Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 81
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
Mark Lee
In Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience, William and Robert Menzies call for an “Evangelical Dialogue” on distinctive Pentecostal doctrines and practices. They present the theological differ- ences between Pentecostal and Evangelical1 scholars with clarity and depth. Spirit and Power makes clear that the heart of the issue is the unique Pentecostal understanding of the phrase “the baptism in the Holy Spirit” and its relationship to spiritual empowerment for missions. As Pentecostals use the phrase, it refers to a subsequent-to-conversion reception of the Holy Spirit given to believers to empower them for missions. Evange- licals, on the other hand, tend to treat the phrase as a synonym for the gift of the Spirit received automatically by all believers. This essay is an attempt to participate in this dialogue by subtly shifting the focus of the debate. Typically, the debate has been carried on in terms of whether or not the baptism in the Holy Spirit should be seen in terms of conversion- initiation or a charismatic-prophetic empowerment for mission. According to the authors of Spirit and Power and the important study that informs much of their exegesis, Roger Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Evangelical scholars, following James Dunn, have tended to inter- pret Luke’s narratives through a Pauline grid. Contemporary Pentecostals contrast Paul’s soteriological pneumatology with the charismatic perspec- tive found in Luke’s narratives.2
1
This is not to imply that Pentecostals are not Evangelicals but to distinguish them, for purposes of discussion, from non-Pentecostals. See the Menzies comment in this regard, William W. Menzies and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 11n2.2
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 89; compare Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1984), vii; James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 15 (London: S.C.M. Press, 1970), see especially his conclusions 90-102. A Pentecostal response can be found in, Howard M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Critique of James D. G. Dunn (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Pub., 1984).
© 2004 Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., Boston pp. 81–9881
1
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 82
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
The difficulty with this debate is that it fails to appreciate fully Luke’s own soteriological categories. Two points may help us recast the debate within Luke’s own framework. First, Luke’s view of salvation does not involve regeneration or new birth. While neither side in this debate explic- itly state that Luke does have such a theology, both seem to be thinking of salvation in Pauline or Johannine categories when they speak of conver- sion-initiation. The Menzies are correct to point out that Luke does not characterize the work of the Spirit as “the source of cleansing, righteous- ness, intimate fellowship,” or “moral transformation.”3 Yet, those terms do not quite describe Luke’s soteriology either. Second, the term baptism and its cognates are part of a New Testament language of inclusion and iden- tity that emerged out of an existing Jewish debate over the identity of the true people of God. Thus, Luke is less concerned with when the inner spir- itual dynamics of conversion or initiation take place than with who belongs to the new covenant community.
Luke-Acts and the Problem of Intent
These points become important when we reflect on Luke’s agenda in Acts. While debate over this agenda will undoubtedly continue, recent studies have raised some important issues. In his The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, Jacob Jervell sees in Acts an apologia for Paul and his mis- sion. Part of Luke’s design was to make Paul and his mission palatable to Jewish Christian disciples who, in the words of James, were “zealous for the law” and who thought that Paul encouraged “all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses” (Acts 21:20-21).4 This observation is com- patible with John Mauck’s suggestion that Acts functions as a legal defense of Paul, who, in the last chapter of Acts, is still awaiting trial. The dilemma facing the Christian community was that “the Roman Empire and the non-Messianic Jewish leadership” was seeking to “[push] them out of Judaism.”5 To be successful for either audience Luke needed to demon- strate that Christianity and the Pauline mission were legitimately Jewish.
These concerns reflect a wider phenomenon within first-century Judaism. N.T. Wright, one of the leading participants in current discussions
3
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 89.4
Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Theology (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 16-17, 1-17.5
John W. Mauck, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., 2001), 2.
