To whom was the Spirit Given

[jogri17]

Concerning Acts 2:1-5, my pastor yesterday said that the text says that The Holy Spirit was given only to the Apostles and the tongues were just to them and not to all the diciples. I have never heard this before and he argued that this is what enabled them to write the Scriptures.

My stincts tell me to disagree because if this was true and Pentecost was a 1x event (which he strongly believes), then how could you argue for Luke, Paul, and James to be included in the canon given they were not the apostles. All commentaries I've checked in Logos (platnium) disagree, but he is my pastor so I thought I would post this to you guys.

 

[rbcbob]

The text does not say that the HS was given to them all but that they were all filled with the HS.

 

[jogri17]

Is that a distinction without a difference?

 

[rbcbob]

I don't believe so.

 

[MW]

It may be that the gentleman was simply trying to say that the "baptism of the Spirit" was a part of the history of salvation. As Peter says, the shedding forth of the Holy Spirit was an act of the exalted Lord. As such, it was like the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming. Peter's explanation shows that it was a part of the fulfilment of prophecy. The filling of the Spirit, on the other hand, was the effect of this "baptism." It must be distinguished from the baptism itself even though it cannot be separated from it in the first instance. The people who heard Peter were not told to expect a similar experience to what they had witnessed. Rather, they were to repent and be baptised to receive the promise. In Acts 10, what made the experience of the Gentiles so significant was the way in which the Spirit was given to them. It was very similar to the unique exprerience of the apostles on the day of Pentecost. It signified that the door of inclusion was being opened to the Gentiles. It also indicates that the way the Spirit was received on this occasion was not the ordinary way they had witnessed it from the day of Pentecost until then. A difference must therefore be made between the outpouring of the Spirit as a part of redemption accomplished and the filling of the Spirit as a part of redemption applied.

 

[MarieP]

Rev Winzer (or any others),

Have you all figured out why John's "disciples" spoke in tongues and prophesied when the Spirit came upon them in Acts 19?

My pastor just preached on this narrative yesterday! Although that question remains unanswered, he got to the heart of the text- all believers have the Spirit, and the Spirit always manifests Himself by testifying to and making much of Christ!

John's Disciples Become Jesus' Disciples - SermonAudio.com

 

[MW]

Have you all figured out why John's "disciples" spoke in tongues and prophesied when the Spirit came upon them in Acts 19?

It appears that tongues and prophesyings served as signs in the time of transition from the old to the new dispensation. As Peter taught on the day of Pentecost, these phenomena pointed to the fulfilment of prophecy and indicated the ushering in of a new epoch -- the last times. Acts 19 bears all the marks of that transition in the movement from John the Baptiser to full discipleship in Jesus. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 12-14 would later make some significant statements relative to speaking in tongues, and confines the phenomenon to that period of transition.

 

[MarieP]

It appears that tongues and prophesyings served as signs in the time of transition from the old to the new dispensation. As Peter taught on the day of Pentecost, these phenomena pointed to the fulfilment of prophecy and indicated the ushering in of a new epoch -- the last times. Acts 19 bears all the marks of that transition in the movement from John the Baptiser to full discipleship in Jesus.

Agreed on signs and tongues signifying new epochs. Pentecost, Samaria, Caesarea, Why not with Apollos, though? And are these the first of John's disciples to be converted?