CAN HOLY SPIRIT OPERATE INSIDE A WOMB ?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What are the characteristics of "The Holy Spirit" that make it operable within a womb?
Or not?

Some want to read the prophecy of Luke 1:15 as saying the Holy Spirit did or would so operate. (I think it rather plainly talks of Holy Spirit "from" womb times, i.e. after birth.)

If the fetus that would become John the Baptist could be part of a Holy Spirit operation, if it makes any sense think there could be the Holy Spirit operating there, how is that possible?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Am certain some people imagine all sorts of restrictions on God.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Am certain some people imagine all sorts of restrictions on God.

The manifestations or "persons" of God have definite characteristics. (Much that is called "heresy" comes from getting these wrong.)

It is not at though "God can do anything" or even everything without regard for the God nature of what activity is spoken of. That is, spirit is immaterial and has other features of its presence anywhere.

I don't think any kind of spirit makes sense as being found within a womb, let alone Holy Spirit.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The manifestations or "persons" of God have definite characteristics. (Much that is called "heresy" comes from getting these wrong.)

It is not at though "God can do anything" or even everything without regard for the God nature of what activity is spoken of. That is, spirit is immaterial and has other features of its presence anywhere.

I don't think any kind of spirit makes sense as being found within a womb, let alone Holy Spirit.

Like I said and completely consistent with the idea that many people claim to know where God can go and where He cannot.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Like I said and completely consistent with the idea that many people claim to know where God can go and where He cannot.

I Cor. 12 tells us of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

How can any of that be in a womb?

If, according to verse 7, "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man...",
does that not strongly suggest (at the very least) that there could not possibly be a "man" or human being in the womb? Could there be any of these manifestations in a womb? Doesn't seem possible.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I Cor. 12 tells us of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

How can any of that be in a womb?

If, according to verse 7, "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man...",
does that not strongly suggest (at the very least) that there could not possibly be a "man" or human being in the womb? Could there be any of these manifestations in a womb? Doesn't seem possible.

Suppose like a rock too big for Him to life - one could imagine the womb a place He cannot go. Where else do you imagine God cannot be?

Adding

Did not He who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same One fashion us in the womb

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit [fn]while yet in his mother’s womb.​

As far as what DOES "seem possible" in the womb:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”​

 

[redleghunter]

Am certain some people imagine all sorts of restrictions on God.

That seems to be a tenet of Process theology.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No room in the inn and apparently no "womb" for God either in some people's thoughts. Sad really.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That seems to be a tenet of Process theology.

Am just learning about this.
So apparently a human can make a womb so strong God cannot enter it. Plan Parenthood is therefore more powerful than God.

 

[redleghunter]

Am just learning about this.
So apparently a human can make a womb so strong God cannot enter it. Plan Parenthood is therefore more powerful than God.

I find the premise puzzling. Did not YHWH occupy the ark of the covenant in Exodus?

If He can place His presence in an object made with human hands, I don't see how He would be limited to His own creation.

Frankly, God came in the flesh Emmanuel "God with us."

 

[Davidnic]

What are the characteristics of "The Holy Spirit" that make it operable within a womb?
Or not?

Some want to read the prophecy of Luke 1:15 as saying the Holy Spirit did or would so operate. (I think it rather plainly talks of Holy Spirit "from" womb times, i.e. after birth.)

If the fetus that would become John the Baptist could be part of a Holy Spirit operation, if it makes any sense think there could be the Holy Spirit operating there, how is that possible?

I don't think any kind of spirit makes sense as being found within a womb, let alone Holy Spirit.

Well your confusion that it would not be possible might be because you are operating under an error that it is "the fetus that would become John the Baptist". It is John, a person already. Just like we are all persons at that stage. And this Scripture (and the related passages) show clearly that the Inspired Word of God treats with a person at this stage.

Since you are working here with Luke and this section and the Baptist...it is actually pretty clear that the person exists at this point.

Later in Luke at 1:41 it is apparent that the Holy Spirit is at work because the Baptist recognizes Christ when the mothers meet. That recognition (of the identity of Christ) is a work of the Spirit. We see this later in Scripture when Peter recognizes the identity of Christ. So at that point, it is obvious the Spirit is there, and acting in the womb. If there is confusion as to how...that is only because of the error that there is no person there for the Spirit to act upon. The rest of the segment clearly shows that there is a person there, not just material of could be or will become.

Scripture is clear this is not a coincidence or just a baby kicking or moving because of both word choice and basic Biblical typology.

Because this is, above all, a meeting of persons not of concepts or potentials. We are not afforded the leeway of it being a pre-baptist or a to be Christ. It is, clearly, a meeting of persons: The Forerunner and the Messiah. Because the Holy Spirit acts upon the person who is John to recognize the Person who is Jesus.