82
2
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 83
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
of the historical Jesus, has sought to ground the first-century Jewish debate about salvation in terms of how various Jewish sects understood themselves. According to Wright, the varied ways of expressing covenant faithfulness became, for those who adopted them, different ways of identifying them- selves as belonging to true Israel. He summarized this attitude by stating:
The first-century question of soteriology then becomes: what are the badges of membership that mark one out in the group that is to be saved…. For the Pharisees, there was a programme of intensification of Torah. For the Essenses, there was a (varying) set of communal rules, and an appeal to loy- alty to a Teacher. For many rebel groups,…loyalty to a would-be dynasty.6
While these groups disagreed over just what marked one out as a mem- ber of true Israel, they tended to agree as to what salvation entailed. Salvation meant deliverance from the powers that oppressed Israel and the restoration of the kingdom.7 The fundamental problem faced by the New Testament authors was the question of Jesus. Given Jewish expectations that salvation would mean deliverance and restoration of the kingdom, how could it be that Jesus was the Messiah? Luke, along with the other synoptic authors, presents salvation within the framework of Jewish expectations. This has encouraged Joel B. Green to define the purpose of Luke-Acts as “primarily ecclesiological-concerned with the practices that define and the criteria for legitimating the community of God’s people.”8 Thus, the question for first-century Christians involved, as it had for other Jewish sects, who belongs to the true people of God?
It is this question that helps to tie together many of the passages com- monly debated between Pentecostals and Evangelicals. The Menzies’ con- clusion that Luke does not “present the Spirit as the source of new covenant existence” at Pentecost is surely valid.9 Yet, given Jewish cate- gories of salvation, it would be more appropriate to say that Luke does
6
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 269, 335; The problem of the “true Israel” is also discussed in E. P Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 245, and Rikki Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, Biblical Studies Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000). My exposure to Watts’ view of the New Exodus has been through his taped lecture series avail- able as Mark: New Testament Book Study, Regent College.7
Wright, People of God, 301, and, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 268-274.8
Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1997), 22-23.9
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 114.
83
3
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 84
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
present the manifestations of the Spirit as evidence of a restored Israel or of the existence of the new covenant community. The expected restora- tion of the prophetic Spirit was manifest among those who adopted this “way” of being Israel. This can be seen by tracing the problem through Luke’s narrative.
Taking a Familiar Journey through Luke-Acts
Luke 3:1-22: John’s Baptism and Jesus’ Anointing
Reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit first appears in the teachings of John the Baptist where he applied it to the ministry of the Messiah. John contrasted his baptism with the one Jesus would perform: “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not wor- thy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Acts 3:16). In order to understand this contrast one should consider the significance of John’s baptism. Indeed, whenever Luke uses the phrase “the baptism in the Holy Spirit” he does so in contrast to John’s baptism. This contrast implies that these two baptisms are both similar and different. It is unlikely that we can come to terms with the significance of the phrase unless we understand what John was doing. John preached “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” As to the exact mean- ing of the ritual of baptism, however, scholarly opinion is less clear. Some have made analogies with Jewish proselyte baptism, cleansing rituals in Leviticus, or the ritual baths of the Essenes.10 Larry Hurtado is probably correct when he states that there is “no clear analogy for John’s rite.”11 Charles Scobie cautiously identifies parallels between John’s baptism and the rites performed by the Essene community. Scobie maintains that the Essenes considered these washings as an alternative to the Temple and that they thought of themselves as true Israel. Their rejection of the Temple as the place where one went for forgiveness was rooted in their rejection of Herod and what they saw as a corrupt priesthood; for the Essenes these washings were, according to Scobie, an alternative way to receive for- giveness.12 It is reasonable to state that John’s baptism and the Essene rit-
10
Charles H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), 90-116.11
Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, New International Biblical Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1989), 17-18.12
Scobie, John the Baptist, 90-116.
84
4
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 85
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
uals were “parallel” but “independent.”13 Both fit well into a context in which different groups sought to identify themselves as Israel apart from the Temple system. N. T. Wright observes:
Anybody offering water-baptism for the forgiveness of sins was saying: you can have, here and now, what you normally get through the Temple cult. Anybody inviting those who wished to do so to pass through an initiatory rite of this kind was symbolically saying: here is the true Israel that is to be vindicated by YHWH. By implication, those who did not join in had for- feited the right to be regarded as the covenant people.14
It is important to note, in terms of this discussion of the new Israel, that the Baptist reminded those who came to see him to beware of thinking that they could consider themselves secure by claiming Abraham as their father (Luke 3:8). By submitting to the ritual of baptism, John’s disciples sym- bolically identified with the salvation that the Messiah would bring. They separated themselves from a corrupt Israel compromised by sin and from those who collaborated with Rome. Jesus’ actions, however, would not be symbolic but would bring about the salvation that John anticipated, even though Jesus did so in ways that John did not understand (Luke 7:19). The promise that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire indicated that the kingdom would be restored and that God would save his people. This act of deliverance would be characterized, as it had been in an earlier Exodus, by the activity of the prophetic Spirit. John’s baptism symboli- cally divided Israel between the repentant and the unrepentant; Jesus’ bap- tism of fire would also bring about a division in Israel.15
Luke 24:44-52, Acts 1:1-11: The Promise and the Kingdom
By the opening of Acts the disciples still seem convinced that their res- urrected Lord would soon complete the task they expected him to com- plete before the crucifixion: deliverance from Rome and the restoration of the kingdom. Luke tells us that Jesus spent the time between his resurrec- tion and ascension “speaking about the Kingdom of God” and, in that con- text, he reminded his disciples to wait “for the promise of the Father.”
