Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Jesus had spent quite a bit of time speaking to his disciples about the coming of the Holy Spirit in John 14, 15, & 16. So, if the Holy Spirit was indeed imparted to the disciples when Jesus breathed on them in John 21, with Thomas not present, why did they not mention anything to Thomas about it happening when he was with them a week later? Their response was, “We have seen the Lord!” which is noteworthy, but having received so much instruction about the Holy Spirit just a few days before, is it not striking they would fail to mention it when they encountered Thomas a week later?
Stan Wayne
Yes
Angel Ruiz
No they did not…
Dan Irving
If they did, that would contradict John 7:39 and Acts 10:47.
Angel Ruiz
Amen
Stan Wayne
Not really
Stan Wayne
Note sequence in John – a gospel meant to be a complete narrative – distributed as a single unit –
“Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
John 7:39 ESV
“even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.”
John 14:17 ESV
“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.”
John 17:5, 13 ESV
“Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.””
John 20:17, 22-23 ESV
Stan Wayne
Then Luke described the B/HS as “upon” after the had received “in”:
“And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.””
Luke 24:49 ESV
Angel Ruiz
This not the same as in acts…
Stan Wayne
Luke wrote this after the evening of the resurrection – Luke focused on the power aspect of Christ’s promise her and in Acts 1:8 and onward – John focused on regeneration by the Spirit.
Angel Ruiz
This passage indicates that Jesus had to go to the Father in order for the Spirit to come, and that Jesus would “send” the Spirit after He went. Jesus went to the Father in Acts 1:9-11.
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne. The most obvious solution is that Jesus went to the Father in Acts 1, and the pirit was sent in Acts 2.
Angel Ruiz
John 15:26-27 indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in them being witnesses. This happened at Pentecost.
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne John 16:7-11 indicates that the coming of the Spirit would result in the convictiond of the world. This happened at Pentecost…
Stan Wayne
Why not from the Resurrection forward – the new age of Grace had begun
Stan Wayne
Jesus also went to the Father in John 22:
“Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'””
John 20:17 ESV
Joseph Kidwell
Stan Wayne, I did some research on this subject last night and I agree with you’re position. The account in John describes the disciples being regenerated by the Spirit.
Varnel Watson
Another strange new doctrine? If they did why did the not speak in tongues for the next 50 days and had to receive the Spirit again?
Stan Wayne
Troy – it is the same principle as throughout Acts – salvation first then B/HS – salvation brings the “in” of the HS – B/HS brings the “upon”.
We see this in Acts 2, 8,9,19 clearly whereas in Acts 10 the two aspects occur simultaneously
Stan Wayne
This is Pentecostalism 101
Stan Wayne
It is error to go around teaching (like UPC) that you don’t “have the Holy Ghost” until you speak in tongues
Angel Ruiz
Troy Day and Stan Wayne…
Jesus did not say they received the Holy Spirit. There is no record in Scripture of them receiving the Holy Spirit at the time of this command – only a record of Jesus giving the command. It is not “safe” to apply meaning beyond what was actually said, to reason from an absence of Scripture, or to interpret Jesus’ commands as statements of historical record. Also, this would not be the first time Jesus did something purely for illustration….
Stan Wayne
Granted – that they did receive is not spelled out but your position is weakened by several considerations :
1) for Jesus to say “receive” and for it not to happen is strange
2) this book (John) was not passed around together with Luke/Acts for at least another 50 or 100 years. It was a complete narrative of its own – having its own beginning, development, climax and ending. For the subject of the coming of the HS in chapter 14-16 without a conclusion would leave a reader utterly on edge and wondering what the end of the story was for 100 years.
3) that Jesus breathed on them hearkens back to Jesus breathing on Adam in the garden the breath of life and warning that in the day he ate the fruit he would die. Now they came alive.
4) Peter was present that night and was breathed upon and this is what Peter says about his born again experience:
“…he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”
1 Peter 1:3 ESV
Stan Wayne
There is another more subtle reason I believe John 20:22 is an actual “in” reception of the HS.
The concept of born again believers being the ecclesia and having authority to bind and loose is in this passage as well as Matt 16 and Matt 18 where the ecclesia is predicted and described.
Varnel Watson
How could there be “in” reception without initial evidence ?
Stan Wayne
There was in Acts 8, 9 and 19 also
Varnel Watson
These are both past Acts 2 so maybe, but as early as John 20:22 is highly improbable
Angel Ruiz
But acts 8,9,19 are after the fact of acts 2… So if acts 8,9,19 are not explicit we know the circumstance base on Acts 2….
Varnel Watson
Angel Ruiz Exactly what I sad above to Stan Wayne
Stan Wayne
No – you are not grasping the basic Pentecostal doctrine somewhat crudely called “second blessing” taken from places like Acts 8 – here goes –
“But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
Acts 8:12 ESV
HERE is salvation – here is the “in” experience of the HS which is by faith and grace
Then:
“who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,”
Acts 8:15-18
Second experience produces Initial Evidence
Stan Wayne
Same with Paul in Acts 9
Stan Wayne
Same with the Ephesians in Acts 19
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne Only here in the New Testament. The act was symbolic, after the manner of the Hebrew prophets. We see the same thing in Ezekiel 37:5.
Stan Wayne
Same with the disciples in Acts 2 who had already been regenerated
Stan Wayne
Not understanding that point – what do you mean
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne The gift bestowed was not that of the personal Holy Spirit, but rather an earnest of that gift; an effusion of the Spirit.
