The Two Baptisms of the New Testament - Water and the Holy Spirit

[Saint Steven]

You are quite correct, not everyone had the gift of tongues. Scripture makes that clear. What people call tongues today does not match the biblical description of the gift. The only description is found in Acts 2 - miraculously speaking in known foreign languages.

If that is your definition of tongues, I want to hear your definition of the interpretation of tongues.

There are five kinds of tongues talked about in the Bible.
The "gift" of tongues that not everyone has is #3 on the list.

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

 

[Saint Steven]

Although Jesus blew on the disciples in John 20:22, it doesn't say they received the Holy Spirit at that point. In John 15:26-27 and John 16:7 Jesus specifically says the disciples would not receive the Holy Spirit while He was with them, but that He would only send the Spirit once he had returned to the Father. If they received the Spirit when Jesus blew on them, then Jesus was lying in these verses:

John 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."

John 15:26-27 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.​

Notice it says when they received the Spirit they would testify of Christ, and that only happened after Pentecost.

So, it was just a suggestion?
Jesus says, "Receive the Holy Spirit.", and you say, "No thanks, you said we would get it later. Change your mind, or what?" LOL

 

[Hillsage]

I pretty clear on my position. And probably won't trash it based on a mistranslation or two.

In reference to the Holy Spirit...
What did the disciples have before Pentecost?

Basic salvation and the spirit of Christ IN them which was 'a' holy spirit, FROM God and NOT 'the Holy Spirit' OF God.

What did the disciples have after Pentecost?

Still, the spirit of Christ IN them, which was now able to speak/pray to God in that born again spirit's prayer language. And they also had access to manifesting the supernatural power of holy spirit flowing through them, but only when the Holy Spirit decided to manifest His holy Power through them to others as His gifts. We're talking about the very same sequence that happened to the 'pattern Son' when He received His baptism from the Holy Spirit coming upon Him long after he was born with the 'spirit of Christ' IN Him until surrendering THAT "spirit"...'His spirit' into the Father's hands.

What were they waiting for in the upper room that they didn't already have?
(devil's advocate question)

Not an advocate question at all brother, I'm glad you asked. They were waiting for what Jesus told them to wait for several times "the promise of the Father" which was "POWER"....not the PERSON from which that POWER obviously flows from. But 'The Spirit' is 'A' PERSON and not THE POWER comes from 'that person'.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with [the] holy ghost (POWER) not many days hence.

They were to wait for 'holy spirit power' (no [the] in the Greek, which would be released from the Holy Spirit/person).

With definite article = person 'the doctor' noun. Without definite article means 'what the person DOES' 'doctor' verb, that cut.

They did not receive/lambano the person, they received/lambano his POWER which was poured out and PUT ON like CLOTHING for them. Look up the Greek word 1746 ENDUO interpreted in KJV/OTHERS as "ENDUED/PUT ON" up and you'll never see it as something that is PUT IN.

1720 emphusao: to blow at or on

John 20:22
And with that he breathed/empusao on them and said, “Receive [the] holy spirit.

If you'll notice in my last post I mentioned "receive/decomai" and "receive/lambano"....which we've never talked about. The words used by Jesus in that verse were not "decomai" (IOW; here, I'm giving this to you) they were "lambano" (IOW; like a receiver on the football team...receive/CATCH THIS WHEN IT IS THROWN) And when was it going to be THROWN? On the day of Pentecost after they heard a 'wind blowing on them' just like Jesus was prophesying here in John when he "BLEW AIR AT/ON" THEM.

When that happened on the day of Pentecost they remembered what Jesus said and had revelation knowledge of the prophesy of Joel which makes no sense without revelation from the Holy Spirit IMO. Also, nobody's spirit ever spoke in the 'supernatural power of tongues' until that day either.

In the Greek, know what word is missing in John 22? [THE]. He wasn't giving them The Person of the Holy Spirit or the power of holy spirit, he was telling to GET/lambano the 'holy spirit POWER' after they heard the rushing mighty wind. They did, when they spoke in tongues.

PARAPHRASE of John would be; "And with that he 'blew air at them' and said 'actively take' holy spirit power." And what was that to be equal to? Just like verse 21 when Jesus said go "as my Father sent me". And the Father sent the Son with POWER after His water and subsequent holy spirit/power baptism from John.

Hope this helped. I know this is deep, don't feel bad for not getting it like I get it. Just hang in and keep asking questions. Put it on a shelf that's over your head and the Spirit can get it down little by little. Throw it in the trash like most here....and the Holy Spirit will honor that request also. Seek and you will find SSteve.

 

[swordsman1]

If that is your definition of tongues, I want to hear your definition of the interpretation of tongues.

There are five kinds of tongues talked about in the Bible.
The "gift" of tongues that not everyone has is #3 on the list.