13
Leonard F. Badia, The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), 38-39.14
Wright, Victory of God, 160.15
Jervell, Theology of Acts, 35-43, discusses the problem of the “divided people of God”.
85
5
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 86
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Jesus added, “This is what you have heard from me.” It seems reasonable that Luke wanted to point back to Luke 11:1-13 and 12:11-12. Those are the only passages in Luke in which Jesus teaches about the Holy Spirit in a direct way; and the former relates the giving of the Spirit by the Father to those who ask. Jesus also reminded the disciples, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5), but he did not encourage them to ask for this baptism.
As in his Gospel, Luke pointed to the contrast between John’s baptism and the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This statement prompted the disciples to raise the question, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the king- dom to Israel?” The question reminds us that they continued to view the coming of the Spirit and the restoration of Israel as intrinsically related (Acts 1:6). Jesus did not simply answer, “No”; rather he redirected their attention away from the “times or periods” toward the task before them.16 He made two points (Acts 1:8). First, he told them that they would “receive power” when the Spirit came upon them. He then pointed out that their mission to be witnesses was not just national but global. Pentecostals have used this verse to limit the meaning of the phrase “the baptism in the Spirit” to the Spirit’s gift of power for witness. This is somewhat prob- lematic in the sense that Jesus’ response to his disciples need not be taken as a full exposition of what is meant by the baptism in the Spirit. Indeed, it is a response to their question about the Kingdom of God. Their Judaic background prepared them to assume a connection between the restoration of the kingdom and the coming of the Spirit. They were correct to make this assumption but they did not understand how Jesus would fulfill the promises to restore the kingdom or how, in the absence of the destruction of the Roman Empire, one could claim any sort of restored kingdom.
Acts 2: Event and Explanation
Despite a variety of attempts to identify symbols of Israel’s redemptive past in the images of wind, fire, and tongues in Luke’s Pentecost narrative, he does not spell them out for us. If the symbolism of Pentecost is elusive, Peter’s explanation is clearer. He explained the outpouring of the Spirit in terms of Joel’s prophecy: “In the last days it will be, God declares, that I
16
John R. W. Stott, The Spirit, the Church, and the World: The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 40-45.
86
6
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 87
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17, Joel 2:28). Stronstad and William and Robert Menzies appropriately emphasize that Peter did not refer to other prophecies relating to the Spirit in Isaiah or Ezekiel.17 The emphasis is clearly on the prophetic work of the Spirit rather than the indwelling or sanctifying aspects of the Spirit’s work. The Menzies note that the Joel prophecy has two components: the “gift of the Spirit of prophecy (v. 28) and the offer of salvation to those who call on the name of the Lord (v. 32).” They then make the observation that Peter’s sermon does not “suggest the two are identical.”18While this is a valid observation, it is important to note that the primary implication of Peter’s explanation is that the outpouring of the Spirit served as evidence that a particular point in God’s redemptive history had arrived.
