This teaching series on “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit” explores the biblical and theological foundations of the experience known as the baptism with the Holy Spirit or the reception of the Holy Spirit as confirmed by speaking in tongues. In the process of explaining the experience, Verna Linzey relies heavily on biblical resources. Thus, the presentation comes both from personal experience and from biblical research. The variety of discussion is significant, moving from the nature of the Holy Spirit Himself through the experience of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Verna Linzey then shows the workings of the Holy Spirit through the Old and New Testaments. Finally, Verna Linzey, in showing how to receive the Holy Spirit and the necessity and results of receiving the Holy Spirit baptism add the practical application that will apply to everyone.

Listen to all 19 teachings:  https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/vernalinzey

Special thanks to Jim Linzey, Verna’s son, for preparing this introduction to the lecture series.

The mother and son Bible translator team of Verna and James Linzey discuss how God has preserved his Word through the centuries and how this relates to the many ancient documents upon which the canon is based and the collections of these large and small manuscripts such as the Textus Receptus.

It has been said by theologians and scholars that we have the Textus Receptus (TR) today due to God’s providential preservation of His Scriptures. The doctrine of providential preservation was articulated in 1646 after the English Parliament commissioned the Westminster Confession of Faith to be drawn up. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph VIII, states:

The Old Testament in Hebrew, which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek, which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

Although Desiderius Erasmus printed the first Greek New Testament based on the Byzantine manuscripts available to him in 1516, and Robert Estienne provided a critical apparatus of the Greek variants with his printed edition of the Erasmus edition in 1550, it was the Elzevier edition in 1633 that popularized the Erasmus/Estienne edition as the Textus Receptus. The TR (nunc ab omnibus receptum “now received by all”) was based on the Byzantine manuscripts, and although not identical and differing in some 1,838 places,[1] the TR is based on the majority of Greek NT manuscripts from this Byzantine tradition. In 1646 the English Parliament knew only of the TR tradition over and against the Latin Vulgate. But can the question of the providential preservation of Scripture pertain only to the TR and not to all the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts and fragments?

The mother and son Bible translator team of Verna and James Linzey discuss the major translations of the Bible that have been developed from the Greek New Testament known as the Textus Receptus.

The three major Bible translations based on the Textus Receptus are the Authorized King James Version (1611), the New King James Version (1982), and the Modern English Version (2014). The latter two are updates of the original KJV.  Developing an appreciation for how these Bible translations came into being starts more than 500 years ago. In 1516 a Dutch Roman Catholic monk, Desiderius Erasmus, compiled the first complete Greek New Testament from Byzantine text-type manuscripts. He only had a half dozen manuscripts dating from the 13th century, and where he had gaps or lacunae in the manuscripts he used the Latin Vulgate to fill in those sections, especially the last six verses of Revelation.[1] In Elzevir’s Greek NT published in 1633, the term Textus Receptus is used in the preface to provide appellation to the Greek NT published by Erasmus and then subsequently revised by Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir.

In 1526, William Tyndale translated Erasmus’ Greek New Testament into English.

Tyndale then revised it by 1534. The Tyndale Bible, which included the Pentateuch and Jonah, became the basis of the Authorized KJV, which would not be published until almost a century later. William Tyndale’s translation from the Textus Receptus comprises about 90% of the KJV and 80% of the RSV.[2] Nevertheless, between the Tyndale Bible and Authorized KJV there were the Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Taverner (1539), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop’s Bible (1568), and Douay-Rheims (NT in 1582 and OT in 1609-10). The KJV 1611 was partly in response to the Catholic Douay-Rheims edition as well as motivation for a “political” Bible to bring together different religious factions under the Church of England.

A century later, the Oxford University Press produced a standard KJV text that would reflect a

more up to date English style for the 18th century. This was the 1769 KJV update edited by Dr. Benjamin Blayney. In addition to the full revision with respect to the English language, it standardized the KJV punctuation and spelling. This update is the edition commonly used today.

Then in 1979, Thomas Nelson publishers asked 130 scholars to edit a New Testament update of the Authorized KJV, eliminating much of the archaic language. The complete NKJV Bible was published in 1982. Along with the numerous other English translations from the previous four centuries, the NKJV was based on the TR, but more strictly speaking the Byzantine-Majority text tradition. Thousands of Greek manuscripts and fragments (not the least of which the 900+ Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1945) had been discovered in the last two centuries so textual scholars had the opportunity to reconstruct earlier and better readings of the TR using the Byzantine-Majority text-type manuscripts.[3]

Are the red letters of Jesus really that different than the black letters of the rest of the Bible? Why are there diverse font colors, and what is the significance? Red letter Bibles were first published in 1899 by an influential Christian leader named Louis Klopsch, editor of Christian Herald magazine.[1] He was a devout man who deeply desired all people to read, understand, and value the Bible. Although Klopsch’s motivations were sincere and beneficial, the presence of red letter Bibles may actually confuse rather than clarify the reading of Scripture in a couple of important aspects.

Image: Bethany Laird

Matthew uses Jesus’ phrase the “kingdom of heaven” 32 times, whereas Luke, Mark, and John give us “kingdom of God” or “eternal life.”[3] There are a few reasons why the Gospel writers choose different words or phrases to attribute to Jesus depending on the literary and theological intention that the writer has for his audience. Matthew’s Jesus prefers “kingdom of heaven” because this kingdom is opposed to and will be victorious over the kingdoms of earth, especially the Jewish and Roman anti-messiah kingdoms. On the other hand, “kingdom of God” is over and against the strong Greco-roman pantheon structures and worship of the audiences for Mark’s and Luke’s Jesus. John’s Jesus has a strong focus on “eternal life” since his gospel is a post-resurrection reflection on what Jesus has actually provided anyone who follows his teachings.