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne In this case the act of breathing was used to represent the nature of the influence that would come upon them, and the source of that influence…. Acts 2 is when is happen…
Stan Wayne
Not sure what you mean – the scenario I laid out of two receptions for two purposes is pretty standard Pentecostal although many do think Pentecost had both elements –
Stan Wayne
But until you see John as a book that has a complete story that was circulated before being put between Luke and Acts you might not see it my way
Stan Wayne
I don’t see that nor can I imagine a reader of John seeing that in 75 AD
Varnel Watson
Lack of initial evidence is counter Pentecostal
Stan Wayne
Troy – explain Acts 8
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne This conferring of the Spirit upon them he confirms to them by breathing, as an exterior sign or symbol.
The name, Spirit, signifies a breath; and it is said, that in the creation God breathed into Adam the breath of life. Christ breatheth into his apostles the Holy Spirit; thereby showing, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, as from the Father, so also from him; as the breath of a man proceeds from him.
Stan Wayne
Initial evidence is for B/HS not salvation – are you guys Oneness or something?
Stan Wayne
Angel Ruiz I agree that Acts 20:22 is a redo of Genesis
Angel Ruiz
Stan Wayne this breathing on them, and the words that attended it, were a symbol, pledge, and confirmation, of what they were to receive on the day of Pentecost
Stan Wayne
I hear you but read what I wrote alternative to that view slowly with the scriptures
Angel Ruiz
I am not saying that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit equals salvation… What I’m saying is that John 20:22 is symbolic of what is to come in Acts 2…
Angel Ruiz
I understand that you are saying that John 20:22 is the moment the apostles got regenerated and there for saved…
Stan Wayne
Yes
Varnel Watson
Stan Wayne OP question is if the disciples received the HS baptism in John 20 or Acts 2 – latter being the more reasonable claim thus far
Stan Wayne
No Troy – that is NOT what the OP says – here is what the OP says:
Did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them?
Jesus had spent quite a bit of time speaking to his disciples about the coming of the Holy Spirit in John 14, 15, & 16. So, if the Holy Spirit was indeed imparted to the disciples when Jesus breathed on them in John 21, w…
Varnel Watson
So how did they receive the Holy Spirit without initial evidence of speaking in tongues. This seems very bapticostal
Stan Wayne
Salvation prior to Pentecost brings the Holy Spirit IN- In
A saved person has to have the IN of the Holy Spirit for sooooo so many scriptural reasons – no man can say Jesus is Lord- etc etc
We see the disciples were saved in Acts 1. The Samaritans were saved prior to B/HS – so They had IN but not Upon
Ed Brewer
received the Holy Spirit – yes (the gift of the father – regeneration), baptized in the Holy Spirit (the promise of the father – infilling) – no
Varnel Watson
Stan Wayne is pretty liberal on Biblical in-filling, indwelling, inhabitation of the Holy Spirit
Stan Wayne
Not really – 😉
Varnel Watson
Actually very liberal baptist. Pls check definition of liberal baptist under their Ordo Solutis to verify they are saying the same
Stan Wayne
Liberal baptists don’t teach B/HS with tongues after regeneration
Joseph Kidwell
Stan Wayne is affirming Classical Pentecostal teaching. Every major Trintarian denomination teaches subsequentialism. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost is subsequent to regeneration. Therefore, there are two receptions of the Spirit for two different purposes. Regeneration is the impartation of divine life (Tit. 3:5) while the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is the impartation of divine power (Acts 1:8).
Varnel Watson
While it is true Many non-Pentecostal voices are present in #PENTECOST today this is What virtually all Pentecostal denominations believe concerning Speaking in Other Tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-virtually-all-pentecostal-denominations-believe-concerning-speaking-in-other-tongues-as-the-initial-evidence-of-the-baptism-with-the-holy-spirit/
Tim Renneberg
So “receiving the Spirit” is being equated with the BHS? If that is the case, then no, the disciples had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. One could, however, make a case for this being the moment of salvation/regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit for the disciples.
Varnel Watson
Tim Renneberg on the move Watch out Stan Wayne
Stan Wayne
To use the word “receive” for B/HS is error. It would mean no one received from 200-1900.
Dan Irving
There is a distinction to be made between Initial Regenerating Faith and the Baptism (Reception) of the Holy Spirit. Else how could Paul ask the question, “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” (Acts 19:2) If we believe with our heart and confess with our mouth, it is by the Holy Spirit. (I Cor 12:3) That does not make us members of His body, the Church. THAT requires being joined into Christ through His Spirit’s baptism/indwelling. (I Cor 12:13) God can move upon men through the principle of faith, unto their forgiveness and redemption without respect to Pentecost. He can also baptize them into His body, the Church. The apostles could not be baptized into the body of Christ until Christ’s testimony was completed through His glorification. Keep in mind, this principle is what made Pentecostals so hated in the early 20th century!
Angel Ruiz
One can be part of the body of Christ with out the baptism of the Holy Spirit…
Dan Irving
Well, not according to Paul. See I Cor. 12:13.
Angel Ruiz
For by one Spirit – That is, by the agency or operation of the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit, we have been united into one body. it is not talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit…
Dan Irving
Hmmm “baptized by . . spirit,” is not the baptism of the Spirit?
Joseph Kidwell
Angel Ruiz, you are correct.
Stan Wayne
Agree with the first part – analysis of 1 C 12:3 is way off (heretical) because every believer between 200-1900 and every non Pentecostal would not be in Christ’s body when Christ said “I WILL build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail” – we would not have heard about Christ were it not his body in the previous periods.
You define Pentecostalism amiss which simply is a demand for Acts 2:4.
Are you Oneness?
Dan Irving
What do you mean by “Oneness?” I don’t believe the “Jesus name only” people are balanced.
