What about Pentecost?

Q.  I was recently asked the question,`Did Jesus ever include the Holy Spirit when praying to God?` What would be an appropriate answer to this. ? This person believes the Spirit didn`t come till the day of Pentecost.

The Descending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost

A.  The recorded prayers we have of Jesus do not indicate that He prayed to the Holy Spirit.  Jesus’ prayers were always addressed to the Father (again, that we have recorded in the Gospels), much as we now pray to the Father through Jesus, our intercessor.

While it is true that the ministry of the Holy Spirit was vastly magnified on Pentecost, it would be fallacy to assume that the Holy Spirit did not involve Himself with the workings of earth until that day.  Instead, we see Him at work first in Genesis 1:2, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters (ESV).“  The ministry of the Holy Spirit was not dissimilar in the Old Testament to the ministry described in the New Testament. Consider that the Holy Spirit gave wisdom and revelation (Deuteronomy 34:9, Micah 3:8, Nehemiah 9:20).  It is obvious from these and many other verses that, much as He gives us wisdom now and did in the New Testament (John 16:13), He did so as well in the Old Testament.

Also, much as the Holy Spirit indwells believers now, He did so as well in the Old Testament with men like Joshua, Jepthah, Samson, Samuel, Saul, David, Elijah, Jerubbabel, Jeshua, and countless others.  Also, the Holy Spirit was and is an agent to bring about inward renewal of the hearts of believers (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 8:9-16).

The question then, to be asked, is this:  What significance is Pentecost?  While the Holy Spirit had ministered on earth before Pentecost, there was a difference in the scope and reach of His ministry.  The Holy Spirit’s empowerment was not always permanent (see Saul, Samson, Balaam, and consider David’s heartfelt plea for the Holy Spirit not to leave him in Psalm 51:11), and He only empowered certain people and for certain missions (consider that Samson was empowered by the Holy Spirit for the destruction of the Philistines, or Saul being empowered to save the people of Jabesh-Gilead).  In contrast, Pentecost was the fulfillment of a powerful prophecy in Joel:

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. Joel 2:28-29 (ESV)”

At Pentecost, the Spirit empowered ALL believers, as such people of all ages and positions in life would be filled with the empowering Spirit of the Lord.  Pentecost was the beginning of this great prophecy of Joel that continues to be fulfilled today in the lives of believers on whom the Lord’s Spirit and favor rest.

provided to www.gotquestions.org

More on Professor Ehrman

A Byzantine Era Mosaic of Christ

I feel that I should further elaborate my position on Professor Ehrman and his very wooden interpretation of the Bible.  I think by providing a shotgun blast of criticism rather than really explaining my position against Professor Ehrman, I really didn’t provide any real reason to disagree with the Professor.

Let me further explain.  Professor Ehrman in particular likes to exploit a verse in Mark to show that Jesus, the Savior of mankind, the Son of God Himself, doesn’t even remember His history.

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.  And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”   And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:   how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”  And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.   So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:23-28

As usual, Jesus manages to give a scriptural beatdown to a group of Pharisees who are trying to prove that Jesus is a sinful man and not, in fact, the Messiah.  However, Professor Ehrman’s problem with this passage is that, when David ate the Showbread, Ahimelech was High Priest, Abiathar’s father.  Abiathar was not yet High Priest.  Therefore, asserts Professor Ehrman, Jesus was incorrect.  Further proof that either Jesus was wrong, and therefore mortal, or the Bible is not accurate and inerrant.  Professor Ehrman’s position is based off of the fact that though current translations read “In the days of Abiathar”, but the original Greek actually says “When Abiathar was High Priest.”  Therefore, Professor Ehrman feels that the Bible is wrong, or Jesus is wrong.

Let me first begin by saying that I would expect someone who is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC would actually spend more time learning and studying than Professor Ehrman has.  Perhaps if he spent more time involved in genuine scholarship, he would not be a part of this attack against Christianity.  You see, Professor Ehrman obviously does not know a lot about the holy scriptures prior to the compilation of the entire canon of OT and NT, otherwise he would know that the books of the OT were not arranged exactly the way they are now.  The books were not divided into their current format until the Septuagint, which then placed the books in the order in which they are now and separated the material as it is now.  The important point to that is this:  Jesus didn’t always quote from the Septuagint.  Therefore, when talking to the Pharisees, who would have most likely referenced the Hebrew scripture, which was NOT divided the same as the Septuagint, He would have pointed them to the portion of scripture dealing with this instance, which since Ahimelech is nothing more than a footnote in biblical history, would reasonably be the portion of scripture talking about Abiathar.  So, it is entirely within reason that Jesus would say “When Abiathar was High Priest” as  a reference to the portion of scripture regarding Abiathar, especially since this particular story is the first mention of the famous High Priest of King David.

Another, simpler thing to consider is this:  Jesus was addressing a group of Pharisees that were already hostile to them.  If the guy proclaiming Himself to be the Son of God (And yes, there were claims to deity early in Jesus’ ministry) slips up on something that little and stupid, I think the Pharisees would have been all over that one, and then there wouldn’t be a debate at all.

In determining the meaning of passages in scripture, it is always best to consider the context and to study to show oneself approved.  Professor Ehrman should probably do less wrecking of other people’s faith and study so that he can rebuild his before it is too late.

In the world? Or of the world?

How close do you need to get to being “of the world” in order to reach the unchurched?  I ask this because it has been something I have noticed over the years.  With the proliferation of “Seeker-Sensitive” churches and the “Emergent/Emerging” church movement, the emphasis has been moved to a Christianity that seems willing to “blur the lines” of doctrine in order to reach those who were not previously reached.  I appreciate the desires of these movements and I appreciate the heart behind them.  It has a lot in common with the heart of the apostle Paul who followed the idea of being “all things to all people.”  I am reminded in many ways of the approach taken by our master, the LORD Jesus Christ.  Jesus was not against dining with the “unclean” and making them feel loved.  He never left anyone out of the ever-abiding glow of His grace who sincerely wanted in.

Here, however, is where the similarities end.  Unfortunately, the going trend I have seen from these movements is not “bring the unchurched out of the world and introduce them to the life that is found in Jesus Christ.”  Instead, it concerns itself with “worship experience design,” is Ted Kluck called it in “Why We Are not Emergent.”  The substance of the Gospel that brought repentance and a turn of one’s life toward God is strangely absent in this new worship experience that much like Miller Lite, tastes great but has less filling.

The funny thing is this:  while the current church movement is trying to move away from the reality of sin and the chasm between God and us, Jesus never once backed off of that issue.  Jesus was quick to offer grace to those willing to receive it, but just as quick to point out their sinfulness as well.  I think part of the allure of the LORD is that even though he was just in pointing out the fallen state of man, He did so while holding out grace in His lovingly outstretched hands.

I think this is to be the model of Christianity:  Holding out the open hand of grace that is willing to point steadfastly toward the truth of the redeeming gospel of Jesus Christ, that we may both delight in the Lord’s mercy as well as rest in His law and thereby live in peace.  The church grew after Christ’s death precisely by not being part of the world.  We should do the same.