And to prevent us from using the excuse that this is an isolated situation or the fact that they are persons is somehow a one off event, Scripture uses the same word as is used in Genesis when Jacob and Esau struggle unborn. That as well is not simply motion but rather the clear manifestation of persons. A variation of the same is used in Luke 6:23 to refer to those born. It is not just movement that is expressed by the word that the Spirit Inspired the author to use...but emotion, identity and expression of a personality.

Had the writer been Inspired to express a movement of material, a reflex or just movement alone without intent there were other words that could have been used (five other words, not counting nearly a dozen to describe something that could be un-directed non-person movement).

But that is not what was inspired. What was inspired was something that showed a person, and a meeting of persons. One that is fairly obvious through the Inspired word used. And when it is used it is teamed with "For joy" and at the other time with a struggle with intent. At no time does Scripture use this word (or its variant) without attributing to the doer a statement or implication of intent and by extension the ability to express (in some form) the aspects of a person.

So the Prophecy, when fulfilled, clearly shows the Holy Spirit acting upon an already existing (not a "to become") person. The fact that we are talking about a person is clear from the word and how it is used in Scripture. The only thing that would be confusing is if someone remained in resolute error that the fetus is not a person in light of these passages.

Another thing to remember is that the development of the mind, the size of human, number of cells, number of limbs or any other developmental stage (before or after birth) does not prevent the Holy Spirit from working. So nothing in the prophecy or its clear fulfillment in and upon the already existing person of the Baptist is in contradiction to theology. But for the purposes of the Baptist and Scripture related to what you cite...the Spirit working on a person evident.

 

[Davidnic]

I Cor. 12 tells us of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

How can any of that be in a womb?

If, according to verse 7, "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man...",
does that not strongly suggest (at the very least) that there could not possibly be a "man" or human being in the womb? Could there be any of these manifestations in a womb? Doesn't seem possible.

I Cor 12 does not claim to be the in total expressions of the Spirit exclusive only to the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is often used in Scripture to show knowledge and understanding given to people from God. The Baptist has and exhibits in Luke, even in the womb, an understanding of Christ being the Messiah. So by your own reading there is a man, a person, in the womb. What the Baptist has seems to be a fuller knowledge of the glimpse Peter gets when Christ asks, "And who do you say that I am?" The unborn John knows and leaps for Joy...with recognition of the unborn Savior. And this is done Person to person.

As far as to every man a manifestation is given, no timetable is put on when such a blessing or realization may occur. We see it happen for John in the Womb. We clearly see it and the over abundance of it fills his mother as well at that moment with understanding. With Peter we see a glimpse of it when Christs asks about His own identity. We see more at Pentecost. It can happen at any point in life, and multiple times. It can abide..ebb and flow.

What you have shown with your question is that it can indeed happen, and Scripture attests that it does happen, in the womb to the unborn when God so wills it. Showing that there is a person present.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Suppose like a rock too big for Him to life - one could imagine the womb a place He cannot go. Where else do you imagine God cannot be?

Adding

Did not He who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same One fashion us the womb

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit [fn]while yet in his mother’s womb.​

As far as what DOES "seem possible" in the womb:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”​

You could at least tell us where your quotes come from - don't want us to look too close at them I suppose?

"God" is not only "Holy Spirit" - the two terminologies should not be considered as pointing to the same identical reality. Knowing-all (omniscience as in your second quote) is a reality of God, but not an action of spirit, not a spirit sort of thing. Same with creation, it is all "done by God" in some sense, and therefore the good parts (like being formed in a womb) can be attributed to God - but it is not as Spirit that the works of creation continue, it is as nature and the life found in nature.

Thus the question is not "Where can God be?", but "Where can Holy Spirit be?" I suppose we can be like aboriginals and point to elements of nature including animals as possessing "god," but I don't think that is the direction Scripture gives us.
Nevertheless all of creation comes from God and so we can speak of "God making us in a womb," since that is obviously where we are made, in the protection of a womb. Hence we can say we were formed and protected by God, just as leaves come on the trees as part of nature, the non-Word revelation of God. How what he made works.

"“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit [fn]while yet in his mother’s womb.
This is NOT the only way Luke 1:15 is translated, and perhaps not even the way it is usually translated.
The Greek reads: <eti> <et> ...
<eti> means "yet, even" and <et> means "from, or after" (According to Strong's.)
SO, "even after" or "yet from" are very good understandings, what the Greek actually says.
You have chosen that translation that was made to say what you want it to say; it is not the only way to understand the verse, and quite possibly not the most accurate way.