Stan Wayne
Good – they are strong on non tongues speakers being unsaved
Paul Hughes
Either Jesus bestowed the indwelling Spirit by breathing on the Disciples at that time — which in that case would mark the inauguration of the Church Age (Dispensation of Grace, Acceptable Year of the Lord) instead of the usual reckoning at Pentecost — or more likely he was pre-figuring the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in salvation, as he prefigured his Atonement at the Last Supper when saying, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
Jesus laying on hands to heal, and using his spit to heal, are similar pre-figures, the symbolic action demonstrating the spiritual reality, and connecting Christ to the reality as the One who bestows the gifts. Keep in mind the eschatological principle, that the pre-figure may anticipate a future and not necessarily a present reality, a realization yet to come.
Also, let us not confuse indwelling of the HS upon believing with the Baptism in the HS. It is safe to say that the Disciples who believed were “saved” before Pentecost, the indwelling being the essence of salvation, the “seal of the Spirit.” Spirit Baptism, on the other hand, is a “second work” in the sense that it is the initial manifestation of the HS already indwelling. The HS does not manifest himself outwardly until, in an act of submission, the indwelt believer allows the manifestation (for “the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet”), i.e., lets the HS use him/her. The fact that in many episodes of Spirit Baptism, “tongues” follows immediately on the heels of “believing,” does not negate the principle that believing comes first, then the manifestation.
Stan Wayne
Paul Hughes – agree – if not at John 20:22 when could they have been reborn
Varnel Watson
Stan Wayne is showing some strange pneumatology here
Dan Irving
Paul Hughes I agree with you entirely regarding the Lord breathing on the apostles as pre-figuring the Spirit’s reception. In fact, that is essentially what happens with the laying of hands. There is nothing magical occurring, but it is necessary as context for a spiritual work. Spiritual events absent context result in pure mysticism and confusion.
Varnel Watson
The mystic is not magic…
Paul Hughes
It is, if it is not actually spiritual, but psychological; and if it is a manmade product of the imagination, or a form of self-salvation or works-righteousness. Neoplatonism, which infected early Christianity, lapsed readily into Theurgy, which Sascramentalists immediately found appealing.
David Lewayne Porter
John 20:22 Receive
AIM – Aorist Imperative
A command for doing something in the future that is a simple action.
Paul Hughes
Not necessarily “future,” but indeed subsequent to the command, often immediate.
David Lewayne Porter
Often, not always.
Are 10 days immediate enough.
Stan Wayne
Adam Clarke:
He breathed on them – Intimating, by this, that they were to be made new men, in order to be properly qualified for the work to which he had called them; for in this breathing he evidently alluded to the first creation of man, when God breathed into him the breath of lives, and he became a living soul: the breath or Spirit of God (אלהים רוח ruach Elohim ) being the grand principle and cause of his spiritual and Divine life.
Receive ye the Holy Ghost – From this act of our Lord, the influences of the Holy Spirit on the souls of men have been termed his inspiration; from in, into, and spiro, I breathe. Every word of Christ which is received in the heart by faith comes accompanied by this Divine breathing; and, without this, there is neither light nor life. Just as Adam was before God breathed the quickening spirit into him, so is every human soul till it receives this inspiration. Nothing is seen, known, discerned, or felt of God, but through this. To every private Christian this
Stan Wayne
Cambridge Greek Testament :
λάβετε. Take ye, implying that the recipient may welcome or reject the gift: he is not a mere passive receptacle. It is the very word used for ‘Take’ (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:17) in the account of the institution of the Eucharist; which somewhat confirms the view that here, as there, there is an outward sign and vehicle of an inward spiritual grace. The expression still more plainly implies that some gift was offered and bestowed then and there: it is wresting plain language to make ‘Take ye’ a mere promise. There was therefore a Paschal as distinct from a Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, the one preparatory to the other. It should be noticed that πνεῦμα ἄγιον is without the article, and this seems to imply that the gift is not made in all its fulness. see on John 14:26, where both substantive and adjective have the article.
Varnel Watson
Stan Wayne These are very Calvinistic sources and a very baptist interpretation. Yes, the command was given to receive but no where it says they actually received until Acts 2. This is the Pentecostal interpretation
David Lewayne Porter it is important to distinguish between tense (eg past, present, future) and aspect (eg completed, repeated, one-time, ongoing). Classical Greek, like many languages, conflates these two verb characteristics sometimes.
Thus when it’s conjugated the aorist indicates both tense (past) and aspect (simple). It is contrasted with the imperfect, which indicates past repeated or unfinished action. Note, however, that there are no present tense forms created with the aorist–unlike the imperfect, which is derived from the present tense stem.
The imperative (and to a lesser degree participles also) don’t indicate tense, only aspect. This makes sense, as you noted in your question–they’re not verb forms where the distinction past/present/future is really relevant.
The aorist imperative has no augment which is a pretty good clue that it does not have a past meaning. The distinction between the aorist imperative and the present imperative is one of aspect not tense.
If someone tells you to plow and uses the present imperative then they expect you to go
and do some plowing but they aren’t too bothered about how much you do.
If they say plow that field and use the aorist they are giving you a task that they will expect to be completed.
David Lewayne Porter
I will leave this with the previous and only other post on the matter.
I believe it was perfectly clear for those wanting to see and not wrestle with trying to place Jesus’s Words and the reality of The Holy Sprit within their box.
Troy Day more than one Greek scholar and student disagrees with you on one if not multiple statements.
Can any one give an example of one of Jesus’s disciples having the Holy Ghost modeled in Baptism between Jesus’s Command as He breathed on them and when The Holy Ghost was manifested in the upper room?
John the Baptist said that Jesus was going to Baptize them with The Holy Ghost by fire with His fan in His Hand.
When was the “fire”?
When was the Fan or sound of it’s use evidenced?
I am finished.
Stan Wayne
Adam Clarke was an Arminian anti Calvinist Methodist
Stan Wayne
Point is that “receive” means “take” not receive in some 50 days future!
