Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

[SPF]

Can you present an actual commentary that disagrees with me and agrees with you? You’re starting to sound more like a cult leader or a gnostic heretic in that you’re claiming that all of Christendom is wrong and that you alone hold the right interpretation.

Certainly not a place I would be comfortable finding myself in.

 

[dqhall]

Luke 1:41,44 - And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

The Greek word used here for "leap" is found 3 times in the NT.

Luke 1:41 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb...

Luke 1:44 - For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

Luke 6:23 - Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven...

Also, as previously shown, the Greek word that Luke uses for "baby" in the aforementioned passage is used 8 times in the NT, and in fact all the other times it is referring to babies that have already been born:

Luke 2:12 - This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths....

Luke 2:16 - So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger.

Luke 18:15 - And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them...

Acts 7:19 - It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.

I Timothy 3:15 - and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings....

I Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word...

So what we have here in Luke is we have a reference to John the Baptist who is still in the womb of Elizabeth actually leaping for joy, his joy, at the sound of Mary's greeting. There simply is no other way to read this in the Greek. There is literally no other sound interpretation.

John, while in his mother's womb, leaps for joy.

Just like if I walked in the door after being at the office and said hello to my wife, if my son in the room heard me and leaped for joy at the sound of my coming, we would all know that the leaping he did was for his joy at the sound of my voice. There is no other interpretation.

If you disagree - I challenge to provide just one commentary that supports your position. Give me ONE theologian who agrees with your interpretation. I don't believe you can because the text is crystal clear.

I think the Holy Spirit was in communication with both Elizabeth and the unborn child for them to receive joy with the greeting from Mary. Elizabeth rejoiced when she heard and the baby kicked its feet at the same time as if inspired by God. It is known a baby's movements inside the womb can be felt by the mother or one with a hand on her lower abdomen.

 

[SPF]

I completely agree. So far as I know, Douglas is the only “Christian” on the planet who disagrees with that.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:41d
One thing we know!
Do we know anything more about that?

I mean about that, the Holy Spirit "INSIDE" Elisabeth. What can we truthfully say, does Scripture say about that? (Not that it is actually a fetus, I don't think that is what it says.)

(I tend to think the next line, 42, is the actual actuality of "filled with the Holy Ghost" meant she SPoKE OUT WITH A LOUD VOICE.)
I like that explanation I don't think I know that explanation.

Yeah don't sweat it. Your correct and if you search around you'll find Elisabeth isn't the only one. It was Luke that coined the term "filled" If I remember correctly. What people misunderstand about the whole subject is this. The operations of the Holy Spirit have always been the same. People have been being filled with him since Adams days. You'll find that also if you search around carefully.

People in ignorance have created another fake "dispensation" where they say there is a difference between being filled and Him being upon. (Those terms are used interchangeably by Luke I believe if my memory serves me right.) Or temporary fillings verses permanent (osas.)

Here is the Biblical dispensation though. Acts 2:33 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. It is the resurrected MAN Jesus, the MESSIAH who received the promise of the Spirit. HE shed forth what you now see and hear. That is what divided tongues of fire mean in the Greek. Think of a pie. Jesus get the whole pie and cuts up pieces to give to his followers.

Before Jesus came to earth he was not a man and was not the Messiah. He was not the Son of David and not the descendent of Abraham. He was Jehovah the Word. The promise of the Spirit was to the descendant of Abraham. So the Holy Spirit was always given in the name of Jehovah. But now he is given only in the name of Jesus the Messiah the Son of David and descendent of Abraham. No differance though in what is given. They could not have wrote the Bible and walked they walk they walked in the OT without being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

 

[pshun2404]

Many people old and new covenant have the experience of being filled with the Spirit. That is not the same as the Spirit coming to dwell within you permanently like when someone is born anew by the Spirit (made a new creature). Only this latter group can be known to be saved children of God because after all the Spirit of God can enter an ass and cause it to speak but the ass is not one of His (Romans 8:9).

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Many people old and new covenant have the experience of being filled with the Spirit. That is not the same as the Spirit coming to dwell within you permanently like when someone is born anew by the Spirit (made a new creature). Only this latter group can be known to be saved children of God because after all the Spirit of God can enter an ass and cause it to speak but the ass is not one of His (Romans 8:9).