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

People could speak in tongues, sing in tongues, or pray in tongues but it was always public prayer or praise in a known foreign language. Not private prayer. Not preaching the gospel. Not God giving a message to man.

 

[Saint Steven]

This reminds me of a story of a previous Pastor I had. He struggled to get the manifestation of tongues as a personal prayer language. He prayed every day for a week until he got one syllable, "Tu". The next day he got another syllable, "Lu". The next day he put the two together to get "Tu Lu." That was enough to prime his pump. He's been speaking in tongues ever since.

 

[swordsman1]

So, it was just a suggestion?
Jesus says, "Receive the Holy Spirit.", and you say, "No thanks, you said we would get it later. Change your mind, or what?" LOL

No it was a command for the future. Does it say they received the Spirit in John 20:22? Was Jesus lying in John 15:26-27 and John 16:7?

 

[Saint Steven]

People could speak in tongues, sing in tongues, or pray in tongues but it was always public prayer or praise in a known foreign language. Not private prayer. Not preaching the gospel. Not God giving a message to man.

1 Corinthians 14:2
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

 

[Saint Steven]

No it was a command for the future. Does it say they received the Spirit in John 20:22? Was Jesus lying in John 15:26-27 and John 16:7?

Explain the purpose of what Jesus did then. Meaningless?

 

[swordsman1]

1 Corinthians 14:2
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

That doesn't say it was a non-human language.

The first 3 rules of biblical interpretation are:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

The whole of 1 Corinthians is correcting various problems in the Corinthian church. And the context of chapter 14 is Paul addressing the specific problem of speaking an unrecognized tongue in church meetings. The "no one" is not referring to no one on the face of the earth, but to no one in the congregation. So it should be read "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands." That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek house-church then it is no surprise that no one understands him. Only God, who understands all languages, knows what was spoken. Verse 2 is not a blanket statement about all tongues. If it was it would contradict the description in Acts 2. It is simply outlining the problem that was occurring in the Corinthian church.

 

[Saint Steven]

Basic salvation and the spirit of Christ IN them which was 'a' holy spirit, FROM God and NOT 'the Holy Spirit' OF God.


Still, the spirit of Christ IN them, which was now able to speak/pray to God in that born again spirit's prayer language. And they also had access to manifesting the supernatural power of holy spirit flowing through them, but only when the Holy Spirit decided to manifest His holy Power through them to others as His gifts. We're talking about the very same sequence that happened to the 'pattern Son' when He received His baptism from the Holy Spirit coming upon Him long after he was born with the 'spirit of Christ' IN Him until surrendering THAT "spirit"...'His spirit' into the Father's hands.


Not an advocate question at all brother, I'm glad you asked. They were waiting for what Jesus told them to wait for several times "the promise of the Father" which was "POWER"....not the PERSON from which that POWER obviously flows from. But 'The Spirit' is 'A' PERSON and not THE POWER comes from 'that person'.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with [the] holy ghost (POWER) not many days hence.

They were to wait for 'holy spirit power' (no [the] in the Greek, which would be released from the Holy Spirit/person).

With definite article = person 'the doctor' noun. Without definite article means 'what the person DOES' 'doctor' verb, that cut.

They did not receive/lambano the person, they received/lambano his POWER which was poured out and PUT ON like CLOTHING for them. Look up the Greek word 1746 ENDUO interpreted in KJV/OTHERS as "ENDUED/PUT ON" up and you'll never see it as something that is PUT IN.

1720 emphusao: to blow at or on

If you'll notice in my last post I mentioned "receive/decomai" and "receive/lambano"....which we've never talked about. The words used by Jesus in that verse were not "decomai" (IOW; here, I'm giving this to you) they were "lambano" (IOW; like a receiver on the football team...receive/CATCH THIS WHEN IT IS THROWN) And when was it going to be THROWN? On the day of Pentecost after they heard a 'wind blowing on them' just like Jesus was prophesying here in John when he "BLEW AIR AT/ON" THEM.

When that happened on the day of Pentecost they remembered what Jesus said and had revelation knowledge of the prophesy of Joel which makes no sense without revelation from the Holy Spirit IMO. Also, nobody's spirit ever spoke in the 'supernatural power of tongues' until that day either.

In the Greek, know what word is missing in John 22? [THE]. He wasn't giving them The Person of the Holy Spirit or the power of holy spirit, he was telling to GET/lambano the 'holy spirit POWER' after they heard the rushing mighty wind. They did, when they spoke in tongues.

PARAPHRASE of John would be; "And with that he 'blew air at them' and said 'actively take' holy spirit power." And what was that to be equal to? Just like verse 21 when Jesus said go "as my Father sent me". And the Father sent the Son with POWER after His water and subsequent holy spirit/power baptism from John.