Varnel Watson
Unfortunately, the Greek here indicates only an expectation for completion (aspect) but not a specific time frame for the actual completion (tense) as you imply. If Jesus really meant immediate completion He would have used a phrase like “take ye today” or “take it now” with the imperative.
We further draw conclusion from the Biblical promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit was to be given (as in Pentecost) not until Christ has acceded to heaven to be enthroned at the right side of the Father – an important chronology often missed by novice theologians
John 14:2 I go to prepare a place for you
….
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter
Hence the first words William J. Seymour penned in the Apostolic Faith in 1906 were: “The Comforter has come…”
Stan Wayne
This is not a contradiction – there are two very different aspects – the HS for me and the HS for others through me
Varnel Watson
The problem with your statement is that if “HS for me” is as in Jn 20 and there’s no speaking in tongues involved as initial evidence actual reception / receiving of the Spirit cannot be biblically established … and BTW HS for me and for other through me is not really a Biblical language used to describe a Biblical event
Stan Wayne
Yes :
HS for me :
“Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”
John 3:5 NIV
HS for others through me:
“And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”
Luke 24:48-49 KJV
“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
Acts 1:8 KJV
Varnel Watson
Stan Wayne Again this is a very baptist and not a real Pentecostal way to look at it.
David Lewayne Porter Pls point us to couple of those Greek scholars or students that you use as a reference if you may. The past imperative is pretty well set in the Greek and there is hardly need for discussion on tense and aspect of the verb. Anyone with basic studies in NT Greek under their belt should already know that http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson36.htm
David Lewayne Porter
Troy Day
You got sidetracked.
From my other statements.
One source is Spiros Zodhiates from AMG Publishers. Another is one of his good personal friends of which I am closely affiliated.
Between the two they have over 100 years of study, understanding and insight.
The AIM that I posted is not just a possibility in the verse but is the tense used for it at that time.
Now, can anyone show Holy Ghost being active between Jesus’s Command to receive the Holy Ghost and when He showed up actively in Acts chapter 2?
Varnel Watson
David Lewayne Porter I am familiar with Zodhiates works and AMG Publishers out of Chattanooga but they are not often (if ever) cited as a true scholarly source.
And no, we are not so easily sidetracked as the Greek explains exactly what Jesus was telling the disciples. Once again for the readers with no Greek knowledge:
The imperative used by Jesus in John 20:22 is the simple past – Αόπιστορ, πποστακτική
The imperative of the simple past shows non-continuation which means either that the action is not ongoing or that the speaker is not interested in its duration. Duration of repetition of the action is expressed by the imperative of the simple present, as mentioned above; which disproves Stan Wayne baptistical theory
Stan Wayne
Chuck Smith – founder of Calvary Chapel – formerly Foursquare – non Calvinist:
“He breathed on them.” It is interesting to me that the word for spirit in Hebrew is ruwach, which is the same Hebrew word for breath. The Greek word for spirit is pneuma, which is the Greek word for air. Pneumatic tires means tires that you fill with air. Pneuma–air. But it also the Greek word for spirit. So, in the Old Testament, when God formed man out of the dust of the earth, He breathed into man. Now, when the Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, which is known as the Septuagint, it”s a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, done by seventy scholars some200 years before Christ. When they made this Septuagint translation, the Greek word “breathed into man, and he became a living soul,” is the same word that John uses here and it”s the only place it”s used in the New Testament. “Jesus breathed on them.” Even as God breathed into that shell that He had formed out of the dust of the earth and man became a living spirit. But that spirit, you remember, died when man sinned and man lost fellowship with God. Now Jesus is restoring that which was lost by Adam, as He breathed in them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit, that life of God, that Spirit of God, that spiritual life.” And so, that which was lost by Adam is now restored by Jesus Christ. The life of God within man, that God had breathed into man in the beginning now restored.
Jesus had said to His disciples just four nights earlier, “I will pray the Father and He will give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not, neither knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and shall be in you.” And I believe that when Jesus breathed on them, and they became, at that point, once more living spirits, restored as was Adam in fellowship with God in the Garden of Eden. And I believe that that was the point when the Holy Spirit came into their lives.
Now, Jesus is going to be telling them, “Now you wait in Jerusalem, for in a few days the Holy Spirit is going to come upon you. You”re going to be empowered now by the Spirit, empowered now for your service for God. Now you wait until you get this endowment of power for service.” But I believe, at this point, when He breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” that there was the born again experience. There was where God”s life was again placed into man, the Spirit of God. And man came by that Spirit into the union and fellowship with God.
Varnel Watson
OK Stan Wayne John 7:39
By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
Now we start citing Pentecostal interpretation John 20,22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?
Thomas R. Hatina Biblica Vol. 74, No. 2 (1993), pp. 196-219 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611321?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Stan Wayne
This Hatina sees it as I do.
Your glorification word is a problem but can be still applied to the completion of the second phase at Pentecost or seen that Jesus was glorified when he ascended to the Father briefly on resurrection Sunday (apparently)
Varnel Watson
Again NO – LABETE is 2 pl. aorist ACTIVE imperative (the passive, if there were one, would be LH(M)FQHTI — but in fact, there is not a single passive form of the uncompounded LAMBANW in the Greek NT which makes this occurrence of LABETE a simple pronouncement. If you are interested in the actual Greek text pls read this very relative discussion between actual Greek scholars http://probible.net/john-2022/
Stan Wayne
Apparently a lot of Greek readers see it as either receive right now or a general receive –
It must not be a slam dunk or it would be reflected in one translation at least
David Lewayne Porter
Troy Day
Can anyone with your Greek knowledge and scholarly credentials show the Holy Ghost actively working and with the moving of Holy Ghost at the time Jesus told the disciples to receive the Holy Ghost up until when He showed up in the upper room with all the evidences?
