Post by shirley on Jun 30, 2012 8:56:02 GMT -8
19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
Elsewhere, on the subject of laying on of hands, (see link: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sacraments&action=display&thread=3738&page=1) Chris asked me what I thought of Acts 19, I assume he was referring especially to this passage. On the subject of salvation, I think that at this time Christ's resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit was relatively recent, and entirely possible that they had only heard John's promises. Upon hearing that John's words had been fulfilled, Jesus had came, died, resurrected, and sent the Holy Spirit, they believed and Jesus came in. Reverse salvation (?). In regard to the next part where Paul lays his hands on them, some commentators say this was to show his apostolic authority, others that this was a way of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit. either way, the important preposition to me is that when they believed they were "in the name". And that when Paul laid his hands on them, the "Holy Spirit came upon them". This was an outpouring of the Spirit, not a suggestion that the Holy Spirit was not in them. Were Pauls' hands necessary for this outpouring? I don't think so, I'm inclined to think it was more about tradition, perhaps showing authority. But there are other places where the Spirit is poured out and and not necessarily accompanied by the laying on of hands.
Anyway, that's what I think of this passage.
Would love to hear others perspectives.
Elsewhere, on the subject of laying on of hands, (see link: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sacraments&action=display&thread=3738&page=1) Chris asked me what I thought of Acts 19, I assume he was referring especially to this passage. On the subject of salvation, I think that at this time Christ's resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit was relatively recent, and entirely possible that they had only heard John's promises. Upon hearing that John's words had been fulfilled, Jesus had came, died, resurrected, and sent the Holy Spirit, they believed and Jesus came in. Reverse salvation (?). In regard to the next part where Paul lays his hands on them, some commentators say this was to show his apostolic authority, others that this was a way of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit. either way, the important preposition to me is that when they believed they were "in the name". And that when Paul laid his hands on them, the "Holy Spirit came upon them". This was an outpouring of the Spirit, not a suggestion that the Holy Spirit was not in them. Were Pauls' hands necessary for this outpouring? I don't think so, I'm inclined to think it was more about tradition, perhaps showing authority. But there are other places where the Spirit is poured out and and not necessarily accompanied by the laying on of hands.
Anyway, that's what I think of this passage.
Would love to hear others perspectives.
