"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"

[Scribe]

Luke 12:49 Jesus says
"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"

The context talks about division. But I am thinking that Jesus meant that the Fire of Pentecost would cause much division and that was just fine by Him. He wanted it that way. Let the division begin! Those that are on fire for God will turn the world upside down and be killed for it. But those who are religious and complacent will play church and not really disturb many folks. It is the ones baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire that will stir up all the trouble. What do you think?

Some commentaries say he was just talking about division and giving it poetic symbolism as "fire". I think he meant the Fire he was sent to Baptize with and the cloven tongues of flame that sat upon each one on the day of Pentecost was a sign that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had arrived. That fire was upon them. The kindling of the flames had begun. Now it has spread around the world and is even now inflamed. Would that we all would stir it up and cause trouble.

I aim to misbehave.

 

[throughfaith]

Luke 12:49 Jesus says
"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"

The context talks about division. But I am thinking that Jesus meant that the Fire of Pentecost would cause much division and that was just fine by Him. He wanted it that way. Let the division begin! Those that are on fire for God will turn the world upside down and be killed for it. But those who are religious and complacent will play church and not really disturb many folks. It is the ones baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire that will stir up all the trouble. What do you think?

Some commentaries say he was just talking about division and giving it poetic symbolism as "fire". I think he meant the Fire he was sent to Baptize with and the cloven tongues of flame that sat upon each one on the day of Pentecost was a sign that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had arrived. That fire was upon them. The kindling of the flames had begun. Now it has spread around the world and is even now inflamed. Would that we all would stir it up and cause trouble.

I aim to misbehave.

Acts 2.3
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire , and it sat upon each of them.
Not ' of ' fire .
Its to the the observers description as best to explain ' AS OF ' LIKE ..fire .
Brightness, movement, colour maybe.
And John the baptist in Matt 3.11
the “FIRE” part of the baptism is defined in the next verse as the wrath of God!

 

[notuptome]

The fire of the Holy Spirit is a fire that cleanses the soul from sin. Having been cleansed is going to cause division. The new creature sees everything as new and the old thoughts of righteousness pass away. It would not seem that Jesus is speaking of Pentecost and the tongues as fire. John 1:33 speaks of a baptism of fire that only Christ can administer. It is a baptism that results in complete conversion from sinner to redeemed saint.

There is a division between Light and darkness. Unsaved we were part of the darkness now in Christ we are in Light.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[throughfaith]

Acts 2
1¶And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like AS OF ( NOT OF FIRE , BUT ' AS OF ' fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5¶And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language

Hey why isn't it' a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, filling all the house ' initial evidence ?
Or cloven tongues like as of fire, sat upon the person? lol Where s that being done in the church ? .Why did tongues get highlited so much ?

 

[throughfaith]

Nobody is baptized “with the Holy Ghost and FIRE” (see Acts 1:1–3 , for the cloven tongues (vs. 3) are “LIKE as of fire.”

 

[Scribe]

The fire of the Holy Spirit is a fire that cleanses the soul from sin. Having been cleansed is going to cause division. The new creature sees everything as new and the old thoughts of righteousness pass away. It would not seem that Jesus is speaking of Pentecost and the tongues as fire. John 1:33 speaks of a baptism of fire that only Christ can administer. It is a baptism that results in complete conversion from sinner to redeemed saint.

There is a division between Light and darkness. Unsaved we were part of the darkness now in Christ we are in Light.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I think Jesus was referring to that also. The Fire he wanted to be kindled was a fire from the Holy Spirit in the hearts of His people that would be kindled on the day of Pentecost. I was thinking of the cloven tongues of flame as a sign that it had been kindled.

 

[Scribe]

Nobody is baptized “with the Holy Ghost and FIRE” (see Acts 1:1–3 , for the cloven tongues (vs. 3) are “LIKE as of fire.”

Yes, and that is an interpretation, that the fire that John was talking about was the fire of judgment. Interpreted that way it would be like saying Jesus will baptize one person in the Holy Spirit, and another person in fire. You don't want to be the one baptized in fire by the way.

However, others believer that the way the text is written says that Jesus will baptize the same person with the Holy Spirit and fire. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and with Fire, not two different people.