Let’s let the text speak on it’s self as it’s own scholarly source shall we?
I believe that will show which is correct.
I can what.
Stan Wayne
David David Lewayne Porter you still are not catching that this is a reception that is NOT power to witness but is internal having the internal spiritual birth – when Jesus breathed into Adam there was spiritual and physical life – here the spiritual life was regained
Varnel Watson
internal spiritual birth is NOT spiritual baptism #bapticostal
Stan Wayne
CORRECT
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
What do you think my stance is?
Stan Wayne
John 20:22 is NOT Baptism in the Spirit
David Lewayne Porter
Nope, not.
It was getting them ready and in the mindset to tarry.
Stan Wayne
And saved.
David Lewayne Porter
We are not shown where exactly the disciples were saved.
That is man reading in their opinions.
We do know that Jesus had offered the eternal sacrifice for them and they had to be saved to receive the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.
Stan Wayne
I agree it is vague but the New Covenant had been paid for, the veil torn, and Peter who was there hints at his own salvation thus:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”
1 Peter 1:3 KJV
Stan Wayne
And John who was there hints at his and Thomas’ salvation:
“Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
John 20:27, 29, 31 KJV
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
Why do you go back to salvation?
The OP was on when the Disciples were Filled.
So what is your point?
Stan Wayne
No the OP was:
Did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them?
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/did-the-disciples-receive-the-holy-spirit-when-jesus-breathed-on-them/
Jesus had spent quite a bit of time speaking to his disciples about the coming of the Holy Spirit in John 14, 15, & 16. So, if the Holy Spirit was indeed imparted to the disciples when Jesus breathed on them in John 21, w…
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/did-the-disciples-receive-the-holy-spirit-when-jesus-breathed-on-them/
David Lewayne Porter
Lol
Stan Wayne
So you fell for it.
You seem to be trying to separate being filled from receiving the Holy Spirit.
And there is the issue in a nut shell.
They are one in the same.
So
The disciples received the Holy Ghost and were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost when it was fully come.
With the cloven tongues like as unto fire,
And the sound like as unto a mighty rushing wind.
Power, conversions, growth, boldness
Stan Wayne
You are funny. Yes receive can mean the B/HS but normally Pentecostals in my wing say filled or baptized and use receive or indwelt as verbs for the Holy Spirit coming into a believer upon belief and confession of faith.
David Lewayne Porter
And that is where we differ
Varnel Watson
Boys the Greek scholars have spoken. Take it for what it is worth http://probible.net/john-2022/
David Lewayne Porter
I did
David Lewayne Porter
Your turn
Stan Wayne
David David Lewayne Porter
Troy Day
Can anyone with your Greek knowledge and scholarly credentials show the Holy Ghost actively working and with the moving of Holy Ghost at the time Jesus told the disciples to receive the Holy Ghost up until when He showed up in the upper room with all the evidences?
OK the above confused me –
Varnel Watson
and seems to be off topic, but a good questions to rephrase and start another discussion. I think it may pertain to some baptist limitation like HS dispensation but David will need to clarify a bit more before serious participants jump in such a broad field of discussion
David Lewayne Porter
I don’t get you guys.
Troy Day
You asked if the disciples received the Holy Ghost when Jesus breathed on them
Or
On the day of Pentecost in the upper room.
So I asked
Can you show where Holy Ghost did anything actively between when Jesus breathed on them and when Holy Ghost showed up in the upper room?
How hard is that to understand?
Evidences from the text and scriptures please.
Opinions are misleading.
Here is one for the Greek scholars
Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Jesus said “send” not “give”
649 apostello ap-os-tel’-lo
from 575 and 4724; set apart, i.e. (by implication) to send out
(properly, on a mission) literally or figuratively:–put in, send
(away, forth, out), set (at liberty).
Varnel Watson
Good one David Lewayne Porter “We are not shown where exactly the disciples were saved” OR even if they were saved in the way we understand it. There was a covenant relation there producing Messianic salvation. Hence the argument that church / ecclesia / kaleo / synagogue people saved via a covenant relation there producing Messianic salvation possessed demons from which Christ delivered them
David Lewayne Porter
Messianic salvation.
So much for the Personal acceptance of a personal Saviour.
So you believe that all “synagogue people” were saved in one broad swipe of the Saviour’s blood covered hyssop?
Varnel Watson
You show us ONE single OT case where anyone was saved by “acceptance of a personal Savior” – a phrase which is not in the Bible and was not even used until 18 century I believe the Bible tells us “”All Israel will be saved” (ROMANS 11:26) and I think you are showing quite anti-Semitic for a 2nd time this week. Is Christ’s sacrifice only for the white folk?
David Lewayne Porter
So that is what you mean by synagogue people?
OT, not those in Jesus’ day who attended the Synagogue?
I misunderstood your meaning and intention.
My intention was those of Jesus’s day were not just covered in a blanket salvation.
Paul did say “All of Israel would be saved” according to the revelation given to Him. Yet not only them, remember the strangers who agreed to sojourn with them according to the beliefs of the Jews under the covenant of the Old Testament, sojourners who were not of Israel and Jewish.
What do you do with the Jews let’s say Israelites that disobeyed the covenant and according to God their soul was cut off,
You may want to study your understanding a little more as to “All of Israel being saved”.
Try the entire chapter especially the verses after your reference unto the end.
That is not being Anti-Semitic,
That would be me being factual, but according to you calling me that shows that you do not have the ability to see that God is large enough to take care of Israel and us. (And since you brought up the other time that you misunderstood me) God can even take care of Esau’s descendants and Lot’s descendants, (I will let you Look up the references).
