on the Internet, or else, new? love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Receive the Holy Spirit? (John 20:22)
Did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit before the ascension or at Pentecost? In John 20:22 Jesus breathes on the disciples and indicates that he is granting them the Holy Spirit, which fulfills a promise repeatedly made in John 14–16. However, in Acts 2:4 we learn that later, after the ascension of Jesus, the 120 disciples gathered in the upper room had an experience, and “all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” When was the Holy Spirit actually received by the disciples?
In John 20:21 we have the commissioning of the disciples: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” The sending of the Son in John is a sending into the world to save the world. The sending of the disciples is thus a continuation of this sending of Jesus as they go out into the world to preach the gospel. At this point Jesus grants them the power for mission with the words “receive the Holy Spirit.” Along with this empowering comes the authority to forgive sins (which, of course, is part of preaching the gospel, for in it one indicates whose sins are forgiven and whose are not). In other words, the three verses, John 20:21-23, fit together.
There have been three approaches to these verses. The first notes that this linking of empowering with the Spirit and the preaching of the gospel also appears in Acts, where the disciples wait until the Spirit comes at Pentecost and then begin to preach the gospel. Therefore, it is argued, this must be John’s version of the Acts event. John, of course, never mentions the ascension. Jesus comes and disappears repeatedly right to the end of the book. This is appropriate, for in John Jesus is said to come in the Holy Spirit to the disciples (Jn 14:18). Here, according to this argument, we have a symbolic presentation of what Acts speaks of as a later event. Symbolism is the way of John.
This is certainly a possible approach. In its best form it takes both John and its style seriously and Luke-Acts and its style just as seriously. It notes real parallels in the two accounts. Yet the approach also has its problems. First, the disciples do not go out and witness after receiving the Spirit. In fact, they cannot even convince Thomas (Jn 20:24-25). What is more, Thomas would then appear never to receive the Spirit. Second, this solution really says that the two accounts are not reconcilable. One is historical and the other symbolic. While it is clear that we do not always know how accounts fit together, and thus there is some truth to such solutions, it is also clear that when John reports events he thinks of them as events, not symbols of events. The events may symbolize something (as the raising of Lazarus symbolizes the final resurrection), but they are viewed in themselves as historical. Thus this solution does not fit John’s normal methodology.
A second approach views John as one type of giving of the Spirit and Acts as another. John is the impersonal breath of God and Acts is the personal Holy Spirit. John is a sprinkling with the grace of the Spirit and Acts is full empowerment, saturation with the Spirit. John is the Spirit as new life and Acts is the Spirit as empowerment for ministry. The list of how these two givings are to be distinguished could be extended much further. Now this solution takes both of the events as quite historical and tries to distinguish why there should be two events. The problem with it is that neither John nor Acts seems to know about two receptions of the Spirit. Reading through John 13–16 one does not notice two receptions but rather one Holy Spirit or “paraclete” (a transliteration of the word sometimes translated as “comforter” or “advocate”). In Acts the reception of the Spirit they are awaiting is not distinguished from any previous reception, despite Luke’s interest in the topic of the Spirit. Thus this approach seems to be an explanation imposed on the texts by people who read both Acts and John rather than something that either Luke or John thought of.
A third approach looks at John 20:22 as Jesus’ symbolic giving or promising the Spirit, which was experientially received on Pentecost. The breathing (not necessarily on the disciples, for there is no “on” in the text) symbolizes what the words say, namely the Holy Spirit. Yet nothing seems to happen. It is a promise. For John it is all that is needed, for those who experienced the power of the Spirit in the church knew that the disciples really did receive the Spirit. There is no need to mention that it did not occur until later, for John is not going to carry on the story that long. For Luke there is no need to mention any previous symbolic giving, for Jesus refers to the promise of the Spirit before his ascension (Acts 1:4-5). Luke is concerned with the reality of the power and how it directs the mission of the church. Thus both writers have their reasons for not needing to mention what the other includes (assuming that they knew of both stories). Naturally, it would not be surprising to think of Jesus as wanting to act out the giving of the Spirit personally, especially if he is aware that his physical presence with the disciples is coming to an end and he will not be physically present at Pentecost. In other words, John 20:22 may be John’s version of Acts 1:4-5 rather than John’s version of Pentecost.
It will remain for the reader to decide which of these approaches is the most satisfying in that it best fits the data of the texts in question. What is more important than harmonizing the texts is recognizing that both John and Acts do indeed insist that the Holy Spirit is needed for the mission of the church. Mere human power and authority cannot carry out the mission Jesus received from the Father. It takes the Spirit in the believer to produce the results the Father intends, the forgiveness of sins.
(Hard Sayings of the Bible)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