The history of the Day of Pentecost dates back to 1500 BC when God gave Moses the Law on Mount Sinai. Fire appeared to symbolize God’s presence. On the Day of Pentecost in Acts, God made His presence known through the fire and gave us the Holy Spirit. The difference between Sinai and Acts was that His presence would now be permanent under the New Covenant. Jesus said that He would never leave us nor forsake us and He fulfilled His Word by sending the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit came, the fire separated and hovered above the head of each believer present. The Holy Spirit gave tongues as a manifestation of His indwelling. These tongues were as diverse as the separation of the flames and, like the Holy Spirit, were permanently given.

According to Acts 1:14-15 about 120 believing Jewish people (men, women and children) waited in Jerusalem. Among them were the 12 apostles, including Matthias who replaced Judas. According to Acts 2:1-4 these were the first believers to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. As a result, 3,000 people became new followers of Jesus. The disciples did not know that the crowd of international Jews could understand what they were speaking; all they knew was that they were praying in the Spirit. They were not even preaching. If they were preaching they would have gone to where the crowd was eating, drinking, and celebrating the Feast of Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit came with fire and the sound of a whirlwind. These believing Jews were worshiping in their native tongue (their intellect) and then began praying in the Spirit. The unbelieving Jews heard the whirlwind, saw the fire and knew God was present. When they went to the nearby house where the disciples were praying, they saw and heard believers worshiping in the Spirit, and heard the Gospel in their own languages. This was corporate tongues offered up to God.

According to Acts 2:5-13, cynics accused the disciples of drunkenness. This is when the preaching began. Peter, responding to the charge of drunkenness, preached in Acts 2:14-18 that this was what Joel prophesied (Joel 2:28-29). Many Jews who then believed asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter said to them in Acts 2:38-39 that if they repented, they too would receive the Holy Spirit, as promised to all their descendants. In other words, Peter showed that salvation was the prerequisite for receiving the Holy Spirit and that this gift was expected to be manifested by speaking in tongues.

The Jews received the baptism in the Holy Spirit in 33 A.D. through the divine sovereign will of God.

The Baptism in the Holy Spirit in Samaria

Acts 8:4 tells us that Philip the evangelist was led by God to preach salvation to the Samaritans and perform miraculous signs. God delivered these Samaritans of evil spirits and healed numerous paralytics and crippled individuals. Consequently, many Samaritans were saved and baptized in water. We know that the Samaritans technically received the Holy Spirit simply because they were saved. Romans 8:9 says that if people belong to Christ then they have the Holy Spirit. Luke challenges us with his terminology when he says that the Holy Spirit had not come upon them. The problem was that the Samaritans did not manifest the Holy Spirit through speaking in tongues at that moment.

Which one is God’s Word? Are all three equally Scripture? Let’s take a closer look to see what sets each one apart from the other two.

The United Bible Societies’ compilation, now in its fifth edition, is the base-text of several modern translations, such as the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the English Standard Version.  Occasionally the translators deviated from this base-text, but such instances are exceptions.

It has been said that the Byzantine Text is a more accurate version of the Textus Receptus. Though this statement is imprecise, it may help the average person get some idea of the similarities between the two. After the Textus Receptus was compiled in the 1500’s, many more manuscripts became available. In 1982, when Hodges and Farstad published the Majority Text, their compilation provided the text represented by the consensus of known Greek manuscripts, thus setting aside minority-readings contained in the Textus Receptus.

Why are there two editions of the Byzantine Text, with differences between them?  In Matthew through Jude, there are some textual differences where the evidence is closely divided, and occasionally (especially in John 7:53-8:11) textual differences involve more than two alternative readings; in some cases, no single reading can claim support from a majority of the manuscripts.   In the book of Revelation, the number of differences between the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform is especially high, mainly because Robinson and Pierpont took identifiable manuscript-families into consideration, rather than simply printing whatever reading had more manuscripts in its favor.

About 1,500 minor differences occur between any edition of the Textus Receptus and either edition of the Byzantine Text. All three major compilations – the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine text (whether represented by the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, or by the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform), and the UBS/Nestle-Aland text – agree over 95% of the time. Many readings within the remaining 5% have no discernible impact on translation.

However, some disagreements strongly impact translation – including readings in the Alexandrian tradition which appear to express errors, or which diverge from very early patristic testimony, or which do not support the deity of Christ to the same extent as the Byzantine alternative. Where such readings occur – such as in Matthew 27:49, Mark 6:22, Mark 10:24, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, Luke 23:34, John 7:8, John 7:53-8:11, First Timothy 3:16, and First John 4:3 – even some of the English translations that are mainly based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland text adopt the Byzantine reading, or mention it in a footnote, to compensate for the Alexandrian manuscripts’ shortcomings.

Some of the deeper issues at stake involve the question of the origin of the Byzantine Text.  The manuscript-evidence for the Alexandrian Text is older, but that may be merely an effect of the low-humidity climate of Egypt, which allowed manuscripts made of papyrus to survive longer there than in other areas.  Patristic and versional evidence demonstrates the use of an essentially Byzantine form of the text of the Gospels in the 300’s – the same century in which the two most important Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were made.  Were those patristic writers and early translators using a novel form of the text, or a form that had been handed down to them from yet more ancient times?  In addition, because most Greek manuscripts (over 80%) tend to agree at any given point, some might say that this shows that if any text has a special claim to have been providentially preserved for the church, it is the Byzantine Text.

With this brief introduction to the issue at hand, we encourage students of God’s Word to weigh the evidence as they build, or test, their convictions on this subject.
 

The mother and son team of Verna and James Linzey wrote this article together.