You are funny.
Me, Anti-Semitic
Not hardly. I fully believe Israel is blessed, protected, and chosen to be God’s people by which the rest of us all of us are to be blessed (you know God’s original plan and then restated to Abraham).
Sounds like you are just a little touchy and can’t handle anyone challenging your beliefs.
Do you have problems with people disagreeing with you?
So how do you define Anti-Semitic?
Stan Wayne
David David Lewayne Porter somehow this meant for you got lost in the other thread:
As for work and of HS between John 20:22 and Acts 2:4 the data is very skimpy.
Here is one :
“Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:”
Acts 1:2 KJV
But here is one roundabout Implication :
“Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
Acts 1:16-17, 21-23, 25-26 KJV
“Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.”
Acts 6:2 KJV
“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”
Ephesians 4:8-11 KJV
David Lewayne Porter
You may want to read Acts 1 verses 1-9 and not just that one verse my brother. It helps to clarify verse 2.
Verse 2 does not say that Jesus spoke to His disciples through the Holy Ghost before the day of Pentecost being fully come.
It simply tells us how Jesus communicated with them in times after His ascending.
We still do not see any moving of the Holy Spirit from the time that Jesus made His speech until the Holy Ghost shows Himself in chapter 2. (Why do you think that they were so specific about “the day of Pentecost being FULLY COME”?)?.
Please notice for example that the last time someone cast lots for direction as to the will of God was in Acts 1:26. It is during this time frame that they were still looking for direction from God using lots, not The Holy Ghost.
After that it was direction by, of, and through the Holy Ghost.
Interesting point don’t you think?.
Just some thoughts.
Varnel Watson
Again Stan Wayne This is not really a Pentecostal interpretation of the said text. Here’s what Pentecostals have believed and interpreted in historically when readin John 20:22
Jesus breathed on them saying “Receive
ye the Holy Spirit John 20:22
That this was not “The Promise of
My Father” is shown by the fact that
Jesus had not yet ascended to His
Father and receive the promisse
The Pentecostal Herald
Serial No. 101 , Volume 10. No.2
CHICAGO, ILL., U. S. A, APRIL 1, 1923
Stan Wayne
People are all over the place and don’t know what to do with it – it is more important how they interpret Acts 8 – that is critical to demonstrate subsequence – I hold the
Stan Wayne
I hold the John 20:22 passage does too ( a VERY Pentecostal outlook) but it is not a slam dunk because Pentecost is much more dramatic in Luke
Paul Hughes
“Go, and sin no more,” which Jesus commanded twice, betrays no timeline for “sinning no more,” though the context might be said to imply immediate incipience, yet not immediate completion.
How about Jesus’ commandment, “That ye love one another”?
Stan Wayne
That’s interesting go and sin no more 50 days from now – sounds like Mardi Gras before Lent 😉
Paul Hughes
Parallels:
Mt 26:26
Mk 14:22
Lk 22:17
Jn 18:31
Jn 19:6
Jas 5:10
Rev 10:8, 9
David Lewayne Porter
Here’s a thought.
If we read Acts 1 verses 1-9 and not just the one verse, It helps to clarify verse 2.
Verse 2 does not say that Jesus spoke to His disciples through the Holy Ghost before the day of Pentecost being fully come.
It simply tells us how Jesus communicated with them in times after His ascending.
We still do not see any moving of the Holy Spirit from the time that Jesus made His speech until the Holy Ghost shows Himself in chapter 2. (Why do we think that they were so specific about “the day of Pentecost being FULLY COME”?)?.
Please notice for example that the last time someone cast lots for direction as to the will of God was in Acts 1:26. It is during this time frame that they were still looking for direction from God using lots, not The Holy Ghost.
After that it was direction by, of, and through the Holy Ghost.
Interesting point don’t we think?.
Just some thoughts.
Stan Wayne
We can’t say that lots cast for a choice between two qualified candidates is the last time – we just don’t know – it is an OT principle that is helpful :
“The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.”
Proverbs 18:18 KJV
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
According to the Bible as it accounts for God’s direction I can.
I was wise enough to research it before I posted my remarks.
David Lewayne Porter
Acts 1:26, since I back every thing with scripture.
Have you performed a search of lot or lots in your Bible software?
Stan Wayne
Matthias as choice was confirmed over after Pentecost :
“Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.”
Acts 6:2 KJV
“And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.”
Acts 15:4 KJV
Stan Wayne
How can you know what the pattern of believers was ? Only tiny amounts high points are in Scripture. For example we know nothing of the moments of the 12 besides Peter and John.
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
LoL
Acts 6:2
Your reference
And the men where chosen how?
If you need to search it
You spell lot
L
O
T
You spell lots
L
O
T
S
I will wait.
Stan Wayne
I am referring to Matthias in Acts 6:2 still part of the 12. Although chosen by lot.
I don’t think a case is strong that Matthias was defective as one of the 12.
Some (not me) think lot can also mean ballot but in any case the decision stood firm.
http://www.wlsessays.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/820/BrugLottery.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
David Lewayne Porter
That was not the point of my discussion.
My discussion was about the church no longer needing lots because of the indwelling HS or to be more correct, HS baptism and His directing.
Stan Wayne
How can we know this to be so when first 1) they did have the indwelling spirit then but lacked HS baptism 2) there is no indication that older forms of guidance such as trial and error and good judgement and qualifications for leaders were abandoned
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
Do you see in your Bible after Acts 2 where they were still used?
Stan Wayne
There is no repudiation of previous common sense methods and the New Testament does not treat the New Covenant itself as having begun at Pentecost but rather at the Resurrection. It is an assumption that this was now somehow abandoned. The silence of future passages is not strong evidence because there is so little information in the New Testament – nothing about 10 apostles nothing about buildings nothing about baptizing children nothing about youth ministry etc
David Lewayne Porter
My stance on the absence of an issue showing it is no longer used
is just a valid as
your argument that by not listing their discontinued use means that they still are in use.