I understand that it goes on to say that he will gather up the chaff and burn it in unquenchable fire and that would lead one to think that it is a further explanation of what kind of fire he will baptize in.

However, there were those "like as fire" tongues of flame over each of their heads signifying that the glory of the Lord had descended and now believers were the temple of the Lord and not the Jewish temple. Was this the fire mentioned by John?

Was the fire Jesus came to bring to the Earth kindled on the day of Pentecost or is he talking about the fire that will destroy the earth after the Millennial?

Desiring that it be already kindled, makes me think He was talking about Pentecost.

 

[throughfaith]

I think Jesus was referring to that also. The Fire he wanted to be kindled was a fire from the Holy Spirit in the hearts of His people that would be kindled on the day of Pentecost. I was thinking of the cloven tongues of flame as a sign that it had been kindled.

The 'signs' was given in Mark 16

6He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

No flames given, or the sound as of a mighty rushing wind either .
Why do you not have the sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind recreated today in church ? Why do folks expect the ' tongues ' and not the sounds and appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them ? Why is everyone cherry picking the speaking in ' tongues ' part but don't expect the sounds and appearances of cloven tongues AS OF fire ,today ?

 

[Scribe]

The 'signs' was given in Mark 16

6He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

No flames given, or the sound as of a mighty rushing wind either .
Why do you not have the sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind recreated today in church ? Why do folks expect the ' tongues ' and not the sounds and appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them ? Why is everyone cherry picking the speaking in ' tongues ' part but don't expect the sounds and appearances of cloven tongues AS OF fire ,today ?

Not wanting to turn this into a discussion on the gift of tongues but do you really not know the answer to that question? The reason that pentecostals say that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is that it was the common sign that happened more than once when believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit. The tongues of flame and rushing mighty wind happened only once. The gift of tongues happened on each occasion in the rest of the book of Acts.

This doctrine "initial evidence" started when the question was raised by Charles Parham to a group of bible college students to study the book of Acts and to determine what was the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit based on these events in the book of Acts. They all agreed that it was the gift of tongues. This doctrine was then further developed through the years and became the "initial Physical evidence" As the answer to the question what was visible in these events. The flames only happened once and was not present at the other events. Therefore it would not do to say that tongues of flame must set upon each because that did not happen in each case in the book of Acts.
There were things that happened, things that were seen and heard at each event we call baptisms in the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. List them:
Tongues of flame,
Rushing mighty wind,
Declaring the wonderful works of God
Prophesying
Speaking in tongues
But what happened in all of them? Speaking in tongues.

That is why it is taught that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence. Not the only evidence. There are other gifts of the Spirit that come as a result. But they are not all manifest initially whereas tongues did seem to be the common sign.

Now you may not agree with it, and that is your decision but that is the reason why they say that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence for each person who is baptized in the Holy Spirit. They did not mean that it was the first sign mentioned in the Bible. It was the answer to the question "How can we know that someone is receiving the same thing they did in the book of Acts" The answer is "They spoke in tongues in each event recorded in Acts that we commonly call a baptism in the Holy Ghost event"

Now it is true that a couple of these events did not mention tongues such as the Samaritans but the fact that Simon saw something that made him want to offer money to have the gift to lay hands on people to receive the gift proves that there was a physical manifestation that impressed him. No one would offer money for a gift that was not obvious to anyone.

We know that Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians and when did he receive it? When Anaias laid hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost.

Nevertheless we have Pentecost, the Ephesus believers and the house of Cornelius that all record all of them speaking in tongues when they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is enough for most people to conclude that the speaking in tongues should be expected and is the initial physical, outward evidence that one is being baptized in the Holy Ghost.

Now I know that you and others here don't agree and I don't want to turn it into a thread about it. I was answering your question as to WHY they call it initial evidence instead of flames and wind. You seem to think that by "initial" they meant the first time it appears in the bible. That is not what they mean. There are many results of being baptized in the Holy Ghost. Other gifts of the Spirit for example such as prophesy. Is it biblical to say when someone in the book of Acts was baptized in the Holy Ghost they always prophesied? Not unless you equate speaking in tongues to prophesy. Is it biblical to say that when anyone in the book of Acts was baptized in the Holy Ghost they spoke in tongues? Many believe that is true and that is the meaning of the "initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost is speaking in Tongues. Acts 2:4, 1 Cor 12:4-10,28

 

[Scribe]

Acts 2
1¶And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like AS OF ( NOT OF FIRE , BUT ' AS OF ' fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5¶And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language

Hey why isn't it' a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, filling all the house ' initial evidence ?
Or cloven tongues like as of fire, sat upon the person? lol Where s that being done in the church ? .Why did tongues get highlited so much ?

