There is a verse that I have puzzled over for weeks now. It is Luke 1:15b "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." (referring to John the Baptist.)
One of our Catholic students explained that this is where his church gets the belief that John was without original sin.
While I can't agree with that concept, the verse does continue to perplex me. It does not fit into my belief that we receive the Holy Spirit upon regeneration.
Also, if John was filled with the Holy Spirit, then why did he ask Jesus in Matt. 11:3 "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" Wouldn't he know that without a shadow of a doubt?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I can't answer for the first verse, but for the second, where John askes if Jesus is, indeed, who he says he is, I think Erwin McManus suggests in The Barbarian Way that John the Baptist was probably expecting Jesus to come rescue him. With all the miracles Jesus was performing, John probably expected his cousin to come save him. And the verse, as McManus suggests, points to the idea that Jesus is willing to let people die for the sake of the Gospel. Essentially, it wasn't that John was questioning who Jesus was, rather that John was questioning why Jesus hadn't come to save him, if he was who he said he was.
I think I explained that well.
Wow. That's quite a statement.
I heard Jerry Rankin say in a recent sermon "we've got to dispel the myth that the safest place to be is in the center of God's will."
I think you're right--His call to "share in His sufferings" can even include physical death. And not even His own cousin was exempt from that.
A few thoughts come to mind.
John was still born "of Adam's seed". He had a human Father and Mother. He was totally human, therefore totally corrupt. And, according to Christ himself, John only baptised with water (Mark 1:8, Acts 1:4-5).
John preceded Jesus, so he was "technically" still part of the "Old Testament". In the OT, we routinely see that specific individuals were filled with the Holy Spirit for a specific time and purpose. Apparently, John's task was so immense, that the Holy Spirit was preparing him even in the womb. That's pretty cool, but it doesn't make him divine.
Not until the New Testament - Jesus Christ's death burial, resurrection, and the Holy Spirit's re-introduction at Pentecost was the Holy Spirit made readily available to all through obedience (Acts 1:4-5) and faith (John 3:16).
Sampson was also "set apart" before birth, although the filling of the Holy Spirit wasn't specifically mentioned. Yet we know that Sampson was by no means divine. He only had power when the Holy Spirit came upon him, which further supports the Holy Spirit having discretionary power before Christ, available to all after Christ.
Also, if John was without original sin, wouldn't baptism into John be good enough? Yet scripture shows that to be false (Acts 19:1-6).
What you have to remember also is that john the Baptist was born to Elisabeth who was the cousin of Mary, mother of Jesus. Then you have to know that if the Holy Spirit can impregnate a virgin, the Holy Spirit can enter a child in the womb. John the Baptist was born to a barren woman to prepare the path for Jesus. John the Baptist knew who Jesus was according to "John 1, chapter 1 verse 29, "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
So as you see, John knew who Jesus was when he asked the question. The question you are refering to was asked by John after he was imprisoned. He baptised Jesus before he was imprisoned. So one must think that the question was asked so that the answer could be heard by all stating that Jesus was, is, and always will be the savior of mankind. Blessed be the name of the Lord our savior.
Mark Douglas
www.markdouglasnovels.com
Here is my take on the first verse. We believe that the trinity has always existed. I think there are many instances in Old Testament where the Holy Spirit was present and works in peoples lives. Num 11:25 (70 Elders); Num 24:2 (Balaam); Jud 6:24 (Othniel); Jud 6:34 (Gideon); Jud 14:6 (Samson); 1 Sam 10:10 (Saul); 1 Sam 16:13 (David); 1 Sam 19:20 (Saul Mess) Luke 2:25 (Simeon) In this instance, John received the HS while still in the womb. Others received the HS in Acts 2:3, Acts 8:17, Acts 10:44, Acts 19:6. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 12:12 and John 14:26 that the Comforter would come after him and remind them of things He had spoken. After Jesus Ascension, the HS comes into us to remind us of His words.
Concerning the Sainthood of John and the fact of His sin. I am sure you pointed out to your friend that John was still a descendent of Adam and as such, even though filled with the HS from birth, he was still under the curse of sin. Jesus is the only man born of God that doesn't have the sin curse of Adam and thus is the only one worthy of the sacrifice.
That's my two cents worth. :)
Hi Kiki!
From what I understand everyone is born with a sin nature. But like someone else said, Jesus had not yet died, so the "rules" of the Old testament still applied. John was leading the way, preparing the people for Christ. If Christ had already finished the task, then John could not have been born with the Holy Spirit.
All this has already been said, but I wanted you to know I was paying attention.
Miss you!
I'm pretty much with doubled on the Luke passage. The "filled with the Spirit" was, I think, like a prophetic anointing which we see on a number of occasions in the OT. I think in some ways Luke is taking us back to Jeremiah 1:4-5. The language is very similar.
I'm also with Joe on the Matthew passage, except that I would say I believe that was, in fact, a real crisis moment for John in terms of who Jesus was. John surely did believe that Jesus was the promised one, but he also knew his OT and he was certainly familiar with Isaiah 61:1ff, specifically: "The Spirit of the Soveriegn Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor [which Jesus obviously did]. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted [Jesus did that, too], to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners [now, if John is in prison, when will this happen - specifically for him?]. In other words, John is saying, "If you are the one then why am I rotting in Herod's prison? When are you coming to get me out?"
John may have had the Spirit, but he still worked largely under the assumptions of the day - that the kingdom of God would be geo-political...and Jesus didn't seem to be fitting that bill.
Interestingly, even with the benefit of the Spirit today, there are still a lot of things I'm sure I get wrong.
I like the way aslan said it:
"John only seems to matter to Luke as a springboard for the ministry of Jesus."
And really, isn't that the "filter" that all followers should see life itself through? A springboard for the ministry of Jesus. That's certainly what Jesus himself said in so many different ways throughout his life, death, and resurrection. I have taken John 6:27 as my "life verse" for this reason. If we can see life the way that Luke portrayed John, then I think we're right where Jesus wants us.
Thanks guys! These comments are great! It's taken me a couple of days to fully digest them all. But I learned some things!
I really need more "iron sharpening iron relationships" in my life. I learn best in community. Unfortunately, we haven't really been able to find that yet. I know some of you are in the same boat. So I really appreciate each of you taking the time to dialogue with me.
stumbled upon your blog via mutual acquaintances - just to chime in on the end of a now dead thread . . . would agree with most of what has been said here concerning John as a segway between Old and New Testament
I think however, that the official Catholic position on John is that the Holy Spirit "healed" John of the blight of original sin in the womb which is a little different than saying he was sinless, most would hold that Jesus alone was "without sin", depending on how you read their interpretation of Mary.
Also, I think its worth noting that John was questioning whether Jesus was the Messiah in Matthew 11 because he wasn't sure and he wasn't sure because Jesus wasn't acting like the Jews thought the Messiah should act, he wasn't doing the things they thought the Messiah should be doing - namely instituting political revolt and revolution so Jesus replies with an answer that redefines what the Messiah is, who he is: "Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 6Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me." This is pretty important I think because I think we're still missing a good bit of what Jesus is about because we're looking for the wrong thing.
Jack,
Thanks for posting!!! It's great to hear from you. I've missed seeing your comments around. Although I have to confess I haven't been keeping up much with Steve's site lately.
I appreciate all the scripture references. That helps me get some more insight into the teaching and beliefs of Catholicism.
I may have a few more questions along the way.....if you don't mind.
Starting with....who determines sainthood, and how exactly does that work?
Post a Comment