So I guess you keep your belief and I keep mine.
David Lewayne Porter
By the way,
You again confused the issue.
We were discussing the disciples receiving the Holy Spirit.
You have yet again returned to salvation and not HS baptism.
Stan Wayne
Do you see it that a believer who has not yet spoken in tongues in Spirit Baptism does not yet have the Holy Spirit.
David Lewayne Porter
Do you mean
indwelling Spirit
or
Baptism of the Spirit.
Stan Wayne
Indwelling
Stan Wayne
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now
If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
Romans 8:9, 14 KJV
Stan Wayne
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”
1 Corinthians 12:3 KJV
David Lewayne Porter
That is not baptism of the Holy Ghost.
I can’t help the OP was vague.
The Bible says once we are saved
Galatians 4:4-7
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Spirit of His Son,
But His Son explained it Himself in your reference.
So what do you do with the one you are quoting Jesus explaining it more detailed and completely.
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
You are funny.
Now you go to 1 Corinthians 12 to prove HS Baptism as it occurred after Acts chapter 2 and the day of Pentecost being fully come.
Please continue.
Stan Wayne
1 Cor 12:13 describes conversion as in John 20:22:
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV
David Lewayne Porter
Correct Stan Wayne
But do we in the church today do things as the believers of the Bible?
I mean
We get people “saved”.
Then sanctified. And maybe if we are lucky and get around to it we get them baptized with the Holy Ghost with tongues as well as His fruit, and His gifts.
I wish this generation was hungry enough and yielded enough to do the complete process Salvation and the Baptism at the same time.
I believe that we as a western culture fail in that aspect and suffer as a result.
Stan Wayne
There is even more than we lack in Acts 2:42
Stan Wayne
Actually we miss a lot of Acts 1-6
Varnel Watson
Stan Wayne ACTS 2:33 leaves no gap in the chronology
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
only AFTER being by the right hand of God exalted and
only AFTER received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost
he hath shed forth this outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2
BEFORE being by the right hand of God exalted and
BEFORE received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost
he hath no Holy Spirit to shed forth in John 20:22
Stan Wayne
How would you explain:
“Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:”
Acts 1:2 KJV
I don’t see a problem.
Pentecost was a big deal with power and fire and so forth but there were other important HS functions. Acts 8 repeats.
Varnel Watson
in ACTS 2:33 Peter explains all your questions clearly
Joseph Kidwell
What Stan Wayne is saying is precisely what I was taught at Central Bible College which was the headquarters Bible college for the Assemblies of God. There is nothing Baptist about it. There are two receptions of the Spirit, each with a different purpose. The first, regeneration, is to impart life and the second, for the purpose of the impartation of divine power for service.. The account in 1 Cor. 12 refers to a Baptism that the Spirit performs and makes one a part of the Body of Christ. The second reception of the Spirit is a baptism which Jesus performs and is an impartation of divine power Acts 1:8. This is certainly not Baptist Theology.
Dan Irving
Joseph Kidwell How do you square that with Eph. 4:5?
David Lewayne Porter
So you believe that the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 come with the first baptism which imparts life with our regeneration
Not with the second for divine power for service?
Stan Wayne
David Lewayne Porter he didn’t say that he said the first was for salvation – the rest of 1 C 12 is a about unity and variety and assumes that the audience is saved AND filled
David Lewayne Porter
Stan Wayne
Exactly.
But read the chapter in context and then add the comments on this post so far and that is exactly the conclusion that could be arrived at due to vague and incomplete discussion.
Stan Wayne
Gifts of the Spirit are imparted severally as HE wills
David Lewayne Porter
The question was,
When Stan Wayne
Fred Elvis
yes
Stan Wayne
As He wills is just that – gifts of the Spirit are not guaranteed by either the John 20:22 experience or the Acts 2:4 experience – we do affirm that tongues as a personal prayer prayer method starts then but gifting for the assembly is not guaranteed
FYI Matthias received his gift of apostleship between John 20:22 and Acts 2:4
David Lewayne Porter
Yes Stan Wayne
Matthias did receive his apostleship during that time period.
Please keep up and pay attention because you are stating things in response to questions and statements that do not exist.
Matthias was appointed how?
By lot!
The last time lots were used. Why? Because it is before the baptism with the Holy Ghost. After that the Spirit of God led the Church.
And I thank you.
Stan Wayne
And the Spirit of God affirmed that the Matthias decision by lot was correct.
David Lewayne Porter
After he was baptized, yes.
But still for the time period you keep pressing By LOT.
Enjoy.?
Stan Wayne
Matthias was numbered with the apostles – after that he and others received B/HS – after that the HS confirms Matthias has been and is apostle
David Lewayne Porter
Exactly Stan Wayne
So what are you trying to prove?
What battle you trying to fight?
You just said what I believe.
Holy Spirit AFTER he was appointed an apostle.
Did you miss where he was there when Jesus said, “receive ye the Holy Ghost”?
He had to be because the requirement for the replacement was Acts 1:21-23
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
So again what battle you fighting that does not exist?
Stan Wayne
No battles – we are discussing the Bible is all
David Lewayne Porter
Yeah, but it seems you have a bone to pick from an animal that does not exist, (not just a nonexistent bone, but a nonexistent animal).
David Lewayne Porter
I think the whole conversation from the OP to now explains why so many (c)hristians believe they are spirit filled and even baptized yet have no evidence, fruit, giftings, and power.