Your last quote talks about giving birth in old age, about the womb being used when it is not usually considered possible to do so. It is mostly about conceiving - it is nothing about the nature of what is in a womb, or what God (as Spirit, or not as Spirit) could be doing there. in​

 

[Davidnic]

The Greek preposition ek can be translated a bunch of ways. But you have to take it in the context of the story and with the Baptist exhibiting recognition of the Messiah while in the womb. Then you can translate in context. But the most common translation here that has been historically used is "From the interior of" which would mean while in...not since coming out from. It is not used after or with the verb "to go" or in a future relationship.

It is clearly that he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb. Anything else is really parsing words to get a point desired and not an objective look at the text.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The Greek preposition ek can be translated a bunch of ways. But you have to take it in the context of the story and with the Baptist exhibiting recognition of the Messiah while in the womb. Then you can translate in context. But the most common translation here that has been historically used is "From the interior of" which would mean while in...not since coming out from. It is not used after or with the verb "to go" or in a future relationship.

It is clearly that he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb. Anything else is really parsing words to get a point desired and not an objective look at the text.

Are you accusing the King James, and other translations that do not see it your way, of being "not objective"?

"The Baptist exhibiting recognition of the Messiah while in the womb" is your construction, what you happen to believe, but NOT PART OF SCRIPTURE.
There is the "leaping" which surely is the usual movement sometimes felt in later pregnancy.
And there is the voice of Mary heard by Elizabeth at the same time.
And THE COINCIDENCE of them happening at the same time. This coincidence is very interesting and no doubt why it is noticed in Scripture. But what you say is NOT part of Scripture.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Another thing to remember is that the development of the mind, the size of human, number of cells, number of limbs or any other developmental stage (before or after birth) does not prevent the Holy Spirit from working. So nothing in the prophecy or its clear fulfillment in and upon the already existing person of the Baptist is in contradiction to theology. But for the purposes of the Baptist and Scripture related to what you cite...the Spirit working on a person evident.

So you say. I suppose in some sense "Holy Spirit working" could be found in a womb - I can't imagine what that might be. Surely Spirit in relation to humans, "filled with the Spirit" sort of thing, IS based on "number of cells", etc., i.e WHAT IS THERE. Without consciousness surely there can't be anything like spirit, for instance.

 

[Davidnic]

Are you accusing the King James, and other translations that do not see it your way, of being "not objective"?

"The Baptist exhibiting recognition of the Messiah while in the womb" is your construction, what you happen to believe, but NOT PART OF SCRIPTURE.
There is the "leaping" which surely is the usual movement sometimes felt in later pregnancy.
And there is the voice of Mary heard by Elizabeth at the same time.
And THE COINCIDENCE of them happening at the same time. This coincidence is very interesting and no doubt why it is noticed in Scripture. But what you say is NOT part of Scripture.

No it is not my construction. It is pretty much the constant interpretation you learn in seminary, be it Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox or any other that I know. You can't really get around that simple fact. You are the one taking it in a direction that is an innovation.

If you really want to read the Gospel in a way where the scene between the Baptist and Messiah is not the person in utero recognizing the other in joy...you can. But you would be at odds will all ancient scholarship and sermons on the matter. And you have to ignore the actual words of the the Scripture.

The new construction here, the innovation here...is yours.

And again, there is intent...Joy. So it is more, clearly more than the normal movement of pregnancy. The Gospel is clear the leap is caused by Joy. The Baptist feels joy. An emotion, like a person. Because he is one at that point.

Scripture is clear, the Baptist in the womb felt joy as the approach of the Messiah. A human emotion. And he felt it because he recognized the Messiah and felt Joy. And he could feel it because he was a person at that point. And the Holy Spirit is how he knew.

I know of no ancient source, Church Father, pastor, priest or deacon who has ever taught other than the Baptist in the womb recognized the Messiah and felt joy and lept. The fact that the Truth of that in constant teaching across even fractured Christianity brings up uncomfortable facts for anyone who wants to deny that a fetus is a person is up to the one struggling with that reality.

So I am not the one disagreeing with the King James or any translation or authority. The Baptist clearly feels joy when Mary approaches because of the child in her womb. Recognizing the Savior for who He is...the Baptist, even in the womb, feels joy and leaps. If you have any source from Christianity who has ever taught that passage otherwise..please present it.

 

[Davidnic]

So you say. I suppose in some sense "Holy Spirit working" could be found in a womb - I can't imagine what that might be. Surely Spirit in relation to humans, "filled with the Spirit" sort of thing, IS based on "number of cells", etc., i.e WHAT IS THERE. Without consciousness surely there can't be anything like spirit, for instance.