Peter’s sermon further illustrates the degree to which Luke’s soteriol- ogy is rooted in an understanding of how Jesus’ exultation indicated that God’s promises to restore Israel were finding fulfillment. After describing Jesus’ passion, Peter launched into a defense of Jesus as the one who could claim David’s throne (Acts 2:25-31). The outpouring of the Spirit was, Peter contended, clear evidence that Jesus had been “exalted at the right hand of God” and that “God has made him both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:33-36). The Davidic nature of Jesus’ mission is central to Luke’s under- standing of who Jesus is and what his mission was all about. In the Gospel, Luke points to Jesus’ Davidic lineage (Luke 1:27, 32, 67; 2:4, 11). One of those references, Luke 1:32, assigns to Jesus “the throne of his ancestor David.” Jesus made an analogy between David’s actions and his own (Luke 6:1-5).19 Peter appealed to the Davidic theme in his Pentecost speech (Acts 2:25-36). Later in Acts the pattern is replicated. In Paul’s first mes- sage he echoes this Davidic theme (Acts 13:16-41). In James’s defense of the Gentile mission before the Jerusalem council he cites Amos 9:12: “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up” (Acts 15:16). The restoration of the Davidic kingdom seems to be one of Luke’s domi- nant soteriological themes.
When asked how to respond to the message that Jesus had been made Lord and Christ, Peter replies, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you
17
Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 56-57; Menzies, Spirit and Power, 79.18
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 78.19
In his exposition of the parallel passage in Mark, Hurtado, Mark, 49, notes that David’s apparent violation of the Temple code was legitimized by special calling and that Jesus was making a similar claim.
87
7
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 88
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). By relating baptism in Jesus’ name to the forgiveness of sins, Peter calls his audience to adopt a way of being Israel that was distinct from the Temple system. The sym- bolism of water baptism associated with John the Baptist was retained. Unlike John’s baptism, however, baptism in the name of Jesus symbolized a reality that had come. Jesus had fulfilled the promise to baptize in the Holy Spirit, or usher in the age when the Spirit would be available to all who call on his name. Luke certainly uses the language of prophetic man- ifestation to describe these events, but that does not detract from the basic observation that the language of baptism is primarily the language of inclusion and identity. Just as Torah served as an identity marker for Jews, the Spirit would become the main identity marker for the new covenant community.20 This is not to say that the effects of being baptized in the Spirit are automatic in experiential terms. Yet, from the perspective of an observer, God’s people could be identified by the presence of the prophetic Spirit in their midst; an argument Luke will make repeatedly.
Acts 8:1-25: Samaria and the Apostolic Delegation
Pentecostal scholars defend their position that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is received after conversion, most pointedly through an appeal to Luke’s narrative of events in Samaria, despite the absence of Spirit-bap- tism language in this passage.21 James Dunn attempted to demonstrate that the Samaritans were either not converts or that their conversion was in some way deficient. According to Dunn, they became true Christians only after Peter laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Pentecostal exegetes have the better case here. Attempts to deny a truly Christian status to the Samaritans seem contrived. There is little in my con- tention that Luke considers manifestations of the prophetic Spirit as evi- dence that God has fulfilled his promises of salvation that challenges the Pentecostal observation of a post-conversion reception of the Spirit. The point is, rather, that Luke used these episodes to defend the extension of salvation to those groups Jews considered outside of God’s promises. The
20
For this language of identity see, Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1994), 368, and passim.21
Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 63-65; Menzies, Spirit and Power, 52-55, 72-74.
88
8
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 89
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
point of this passage, then, is not to forward a paradigm for a subsequent- to-conversion reception of the Holy Spirit for missions, although the pas- sage clearly depicts a subsequent reception of the Spirit in this instance. Yet, when we seek to address conversion-initiation questions from this text we lose sight of Luke’s overall agenda and his soteriology. By placing the narrative in the context of Luke’s larger scheme, it might be reasonable to say that Luke was more concerned to demonstrate the validity of the expansion of the gospel to Samaria than he was with demonstrating that the Samaritans needed empowerment for missions.