The thread is intended to exegete Luke 12:49. I brought up one theory, that Jesus was talking about the Fire of the Holy Ghost in the believer as the fire he wanted to cast on the earth and wanted it to be already kindled. And I was not talking about the gift of tongues, or at least I did not have that in mind. I was more thinking of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to be a witness and for these disciples to preach boldy the name of Jesus and cause much division and turn the world upside down and be killed for it.


49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


If the fire he wanted to cast on the earth was one that would cause division it seems that Pentecostal flames of Glory and empowerment was what He meant. This would be the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire.

If it is fire of judgment he wanted to cast upon the earth, as in literal flames that burn up the earth it does not fit into the narrative of the rest of the context that I can see.

If it is nothing more than division that will come as a result of religion, that fire had already been kindled between the Pharisees and Jesus, so why say "I would that it were already kindled?" That is why I am leaning to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost because he still had to go through a baptism of suffering to accomplish that, and longed for it to be done and on the other side of that.

This is not the easiest passage to comprehend for me, if it were I would not be asking so many questions.

 

[MikkoAinasoja]

Luke 12:49 Jesus says
"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"

The context talks about division. But I am thinking that Jesus meant that the Fire of Pentecost would cause much division and that was just fine by Him. He wanted it that way. Let the division begin! Those that are on fire for God will turn the world upside down and be killed for it. But those who are religious and complacent will play church and not really disturb many folks. It is the ones baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire that will stir up all the trouble. What do you think?

Some commentaries say he was just talking about division and giving it poetic symbolism as "fire". I think he meant the Fire he was sent to Baptize with and the cloven tongues of flame that sat upon each one on the day of Pentecost was a sign that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had arrived. That fire was upon them. The kindling of the flames had begun. Now it has spread around the world and is even now inflamed. Would that we all would stir it up and cause trouble.

I aim to misbehave.

I hear you, though I must point that the world is the one who is misbehaving, but if we as a christian's follow God's Word, then we behave differently and that is the division. So it is not about misbehaving, but it's about behaving properly instead of following the World.

Example if someone left his wife and married another, and everyone around think it's fine although the Bible forbid it. And then you see that and you mention that it's against the Word like John the Baptist did to Herodes. You have cause division, but not because of bad behavior, but instead because of loyalty to God, and the Lord Messiah Yeshua.

And I believe that you should start this proper behavior in your own churches, so that those who love God will be separated from those who love this world. Maybe some will find courage to join you in the change. The state of today's churches is not good, and we all should recognize that first, before we start to correct the outside world.

But I hear you.

 

[throughfaith]

Not wanting to turn this into a discussion on the gift of tongues but do you really not know the answer to that question? The reason that pentecostals say that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is that it was the common sign that happened more than once when believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit. The tongues of flame and rushing mighty wind happened only once. The gift of tongues happened on each occasion in the rest of the book of Acts.

This doctrine "initial evidence" started when the question was raised by Charles Parham to a group of bible college students to study the book of Acts and to determine what was the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit based on these events in the book of Acts. They all agreed that it was the gift of tongues. This doctrine was then further developed through the years and became the "initial Physical evidence" As the answer to the question what was visible in these events. The flames only happened once and was not present at the other events. Therefore it would not do to say that tongues of flame must set upon each because that did not happen in each case in the book of Acts.
There were things that happened, things that were seen and heard at each event we call baptisms in the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. List them:
Tongues of flame,
Rushing mighty wind,
Declaring the wonderful works of God
Prophesying
Speaking in tongues
But what happened in all of them? Speaking in tongues.

That is why it is taught that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence. Not the only evidence. There are other gifts of the Spirit that come as a result. But they are not all manifest initially whereas tongues did seem to be the common sign.