You are being trapped into a scientism argument with yourself. That the only way of knowing things is based on that view.

Scripture is clear...crystal clear...the Baptist leaps for joy. It is not just the movement without intention of the fetus. It is stated...that it is with and because of the emotion. So how could he do that if he was not a person capable of joy? Do think the total understanding of consciousness is man's? Neither you nor I can answer every question but what we can do, since this is a discussion of Scripture is look at Scripture and how it has been historically viewed in relation to this issue with John.

So is Scripture wrong? Does the Baptist leap for joy or not? Is Elizabeth (who was filled with the Holy Spirit as a result) lying? Is she wrong? Do we change her statement of Truth made in the Holy Spirit into flowery poetry because it contradicts a desired answer?

Just because man can not imagine what it would be does not limit God. And it does not change Scripture. You asked the question in relation to the Baptist.

1. It is said that the Baptist will have the Spirit from the womb (Scripture)

2. He, in the Womb recognizes Christ and leaps for Joy. (Direct testimony of Scripture explained by his mother to Mary)

3. Knowing that Christ is the Messiah prior to the passion is knowledge sent by the Father who often sends that by the Spirit (Multiple Scripture)

4. So John in the womb has the Spirit because he recognizes the Messiah. And the Prophecy referenced from earlier in Luke is fulfilled in the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth

Refute any of that with a Christian source from the last 2000 plus years.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

No it is not my construction. It is pretty much the constant interpretation you learn in seminary, be it Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox or any other that I know. You can't really get around that simple fact. You are the one taking it in a direction that is an innovation.
here, the innovation here...is yours.

And again, there is intent...Joy. So it is more, clearly more than the normal movement of pregnancy. The Gospel is clear the leap is caused by Joy. The Baptist feels joy. An emotion, like a person. Because he is one at that point.

Scripture is clear, the Baptist in the womb felt joy as the approach of the Messiah. A human emotion. And he felt it because he recognized the Messiah and felt Joy. And he could feel it because he was a person at that point. And the Holy Spirit is how he knew.

I know of no ancient source, Church Father, pastor, priest or deacon who has ever taught other than the Baptist in the womb recognized the Messiah and felt joy and lept. The fact that the Truth of that in constant teaching across even fractured Christianity brings up uncomfortable facts for anyone who wants to deny that a fetus is a person is up to the one struggling with that reality.

So I am not the one disagreeing with the King James or any translation or authority. The Baptist clearly feels joy when Mary approaches because of the child in her womb. Recognizing the Savior for who He is...the Baptist, even in the womb, feels joy and leaps. If you have any source from Christianity who has ever taught that passage otherwise..please present it.

"The Baptist clearly feels joy when Mary approaches because of the child in her womb."
TOTAL FABRICATION. Not in Scripture!

"And again, there is intent...Joy. So it is more, clearly more than the normal movement of pregnancy. The Gospel is clear the leap is caused by Joy. The Baptist feels joy. An emotion, like a person. Because he is one at that point."
This is all your construction - yours and others, and NOT SCRIPTURE.
The hyperbole of "leaped" suggests it may have been unusually strong, the actual movement there actually was. Does not mean it was not part of the normal course of pregnancy.
"The babe leaped" (or moved) does NOT mean anybody felt anything other than movement, so your "The Baptist feels joy" is spurious. Where do you possibly get that from?

Note that it was Elizabeth who added the "for joy." I would certainly think she had great joy - and Mary too. No need to conjure up some additional joy in the womb that Scripture does NOT specifically tell us about.

btw, if "everybody" ADDS to Scripture, and then claims that for truth, does not mean it is.

 

[Davidnic]

"The Baptist clearly feels joy when Mary approaches because of the child in her womb."
TOTAL FABRICATION. Not in Scripture!

"And again, there is intent...Joy. So it is more, clearly more than the normal movement of pregnancy. The Gospel is clear the leap is caused by Joy. The Baptist feels joy. An emotion, like a person. Because he is one at that point."
This is all your construction - yours and others, and NOT SCRIPTURE.
The hyperbole of "leaped" suggests it may have been unusually strong, the actual movement there actually was. Does not mean it was not part of the normal course of pregnancy.
"The babe leaped" (or moved) does NOT mean anybody felt anything other than movement, so your "The Baptist feels joy" is spurious. Where do you possibly get that from?

Note that it was Elizabeth who added the "for joy." I would certainly think she had great joy - and Mary too. No need to conjure up some additional joy in the womb that Scripture does NOT specifically tell us about.

btw, if "everybody" ADDS to Scripture, and then claims that for truth, does not mean it is.

Luke 1:44

44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

That was pretty simple to refute.