It is important to remember that while Samaritans shared a common lin- eage with Jews, a great deal of hostility existed between these two groups.22 Luke tells us that Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans with signs following and they believed (Acts 8:5-12). There is little reason to assume that Luke did not think this faith was genuine. The Samaritans believed the “good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus” that Philip preached (Acts 8:12-13). News of what had taken place reached the apostles in Jerusalem and they sent Peter and John to Samaria. Why? It is possible to interpret Acts 8:15-16 to mean that they were sent specifically to pray “for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been bap- tized in the name of the Lord Jesus).” On the other hand, the passage may simply mean that when they arrived they realized that the “Spirit had not come upon any of them” and were thus prompted to pray that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Either way, the basic Pentecostal observation is valid; the manifestations of the prophetic Spirit are not always present when people accept the good news of the Kingdom. The passage does not, however, focus on the gift of the Spirit as a missiological gift, and the prophetic manifestations of the Spirit are implied rather than stated. It is more likely that Peter and John were sent to Samaria to investigate the inclusion of the Samaritans in the Kingdom. As Menzies and Menzies point out, it is unlikely that they were sent to give the Samaritans “the assurance of their incorporation into the church.”23 It is more likely that the apostles at Jerusalem needed such assurance. If this observation is not valid, why were these apostles sent? Surely Philip was an adequate enough
22
Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 359.23
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 52 raises this objection relating to the Samaritans need for assurance.
89
9
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 90
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
minister to pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Unless we are to con- clude that apostolic authority is necessary for the reception of the Spirit, it seems more reasonable to conclude that they were sent to investigate what God was doing in Samaria. In terms of the defense of the expansion of the gospel, Mauck has suggested that Peter’s refusal to accept Simon’s offer of payment may be designed to point out that the evangelists were not like traveling Cynics who charged for their services.24
Acts 9:1-31: Paul and the Gentile Mission
The account of Paul’s conversion seems to validate a two-stage process whereby Paul comes to Christ and is later filled with the Holy Spirit. Confronted by the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul was blinded, and several days later God sent Anani’as so that Paul might “regain” his “sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). The difficulty with the passage, in terms of the conversion-initiation debate, is that Luke did not clarify just when Paul became “saved.” James Dunn attempted, inconclu- sively, to demonstrate that Paul was not fully converted until he accepted baptism from Anani’as. He tried to determine whether Paul was saved when he acknowledged Jesus as “Lord” on the Damascus road or whether it was later, when Anani’as came to see him. The picture is complicated by Paul’s later account, in which he has Anani’as say, “And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Moreover, when Paul referred to Jesus as Lord on the Damascus road, it was accompanied by the question, “Who are you?”25 Such a statement is hardly a confession of faith. Luke simply seems unin- terested in the inner dynamics of Paul’s conversion; given Luke’s soteriol- ogy, that should not be surprising. At the same time, in view of Luke’s defense of Paul and the extension of the gospel to those outside the tradi- tional boundaries of Judaism, the account has an apologetic purpose. By pointing out that Paul had received the Spirit, Luke was validating Paul’s ministry to those who might be skeptical of it.
24
Mauck, Paul on Trial, 88.25
For this debate compare, Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 41-49; Dunn, Baptism, 73-78.
90
10
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 91
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
Acts 10:1-48, 11:1-18, 15:1-29: The Gentiles
In some ways, Peter’s proclamation of Jesus before the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius is central to Luke’s overall case about the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God. Not only did Luke narrate this event, but he also had Peter explain it twice, once before the “apostles and the believers” in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18), and again before the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-29). Peter, as an observant Jew, understood “that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile” (Acts 10:28). His opinion changed only as the result of a vision that God gave him in order to prepare him to present Jesus, the “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), to the Gentiles. Luke, of course, made the case for the inclusion of the Gentiles in his Gospel narrative and in Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost. That Peter seems not to have understood this is indicative of just how deeply Jews clung to the notion that messianic promises were restricted to national Israel.