Now you may not agree with it, and that is your decision but that is the reason why they say that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence for each person who is baptized in the Holy Spirit. They did not mean that it was the first sign mentioned in the Bible. It was the answer to the question "How can we know that someone is receiving the same thing they did in the book of Acts" The answer is "They spoke in tongues in each event recorded in Acts that we commonly call a baptism in the Holy Ghost event"

Now it is true that a couple of these events did not mention tongues such as the Samaritans but the fact that Simon saw something that made him want to offer money to have the gift to lay hands on people to receive the gift proves that there was a physical manifestation that impressed him. No one would offer money for a gift that was not obvious to anyone.

We know that Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians and when did he receive it? When Anaias laid hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost.

Nevertheless we have Pentecost, the Ephesus believers and the house of Cornelius that all record all of them speaking in tongues when they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is enough for most people to conclude that the speaking in tongues should be expected and is the initial physical, outward evidence that one is being baptized in the Holy Ghost.

Now I know that you and others here don't agree and I don't want to turn it into a thread about it. I was answering your question as to WHY they call it initial evidence instead of flames and wind. You seem to think that by "initial" they meant the first time it appears in the bible. That is not what they mean. There are many results of being baptized in the Holy Ghost. Other gifts of the Spirit for example such as prophesy. Is it biblical to say when someone in the book of Acts was baptized in the Holy Ghost they always prophesied? Not unless you equate speaking in tongues to prophesy. Is it biblical to say that when anyone in the book of Acts was baptized in the Holy Ghost they spoke in tongues? Many believe that is true and that is the meaning of the "initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost is speaking in Tongues. Acts 2:4, 1 Cor 12:4-10,28

In the 29 conversion account s in Acts , tongues does not happen every time . The sign was given to the apostles by Cornelius when he spoke in tongues . This was to show peter and the rest that now the Gentiles were granted to come in also.

 

[notuptome]

I think Jesus was referring to that also. The Fire he wanted to be kindled was a fire from the Holy Spirit in the hearts of His people that would be kindled on the day of Pentecost. I was thinking of the cloven tongues of flame as a sign that it had been kindled.

The word of God divides between believers and unbelievers. The Holy Spirit divides between believers and unbelievers. The word of God unites believers. The Holy Spirit unites believers.

Pentecost was a public declaration of the separation of believing from unbelieving and the uniting of believers together.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Scribe]

In the 29 conversion account s in Acts , tongues does not happen every time . The sign was given to the apostles by Cornelius when he spoke in tongues . This was to show peter and the rest that now the Gentiles were granted to come in also.

That is true. People don't have to speak in tongues to be saved. That tongues was a sign to Peter that they had been baptized in the Holy Ghost as Gentiles actually supports the idea that the gift of tongues is the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. You are concedeing that it is the sign TO Peter that Gentiles had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit "for they heard the speak in tongues" You may think it was unique or a one time event, but you have agreed that tongues was the outward physical evidence.

 

[throughfaith]

That is true. People don't have to speak in tongues to be saved. That tongues was a sign to Peter that they had been baptized in the Holy Ghost as Gentiles actually supports the idea that the gift of tongues is the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. You are concedeing that it is the sign TO Peter that Gentiles had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit "for they heard the speak in tongues" You may think it was unique or a one time event, but you have agreed that tongues was the outward physical evidence.

It was always to a Jew . For that particular incident with Cornelius it was Just to show the Jewish diciples that the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles.

 

[Scribe]

It was always to a Jew . For that particular incident with Cornelius it was Just to show the Jewish diciples that the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles.

It was to show that the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles, but it was not JUST to show that. For those who spoke in tongues, to them personally, it had an additional purpose. But I am not really interested in focusing on this at the present time. I don't think that speaking in tongues was the fire that Jesus came to cast upon the earth and that He wished had already been kindled when he made that statement in Luke 12:49. I suppose it could be. For all that (speaking in tongues) they will not hear. The sign for the unbelievers because "for all that supernatural manifestation of speaking in tongues, they still will not hear, but they are without excuse, He has given them signs, but they will not hear, therefore the gift of tongues is a sign for the unbeliever, and even after all that they will not hear" And the gift of tongues has sharply divided denominations today causing some well known leaders to spew venomous hatred upon those that believe they have the gift, and so for that reason it is very devicive, but I still don't think that was the fire Jesus was talking about.