Stan Wayne
All I have been insisting in is that the 12 and their companions became regenerate on the first Easter
David Lewayne Porter
I did not mean you or only you, me or only me, but the conversation and lack of clarity.
No wonder the unbelieving does not know what to believe or who to listen to.
Just my humble opinion.
Stan Wayne
Imho “receive” means different things to different wings of Pentecostalism
David Lewayne Porter
Sad thing is that it should not have differing meanings.
That is my issue with it.
Please don’t think I am against you or your stance.
I just wish we (all) could get half way similar views and not cause confusion.
Dan Irving
David Lewayne Porter Agreed. I am so glad I didn’t see this kind of confusion when I came to the Lord. Those who argue against Pentecost being the “receiving” of the Holy Spirit had better be correct. If they’re not, they are leading men into a tragic complacency which they must answer for.
Stan Wayne
This is a forum for discussion of Pentecostal Theology – if you don’t like discussing Pentecostal Theology in a member group go join the group you like or look at the pictures of cats and flowers that are also posted on people’s walls. Brother –
Dan Irving
This is a forum for honest discussion. If a line of doctrine exposes its proponent to potential consequences, that should be discussed. You might not be so defensive.
Stan Wayne
I am responding to a comment that views of what happened at John 20:22 should not be analyzed and discussed here. I find opposing views helpful. We are all blind men describing an elephant.
Dan Irving
My mistake.
David Lewayne Porter
Wow, really.
so much for differing opinions.
Yes this is a forum for discussion of pentecostal issues.
That would also make it a forum for the discussion of our issue with the Pentecostal terminology and theology of others.
Those issues would be the way people choose to interpret words for their benefit and view.
So as requested
Dan Irving
Thank you. Much needed.
David Lewayne Porter
Man I kill me!
David Lewayne Porter
It just occurred to me
Cats and flowers may not have meant them together so,
Varnel Watson
What do you think Joe Absher William DeArteaga
Joe Absher
You’re right about that. It didn’t take much faith to believe in Him after that. Lol
William DeArteaga
Yes, but it is puzzeling thay did not manifes the gifts until Pnetecost.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Yes, he did…others had said “Oh that was done symbolically” nutting happened to dem til penicos! Baloney! I believe they got the New Birth in John 20. And the Holy Ghost Baptism in Acts 2.
Joseph Kidwell
I believe that they were regenerated when Christ breathed on them.
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
A big thumbs up for you sir!
Joe Absher
Interesting reading thank you
Varnel Watson
Jesus had spent quite a bit of time speaking to his disciples about the coming of the Holy Spirit in John 14, 15, & 16. So, if the Holy Spirit was indeed imparted to the disciples when Jesus breathed on them in John 21, with Thomas not present, why did they not mention anything to Thomas about it happening when he was with them a week later? Their response was, “We have seen the Lord!” which is noteworthy, but having received so much instruction about the Holy Spirit just a few days before, is it not striking they would fail to mention it when they encountered Thomas a week later?
Jerome Herrick Weymouth
You know He might have gotten breathed on later on and I don’t think he was denied this experience. We will probably find it out later. And the old Gospel song says “And well understand it better bye n bye”
Varnel Watson
sweet bye n bye
Michael Holman
Here’s my take on this:
Salvation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit are two separate experiences! While I have heard of people who experienced both in the same service, these are still two separate experiences. John 20:22 says, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” Many scholars will tell you that this is when the disciples got saved. When you ask Jesus to come into your heart, you’re actually asking Him to be Lord of your life and the Holy Spirit takes up residence in your heart, as Jesus is now seated at the right hand of the Father. However, if the disciples received all of the fullness of the Holy Spirit at that moment, why did Jesus say this in Acts 1:4-5? “And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’”
Paul L. King
John 20:22 was a pre-Pentecost indwelling of the Spirit as new believers (fulfilling Rom 10:9-10). New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce points out that the Greek for “breathed on,” emphusao, literally means, “breathe into,” and is an allusion to the breathing of God into man at creation (Gen. 2:7). Emphusao is etymologically related to inphuso (infuse). They were infused (indwell) with the Holy Spirit on Resurrection Day. The out pouring of the Spirit was called effusion–out of our innermost being flowing living water” (John 7:37-39). Jesus says drink of Me–the receiving of the Spirit within, followed by receiving the Spirit upon from within. There are two stages, even if receiving both almost at the same time–the indwelling (infusion) followed by the outpouring . This distinction is found in Luke’s use of ekcheo and ekchuno (Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 10:45), both meaning “to pour out.” The use of the preposition ek, which indicates source, in a compound verb, carries the meaning of poured out from the midst of or from within. He did not use katacheo (to pour down) or epicheo (to pour upon). His use of ekcheo clearly identifies the pouring out of the Spirit as coming from within. Again, the breathing in of the Spirit by Jesus in John 20:22 precedes the pouring out of the Spirit described in Acts 1:5, 8 and fulfilled in Acts 2. When one speaks of the Spirit coming upon or descending upon a person or being clothed with the Spirit, as in the case of Jesus so for the indwelt believer, it is not coming from an external source, but from the Spirit already within, only enveloped and manifested externally. It is the difference between receiving the Spirit within in essence and receiving the Spirit in power from within (Acts 1:8; Eph. 3:16, 20)
Varnel Watson
THE initial evidence is a strong BIBLE teaching which virtually ALL early Pentecostals and prior holiness movement upheld high
the GIFT of speaking in tongues from 1 Cor 14 is the same in origin but different in implementation and purpose
prayer language AS introduced in the 70-80s by community churches which turned early charismatics is a whole different animal that may need a bit stronger Biblical exploration
Most importantly as William DeArteaga advises QUENCH not the SPIRIT and ttongues shall not cease
Louise Cummings
They received the Holy Spirit on the Day Of Pentecost.