When Peter proclaimed before the house of Cornelius “that everyone who believes in [Jesus] receives forgiveness of sins through his name,” the Holy Spirit fell on these Gentiles with the accompanying sign of tongues and “extolling God” (Acts 10:43). This convinced Peter and his Jewish companions that no one should deny baptism to “these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47). For Peter and his companions, the outpouring of the Spirit and the specific presence of prophetic manifestations served as evidence that the Gentiles were included in what God had done through Jesus. It was evidence of their sal- vation, so long as salvation is understood in terms of inclusion in God’s redemptive activity. This point was made again when “circumcised believ- ers” questioned Peter’s actions. Peter defended his position by stating,
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God? (Acts 11:15-17)
For the moment, the statement was sufficient to silence the opposition. The party of the circumcision did not remain silent forever. Paul’s mission and the problem of the inclusion of the Gentiles became the focus of a council. Here again Peter defended his position by recalling what took
91
11
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 92
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
place at the house of Cornelius. “God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us” (Acts 15:8-9). Curiously, imported into a Pauline style argument, Peter’s point might sound like this: “Did they receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what they heard?”26
Pentecostal scholars do not dispute the central point made above. Indeed, Menzies and Menzies point out that for Luke “the Gentile’s recep- tion of the Spirit” served “as the decisive sign of their acceptance by God.”27 They have accurately noted the charismatic or prophetic nature of the Spirit’s manifestation. At the same time, Luke’s focus in these passages is not that the Gentiles were equipped for missions but that Gentiles and Jews are alike “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11). Further, it is important to recognize that Peter’s explanation in chapter 11 is the only place in Acts, outside of Jesus’ command in chapter 1, where the language of Spirit baptism appears. It appears, as it always does in Luke, in terms of a contrast with John’s baptism. It seems reasonable to suggest, in this context, that the term baptism speaks to the issue of inclu- sion and identity. When Peter saw the manifestations associated with the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, it forced him to admit that the Gentiles shared in the baptism that Jesus gives. This is especially true if the language of baptism has more to do with what relationship one is in than with what kind of experience one has had. Individuals baptized by John symbolically identified themselves as the true people of God or true Israel. Jesus’ baptism is a baptism, not in water, but in the Holy Spirit. The Church retained the symbolic practice of water baptism but the real bap- tism was in Christ and in his Spirit. Prophetic manifestations of the Spirit in Acts serve as evidence to others that those who have them are “in” Christ. Their experience of Christ and the Spirit flowed from their position in Christ and in his Spirit.
Acts 18:24-28, 19:1-7: Disciples and the Baptism of John
In some senses, the Jerusalem council represents a turning point in Acts. The missionary efforts of Paul, already introduced before the coun-
26
This is an allusion to Romans 4:10-11 and Galatians 3:2.27
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 81; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 67.
92
12
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 93
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
cil, occupy the remainder of the narrative. In this extended narrative, yet another episode deals with receiving the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals turn to this passage as one of the clearest examples of their major point, that bap- tism in the Holy Spirit is distinct from and logically subsequent to salva- tion, even though the language of Spirit baptism is absent in these texts. My characterization of this problem so far has focused on how the out- pourings of the Spirit on Samaritans and Gentiles functioned as evidence that God included these groups in the salvation he promised. One cannot contend that the outpouring of the Spirit on the Ephesian disciples makes the same point. Here again, the debate between Pentecostals and Evangelicals has been carried out in terms of Dunn’s work and the ques- tion of conversion-initiation. Dunn and his followers have sought to demonstrate that these “disciples” were not yet saved, while Stronstad and William and Robert Menzies contend that they were. My contention is that, in terms of Luke’s overall presentation, that is the wrong question.
At the heart of the conversion-initiation debate is Paul’s question to the Ephesian disciples, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” (Acts 19:2).28 The implications of this question seem clear; it is possible that one can be a believer and yet not have received the Spirit. Otherwise, why would Paul ask such a question? There is some question as to whether the Greek should be translated, “when you believed,” “hav- ing believed,” or “after you believed.” Those who focus on the Holy Spirit as the agent of salvation prefer “when” or “upon believing.” Those who focus on the Holy Spirit as a prophetic and empowering gift distinct from salvation prefer “after you believed.” The main advocate of reading this passage in terms of the Holy Spirit as the agent of salvation is James Dunn, for whom Paul’s question means, “Are you Christians?” Pentecostal schol- ars challenge Dunn’s explanation, in part by focusing on Luke’s use of the word disciples. Dunn maintained that these were not Christian disciples but disciples of John the Baptist. He based this on his conviction that the underlying Greek should be translated “certain disciples” and the mention of John’s baptism. Pentecostals respond that when Luke uses the term disciples “without qualification, it always refers to disciples of Jesus.” Consequently, Menzies and Menzies conclude that “[t]he dialogue between Paul and the Ephesians was penned in order to highlight the
28
For the relevant discussions see, Menzies, Spirit and Power, 74-76; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 68-69; Dunn, Baptism, 83-89; Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 55-66.