Hope this helped. I know this is deep, don't feel bad for not getting it like I get it. Just hang in and keep asking questions. Put it on a shelf that's over your head and the Spirit can get it down little by little. Throw it in the trash like most here....and the Holy Spirit will honor that request also. Seek and you will find SSteve.

Does all this mean that you have not had the second baptism, the baptism with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Saint Steven]

That doesn't say it was a non-human language.

The first 3 rules of biblical interpretation are:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

The whole of 1 Corinthians is correcting various problems in the Corinthian church. And the context of chapter 14 is Paul addressing the specific problem of speaking an unrecognized tongue in church meetings. The "no one" is not referring to no one on the face of the earth, but to no one in the congregation. So it should be read "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands." That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek house-church then it is no surprise that no one understands him. Only God, who understands all languages, knows what was spoken. Verse 2 is not a blanket statement about all tongues. If it was it would contradict the description in Acts 2. It is simply outlining the problem that was occurring in the Corinthian church.

I disagree with your general interpretation of the whole book.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Before context, context, context, comes the verse itself.
Don't back up so far that you fall off a cliff.

It says they do "not speak to people but to God."
It says "no one understands them".
It says "they utter mysteries by the Spirit."

All this tells me it is not a known language.
Chapter 13 talks about tongues of angels.
What do you make of that? Does that fit your definition of tongues?

And none of this contradicts Acts chapter two, only your narrow interpretation of it.

1 Corinthians 14:2
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

 

[swordsman1]

Explain the purpose of what Jesus did then. Meaningless?

Other commentators explain that difficult verse better than I could.

D A Carson (continuist) - The Gospel According to John (1991)

“… Is it the gift of the Spirit that is being imparted even as Jesus speaks, or is it the gift of the Spirit that has long been promised and that is now imminent? In short, are there contextual reasons for thinking that this is a symbolic act that anticipates the future imminent bestowal? …
Jesus' 'exhalation' and command Receive the Holy Spirit are best understood as a kind of acted parable pointing forward to the full enduement still to come (though in the past for John's readers). A suitable Johannine analogy might be the washing of the disciples' feet: Unless I wash you, you have no part with me' (13:8). That can be read at a simplistic level as exhausted in the footwashing. Readers with more insight understand that the footwashing itself points forward to the spiritual washing achieved by the Lamb of God whose death takes away the sin of the world. John has repeatedly developed these anticipating steps in his narrative; it is not surprising if he uses one more to show that the story does not end with his book.


Wayne Grudem (continuist) - Systematic Theology

When Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), it probably was an acted-out prophecy of what would happen to them at Pentecost. In this same context—in fact, in the verse immediately preceding—Jesus had told them something that would not happen until Pentecost: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). But even though he said this before he had ascended into heaven, he did not really send them out to preach the gospel until the Day of Pentecost had come. Therefore his words were looking forward to what would happen at Pentecost. It is best to understand the words in the next sentence, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” in the same way—he was speaking in advance of something that would happen on the Day of Pentecost. On that day they would receive the new covenant fullness and power of the Holy Spirit, a much greater empowering of the Holy Spirit than what they had experienced before.


Andreas J. Köstenberger - John

Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." The present reference represents a symbolic promise of the soon-to-be-given gift of the Spirit, not the actual giving of it fifty days later at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2; see Carson 1991: 649-55; cf. Witherington 1995: 340-41)." Otherwise, it is hard to see how John would not be found to stand in actual conflict with Luke's Pentecost narrative in Acts 2, not to mention his own disclaimers earlier in the narrative that the Spirit would be given only subsequent to Jesus' glorification, which entailed his return to the Father. The disciples' behavior subsequent to the present incident would also be rather puzzling had they already received the Spirit. ​

 

[Saint Steven]

Other commentators explain that difficult verse better than I could.

D A Carson (continuist) - The Gospel According to John (1991)

“… Is it the gift of the Spirit that is being imparted even as Jesus speaks, or is it the gift of the Spirit that has long been promised and that is now imminent? In short, are there contextual reasons for thinking that this is a symbolic act that anticipates the future imminent bestowal? …
Jesus' 'exhalation' and command Receive the Holy Spirit are best understood as a kind of acted parable pointing forward to the full enduement still to come (though in the past for John's readers). A suitable Johannine analogy might be the washing of the disciples' feet: Unless I wash you, you have no part with me' (13:8). That can be read at a simplistic level as exhausted in the footwashing. Readers with more insight understand that the footwashing itself points forward to the spiritual washing achieved by the Lamb of God whose death takes away the sin of the world. John has repeatedly developed these anticipating steps in his narrative; it is not surprising if he uses one more to show that the story does not end with his book.