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think the Holy Spirit was in communication with both Elizabeth and the unborn child for them to receive joy with the greeting from Mary. Elizabeth rejoiced when she heard and the baby kicked its feet at the same time as if inspired by God. It is known a baby's movements inside the womb can be felt by the mother or one with a hand on her lower abdomen.

Thinking something other than what Scripture says is not really a good way to go.
We are certainly NOT told there is any communication with the fetus, in either direction.

We are not even told that "Elizabeth rejoiced." The only thing anything like that is that Mary's spirit rejoiced.

"As if inspired by God" is interesting. An admission we do not know the motion of leg of a fetus , i.e the contracting and relaxing of a few muscles, was anything particularly related to God, rather than being merely an interesting co-incidence.

Made-up stories should not be considered helpful to understand God's will and way, especially when they are not in accord with Scripture.

 

[SPF]

"As if inspired by God" is interesting. An admission we do not know the motion of leg of a fetus , i.e the contracting and relaxing of a few muscles, was anything particularly related to God, rather than being merely an interesting co-incidence.

Except we know that it wasn't a mere coincidence because the inspired Scripture literally says that the unborn baby leaped for joy at the sound of Mary's greeting.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The Lord was clear that (if you can receive it and I can) John the Baptist was Elijah.

Before anyone starts on it - this is not reincarnation since Elijah never died.

When the spirit of a man is created is a point of some discussion. We don't know much about spirits except that they can exist without a body to house them. But we do know that every man has a spirit.

We also know that fallen man is born spiritually dead. We must be born again.

The one exception was John who was born spiritually alive since he was Elijah who was already born again.

As the Lord said, John was the greatest of those born of woman (Himself excluded of course). How so?

He was the only one of the fallen race of man, conceived in the womb, who was born spiritually alive.

As such, he was able to be filled with God's Spirit and recognize the presence of his Savior immediately even when in the womb.

By the way - let's get one thing straight - there should be no doubt as to when human life starts. I starts at conception. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. He did not become man in something like the second or third trimester and He most certainly didn't become fully man at the moment He took a breath of air or when some doctor pronounced Him viable.

He became fully God and fully man the moment the Holy Spirit of God came upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowed her.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Except we know that it wasn't a mere coincidence because the inspired Scripture literally says that the unborn baby leaped for joy at the sound of Mary's greeting.

Surely you understand that regardless of whether it leaped for joy, "at the sound," i.e. at the same time, is the very definition of "co-incidence."

I.e. your "leaped for joy" thing is spurious.
And WHAT WE KNOW AND ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THERE IS COINCIDENCE.

 

[SPF]

lol Douglas. The narrative is clear and every single theologian and commentary that I have ever read is in complete agreement. It hasn't been until you, the great theologian Douglas has come onto the scene that there has ever been disagreement over this particular passage. Clearly the reason you disagree is because you hold preconceived beliefs that would render the obvious understanding of this passage problematic to the beliefs you carry with you into Scripture.

Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant with John. Mary had just conceived Christ and was greeting Elizabeth. At her greeting, John, inside the womb of Elizabeth leaped for joy, and Elizabeth knew, VIA the filling of the Holy Spirit that Mary was pregnant with Christ.

The entire scene is a testimony to who John and Christ were.

The problem is that you carry with you into your reading of Scripture that there can never exist at any time within a womb a human being. Therefore, when you read a passage like this, you have to do every sort of isegetical word-smithing Scripture interpreting manipulation that you can come up with to maintain the integrity of your belief.

It's a shame that what's important to you is your preconceived belief as opposed to integrity towards Scripture.

John leaping for joy in his mother's womb is a very important part of the context of the chapter. It wasn't randomly tossed in there. It wasn't some random movement of the baby. The passage is clear.

1. Mary greets Elizabeth
2. John, in the womb hears the greeting
3. John, as a result leaps for joy

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

lol Douglas. The narrative is clear and every single theologian and commentary that I have ever read is in complete agreement. It hasn't been until you, the great theologian Douglas has come onto the scene that there has ever been disagreement over this particular passage. Clearly the reason you disagree is because you hold preconceived beliefs that would render the obvious understanding of this passage problematic to the beliefs you carry with you into Scripture.

Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant with John. Mary had just conceived Christ and was greeting Elizabeth. At her greeting, John, inside the womb of Elizabeth leaped for joy, and Elizabeth knew, VIA the filling of the Holy Spirit that Mary was pregnant with Christ.

The entire scene is a testimony to who John and Christ were.

The problem is that you carry with you into your reading of Scripture that there can never exist at any time within a womb a human being. Therefore, when you read a passage like this, you have to do every sort of isegetical word-smithing Scripture interpreting manipulation that you can come up with to maintain the integrity of your belief.

It's a shame that what's important to you is your preconceived belief as opposed to integrity towards Scripture.

John leaping for joy in his mother's womb is a very important part of the context of the chapter. It wasn't randomly tossed in there. It wasn't some random movement of the baby. The passage is clear.

1. Mary greets Elizabeth
2. John, in the womb hears the greeting
3. John, as a result leaps for joy

You refuse to understand what "for" means. It is not unambiguously "in," as you seem to think.
"For" is a causal term, like in bringing into being joy. It's truth here is that the so-called leaping caused joy.
Unless you have a pre-conceived notion that there can be joy in a womb thing. And must, to make your argument, insist that is what happened. Which of course is what you are doing.

Number 2 is false. THAT IS NOT WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS.
No John is referred to, only "the babe," which of course meant the fetus in Elizabeth's belly.

The "scene" of your construction, your deliberate falsity, is :
"John, inside the womb of Elizabeth leaped for joy, and Elizabeth knew, VIA the filling of the Holy Spirit that Mary was pregnant with Christ."
THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS ELIZABETH KNEW ANYTHING VIA THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Let alone that Jesus the Christ then existed as per your arbitrary made-up scene.
That such a scene has been common currency within Christianity for centuries does not make it any more true, only "the church" less true, DELIBERATELY NOT SEARCHING FOR TRUTH AND CONTINUING TO PRESENT FABLES, for which I say they are corrupt.

And btw, it is nothing about preconceived beliefs that I am falsely accused of having in these matters: I am simply trying to understand what can truly be said about these things. On the other hand, anything and everything you say is to try to maintain the preconceived "pro-life" position.
Might mention, so far, I see little worth communicating to anyone in all that you say.
edit: Oh by the way, it's a shame, a shame I tell you, that what's important to you is your preconceived belief as opposed to integrity towards Scripture.

 

[SPF]

Imagine for a moment that you have a wife and a son.

You walk in the door after being at work and greet your wife. Your son, who is in the room when you walk in hears your voice and leaps for joy.

I think we would all recognize that st hearing your voice your son was filled with joy and therefore as an expression of that joy leaped.

The passage in Luke is likewise very clear that John leaped in the womb for joy. Whose joy? Obviously his. There is no other way to interpret the Greek. You’re just flat wrong.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Imagine for a moment that you have a wife and a son.

You walk in the door after being at work and greet your wife. Your son, who is in the room when you walk in hears your voice and leaps for joy.

I think we would all recognize that st hearing your voice your son was filled with joy and therefore as an expression of that joy leaped.

The passage in Luke is likewise very clear that John leaped in the womb for joy. Whose joy? Obviously his. There is no other way to interpret the Greek. You’re just flat wrong.

Yes I can imagine it being real in the real world. A real child would have the ability you indicated. But a fetus, a six month old fetus, not so much.

A real child might happen to be have been practicing leaping, and just happened to leap at the same time as THE SHOUTING.
So too, what else is there for basically useless limbs to do except have the attendant muscles contract and relax from time to time. Just happened to be doing that at the same time as the greeting of Mary.

You can concoct FABULOUS TALES about what you take to be the great meaning of that, but it is to go beyond what the Scripture says, WAY BEYOND !

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The passage in Luke is likewise very clear that John leaped in the womb for joy. Whose joy? Obviously his. There is no other way to interpret the Greek. You’re just flat wrong.

Sure, of course we must interpret the Greek as saying there was (a) John in the womb (who did such and such).
Actually in the real Greek there is no term that could possibly be translated as "John."

So your FABULOUS CONSTRUCTION is just repeating the lies you have read and think bolster your case. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. No John is said to do anything. MADE UP.