93
13
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 94
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Ephesians’ need of the Spirit’s enablement and its normal prerequisite, Christian baptism.”29
This conclusion is problematic. It is true that Luke makes a point of describing the outpouring of the Spirit in terms of prophetic empower- ment. Yet, it is less than clear that the passage was penned to highlight their “need of the Spirit’s enablement.” Luke does not directly clarify why Paul asked, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” How we read that question will vary depending on the theology we bring to it. Pentecostal scholars correctly point out that we need to bring Luke’s the- ology with us when we read this question. But it is not clear that they do so. When Paul received a negative answer to his question, he did not say anything about their need for empowerment but asked them about their baptism. It seems valid to state that in this text we encounter a familiar contrast between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus. Whatever else we might draw from this narrative, that contrast seems clear. It is at this point that Luke’s overall apologetic agenda becomes instructive. Many Jews, even those who rejected Jesus, continued to consider John the Baptist a prophet worthy of great respect. If Luke wrote Acts as a defense of Paul and the Gentile mission or as part of an effort to prevent either the Romans or the Jewish community from pushing the Christian community out of Judaism, demonstrating a positive continuity with John the Baptist would strengthen that defense.30
Luke had described an encounter between Priscilla and Aquila and an Alexandrian Jew, Apollos, before he narrated the encounter between Paul and the Ephesian disciples. Menzies and Menzies contend that Apollos’ “standing” as a Christian disciple “can hardly be questioned.” They point out that Luke describes him as one who “had been instructed in the Way of the Lord” and “spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus” (Acts 18:25).31 The difficulty lies in the way Luke
29
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 75.30
Mauck, Paul on Trial, 138; for the continued esteem with which John was held in the Jewish community see, Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, eds. William Whiston and Paul L. Mair (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 595, 18.5.2.31
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 74; There is apparently a textual variant in the Greek relating to Acts 18:25. Some manuscripts have kurios (Lord) rather than Jesus when refer- ring to what Apollos accurately taught. Of course it is very probable that readers would understand any reference to Lord as referring to Jesus. Since Apollos knew only John’s bap-
94
14
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 95
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
qualifies this statement. He remarks that Apollos “knew only the baptism of John.” When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos preach they took him aside and “explained the Way of God to him more accurately.” After this, Apollos is depicted as “showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus” (Acts 25:26-27).
What is the significance of the observation that Apollos knew “only the baptism of John”? It may simply mean that he had been baptized by John and needed rebaptism. If this is true, Luke does not record it. It seems more likely that Luke is pointing out that Apollos’ understanding of Jesus was somehow incomplete. Luke records both that he “taught accurately” and that he needed instruction so he could understand “more accurately.” One might suggest that John the Baptist also “taught accurately the things con- cerning Jesus” but very likely went to martyrdom without a clear picture of just how Jesus would fulfill his messianic task. Luke’s narrative points to both the continuity with John the Baptist and the inadequacy of know- ing only John’s baptism in terms of how one presents Jesus.
The narrative of Paul’s encounter with the Ephesian disciples mirrors some aspects of the encounter with Apollos. Here again we have disciples who appear to know only the baptism of John. Pentecostal scholars insist that Luke’s unqualified use of the term disciples must mean that they were Christian disciples. Of course, the clear association with John’s baptism is a qualification of sorts, though admittedly not in the same fashion as “John’s disciples” (Luke 5:33), “disciples of John,” or “his disciples” (Luke 7:18). Yet, the dialogue in Acts 19:1-7 does create an impression of individuals who did not know about Jesus. If Paul’s question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” presupposes “the potential separation of belief from the reception of the Spirit,”32 what does his follow-up question, “Into what then were you baptized?” presuppose? These disciples responded to Paul’s initial question by stating, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” This translation seems questionable, given what Luke tells us about John’s teachings; anyone familiar with John’s ministry would very likely have heard of the Holy
tism, however, it may be that Luke is describing someone who knew what John taught but did not have a clear understanding of what took place after the death of John. It is likely that many of John’s disciples, especially those who did not remain in Judea, knew only that John predicted the coming of the Messiah but did not know specifically that Jesus was the one who was coming.32
Menzies, Spirit and Power, 74-75.