Wayne Grudem (continuist) - Systematic Theology

When Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), it probably was an acted-out prophecy of what would happen to them at Pentecost. In this same context—in fact, in the verse immediately preceding—Jesus had told them something that would not happen until Pentecost: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). But even though he said this before he had ascended into heaven, he did not really send them out to preach the gospel until the Day of Pentecost had come. Therefore his words were looking forward to what would happen at Pentecost. It is best to understand the words in the next sentence, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” in the same way—he was speaking in advance of something that would happen on the Day of Pentecost. On that day they would receive the new covenant fullness and power of the Holy Spirit, a much greater empowering of the Holy Spirit than what they had experienced before.


Andreas J. Köstenberger - John

Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." The present reference represents a symbolic promise of the soon-to-be-given gift of the Spirit, not the actual giving of it fifty days later at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2; see Carson 1991: 649-55; cf. Witherington 1995: 340-41)." Otherwise, it is hard to see how John would not be found to stand in actual conflict with Luke's Pentecost narrative in Acts 2, not to mention his own disclaimers earlier in the narrative that the Spirit would be given only subsequent to Jesus' glorification, which entailed his return to the Father. The disciples' behavior subsequent to the present incident would also be rather puzzling had they already received the Spirit. ​

How about this. They received the Spirit in John 20:22, but the manifestations in Acts 2.
The manifestations don't always come immediately. Did you speak in tongues right away? (or not yet) Like WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY delayed.

 

[swordsman1]

It says they do "not speak to people but to God."
It says "no one understands them".
It says "they utter mysteries by the Spirit."

All this tells me it is not a known language.

You are right. The language was not known to the congregation. That doesn't mean it was non-human.

Chapter 13 talks about tongues of angels.
What do you make of that? Does that fit your definition of tongues?

Yes it does. Lets take a look at that verse.

1 Cor 13:1-3 "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing."​

Here Paul is portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We can tell this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following 2 verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had those gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail. No one literally spoke in the language of angels.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ok if you want to take the verse out of context. ...

Your problem with context is that you want to lay the Bible on a sheet of paper and draw a circle around it and call that your context. But to be fair, let's examine the NEAR context.

1 Corinthians 14:1-4
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed,
no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.
4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's ignore verse two for the moment. What does this tell us about tongues?
"Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves..." - vs 4

How would speaking a known tongue without interpretation edify anyone?
Yet this says the tongues-speaker edifies themselves.

Back to verse 2
"... anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God." - vs 2

How do you like that context?

 

[Saint Steven]

Lets take a look at that verse.

1 Cor 13:1-3 "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing."​

Here Paul is portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We can tell this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following 2 verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had those gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail. No one literally spoke in the language of angels.

There is no word "could" there.
He didn't say, "Even if I could speak in the tongues of men or angels...", He says,
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love..." - vs 1

If what you are saying were correct then we would have to say that he cannot speak in the tongues of men. (part of your exaggerated scenario) Is that correct?

1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

 

[swordsman1]

Let's ignore verse two for the moment. What does this tell us about tongues?
"Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves..." - vs 4

How would speaking a known tongue without interpretation edify anyone?
Yet this says the tongues-speaker edifies themselves.

Not sure how that helps your case for tongues being a non-human language. You could ask the exact same question about a non-human tongue.

Paul was not congratulating the Corinthians when he said speaking an unrecognized tongue in the church was edifying themselves. It was a rebuke. The "but" in verse 4 indicates there is a deficiency. The whole point of chapter 14 is that in all things the congregation must be edified. The reason is because spiritual gifts should only to be used for the benefit of others.

1 Cor 12:7 "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good."

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms."​

 

[BNR32FAN]

Have you had both baptisms?
No, it's not a denominational thing. Available to all who ask.

Luke 11:13
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,
how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

John the Baptist said:

Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance.
But after me comes one who is more powerful than I,
whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

These are the two baptisms.
1) Water baptism.
2) The baptism of the Holy Spirit.

In the book of Acts we read this.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had accepted the word of God,
they sent Peter and John to Samaria.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers
there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them;
they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Four things to note:
1) Those who accepted the word of God in Samaria were new believers.
2) They had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (water baptism)
3) They had not yet "received" the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit
had not yet come "on" any of them.
4) Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

There are actually 4 baptisms referred to in the NT. Baptism of Spirit, water, fire, & death.

 

[SkyWriting]

The short answer is no. Do you want the long answer?

You only need to explain if you think you can add to the work Jesus did.
Otherwise, you are saved.

 

[SkyWriting]

Mr. Swordsman is trying to rob you of a wonderful blessing. He aspires to a common belief called Cessationism which claims that the miracle gifts are ceased. But you know better.

God does grant us miracles. But they only exist for you.
If they existed for others to see then you could be "proud"
of your powers over God.....which is not a case that exists
for anyone.