95
15
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 96
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Spirit. This led Michael Green to suggest that the passage read, “We have not even heard if the Holy Spirit is available.”33 Regardless, Paul did not launch into a dialogue relating to the empowering work of the Spirit. Rather he asked, “Into what baptism then were you baptized?” Paul’s ques- tion would seem improbable if Luke were seeking to emphasize a subse- quent-to-salvation empowering with the Holy Spirit in this text. Paul’s response to their answer, “Into John’s baptism,” further complicates the picture. Paul replied, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” He did not teach them about the empowering work of the Holy Spirit but reminded them that John pointed to belief in Jesus-an interesting response if these disciples already knew about and believed in Jesus. The query into their baptism highlights the notion that John’s disciples were those that had received John’s baptism, just as Jesus’ disciples had received the baptism that Jesus gives. Given Luke’s understanding of sal- vation it may not have occurred to him to question the regenerative status of Apollos or to emphasize a discontinuity with John the Baptist. One might even suggest that Luke avoided immediately qualifying the word disciples because he wished to emphasize the continuity between John and Jesus. John had accurately announced the coming of the Messiah. In that respect, those who continued in John’s teaching but did not know of the events in Jerusalem might still be spoken of as disciples.
Conclusions
At the heart of my presentation has been an attempt to maintain what might seem a rather subtle distinction between the term baptism and terms used to describe the manifestations of the Spirit. It is my conviction that baptismal language is part of a New Testament language of inclusion and identity. Phrases and words such as poured out, clothed, received, came upon, and filled may have inclusive connotations but tend to function as part of a descriptive narrative language of manifestation. The word bap- tism refers to a rite that functioned as a symbol of one’s inclusion in a specific community. The conversion-initiation debate has sometimes obscured the significance of the term by looking for the spiritual dynamics
33
Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975), 135.
96
16
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 97
An Evangelical Dialogue on Luke, Salvation, and Spirit Baptism
behind conversion-initiation. The general tendency among Pentecostal scholars is to make the term baptized synonymous with words and phrases like filled, came upon, received, or fell upon.34 While it is possible that these terms are simply different metaphors for the same reality, baptismal language is arguably distinct in terms of its significance. If you baptize someone in water, you do not conclude they are full of water. Baptism was part of a first-century language of being “in.” When we contend that some disciples are baptized in the Spirit and some are not, we use language that, by definition, places individuals in different communities. It is one thing to acknowledge differences between disciples of Christ based on levels of maturity, commitment, and spiritual empowerment; it is another to use lan- guage that places them in different communities. The general tone of the New Testament resists this type of categorization within the body of Christ; we should resist it as well.
It would indeed be a disaster if the central reality of the Spirit’s empow- erment for mission became an abstract creedal formula rather than a lived reality. No one should question that the Pentecostal insistence that believ- ers seek the empowerment of the Spirit has produced what is very likely the most significant drive for global missions in the current era. At the same time, it may be that this basic Pentecostal message becomes lost on other evangelicals partly because of a misuse of biblical language. It is probable that evangelicals have difficulty grasping the heart of the Pente- costal insistence on praying to receive the Holy Spirit because they appro- priately reject the way in which Pentecostals use baptismal language. We can and must continue to encourage people to pray to receive the Spirit and to ask for the fullness of the Spirit in their lives. We should be willing, at the same time, to uphold the central truth that there is but one people of God.
It seems clear from within Luke’s own perspective that the manifesta- tions of the Spirit were evidence in his overall defense of Paul’s mission and of the inclusion of the Gentiles. Luke’s use of prophetic manifestations works well when understood in light of his overall agenda. In some senses, the traditional Pentecostal usage turns Luke’s argument on its head by claiming that some Christians are not baptized in the Holy Spirit. Luke made the case, to those who might question it, that all who call upon the
34
See for example, Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 35; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 49-50.
97
17
PNEUMA_f6b_81-98 2/27/06 17:11 Page 98
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004
Lord have the prophetic Spirit available to them and can no longer be denied equal status within the Kingdom. Our position within this commu- nity and our experience of its blessings do not always coincide; unfortu- nately, this is true of both the charismatic and morally transforming aspects of the Spirit’s power. Whatever the reasons behind the lack of correspon- dence between position and experience, we ought to find it unacceptable. We need to pray to receive the Spirit more frequently, not less.
98
18
