Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Interpreting The Waterloo
the Samaritans of Acts 8: of Pentecostal
Soteriology
and Pneumatology?
Max Turner
There is
clearly
a deliberate
ambiguity
in the title. All
depends
on whether
you identify
Pentecostal
theology
with
Napoleon’s camp
or with Wellington’s.
But either
way, the title suggests
there is much to be gained or lost on this
particular
field of battle. The choice of “Waterloo”
may prove pretentious, suggesting,
as it does, not merely a victory of some significance, but
virtually
the end of the
garner
We will need to revisit that issue in our conclusion.
Introduction –
Defining
Positions
Pentecostals have not, to date,
provided
a major
exegetical
contribution on the Samaritan incident, but
they regularly
refer to Acts 8 as the most obvious
example
of the classical Pentecostal
paradigm.
For them, the
pas- sage provides
the clearest case of the doctrine of “subsequence”-that
is, of . the belief that one first enters into salvation
by faith
in Christ and commit- ment to him
(marked by baptism
of repentance), and then later one receives the Pentecostal
Spirit.
The Samaritans have
clearly
become Christians in the fullest sense
through
the preaching of Philip and their
response (pace
Dunn). But they
only
receive the Pentecostal
Spirit
later when the Jerusalem
apos- tles arrive and
pray
for them, with
laying
on of hands. The evident
expres- sion of
subsequence
in this incident is also taken to
undergird
the
closely related Pentecostal doctrine of
“separability”-that is,
the belief that the Pentecostal
gift
of the
Spirit
is not about
bringing regeneration,
salvation, and life to the believer, but is a separate, theologically distinct,
profoundly charismatic
working
of the
Spirit, empowering
for service and witness. So much
everyone
knows. What is not
always
noticed is that we have at least two
major distinguishable positions
within the Pentecostal
camp.
1 Perhaps only Bishop N. Adler’s monograph, Taufe und Handaufleg/ll1g, Eine eregetisc-li the- ologi.sche Ul1tersllchung
von Apg 8:14-17 (Miinster: Aschendorffsche Verlag. 1951), would give
the battle over this passage anything like such decisive import. Adler argued that Philip could not grant the confirmatory gift of the Spirit, because he was merely a priest. Accordingly
. Philip
could conduct decent baptisms, but no more. Luke teaches us that only bishops-like Peter and John–could bestow the subsequent confirmatory gift.
265
1
Pneumatologies Involving
Double
Reception of the Spirit
For
perhaps
the majority of Pentecostals,
including
such scholars as H. D. Hunter, H. M. Ervin, J. R. Williams, and B. Arrington, Luke works with a two-stage pneumatology.2 In their
opinion,
Luke assumes that the
Spirit brings
a
person
to
conversion,
and is then
given
to that
person
to cleanse their heart in regeneration and to impart salvation and life to them.
Through this gift of the
indwelling Spirit
a person
may grow
in fellowship with God and the Lord Jesus, and bear the fruit of the
Spirit
in such virtues as are list- ed in Galatians 5:22. But this is to be
distinguished
from
receiving
the Pentecost
gift.
It corresponds more to the Easter
gift
of the Spirit to the dis- ciples
related in John 20:22 than to Acts 2. The gift in Acts 2, by contrast, is purely
the charismatic
Spirit
of prophecy, which
empowers
with miraculous gifts
for service and mission.3 It is a
second-blessing “baptism
with Spirit,”of “filling
with the Spirit,” attended
by such visible and striking phe- nomena that it makes even a top-notch
magician jealous-Simon Magus,
of Acts 8 :18-19.
Expressing
this clear
two-stage pneumatology,
Howard Ervin can thus assert that the Samaritans,
roundly
converted
by Philip’s ministry in the
power
of the
Spirit,
are Christians in the fullest sense and “their
bap- tism is in itself a witness that these… converts had
experienced
the regen- erative action of the
Holy Spirit
in their
lives,”
but
they
had
yet
to receive the
baptism
in the
Spirit.4
It is then an
easy step
to recontextualize the Samaritan
episode:
for Ervin, the Samaritans of Acts 8.12-14 are a type of all traditional
Evangelical
Christians.
They
have entered into
salvation,
but have
yet
to receive the
blessing
of Pentecost.
One-Stage Pneumatologies
Pentecostals who are also Lukan
specialists,
such as R.
Stronstad,
J. Shelton, R. P. Menzies,
and J. M. Penney,5 recognize that this is certainly not
2 H. D. Hunter, Spirit-Baptism: A Pentecostal Alternative (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983); H. M. Ervin, Spirit-Baptism: A Biblical Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987); J. R. Williams, Renewal Theology, Vol. 1-3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990 esp. Vol. 2); F.L. Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988). Arrington’s view is clearest in his discussion of Acts 19:1-6, where he states, “the disciples at Ephesus were believ- ers in Christ and were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but they had not received the fullness of the Spirit.
Paul asked them not about the regenerating work of the Spirit that is realized at the time of belief but about their post-belief reception of the Spirit,” which he proceeds to describe as charismatic 3 endowment equipping the disciples to proclaim the gospel (p. 193).
Such a view can be found in Chrysostom and Calvin, and is given its most scholarly defense
G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962), 118-l 19. 4
by
5 H. M. Ervin, Spirit-Baptism, 73. R. Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984); idem, The Propliethood ofAll Believers: A Stucfv in Luke’s C17aristiiatic Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield
266
2
what Luke
says,
nor what he means. Luke does not
distinguish
two
stages; first
receiving
the
soteriological gift
of the
Spirit, then, subsequently, Pentecostal
power.
He has no equivalent of John 20:22. He knows of only one gift of the Spirit, which he equates with
being baptized
with the
Spirit. Thus Jesus’ words in Acts 1:5 about the disciples soon
being baptized
with Holy Spirit
are spelled out subsequently as their
being
“filled with” the Holy Spirit (2:4).
As well, Joel’s
promised gift is “poured
out”
upon
them
(2:17, 18, and 33)
or “falling upon” them
( 11:15), and
these are all
equated
with “receiving
the gift of the Spirit” in 2:39, 10:47, 11:15, 15:8. We get the same equation
most
clearly
in the Cornelius incident. The
Spirit
is said to “fall upon”
his household in
10:44, and this is subsequently described as “the
gift of the
Holy Spirit” being “poured
out”
upon
them
(10:45).
It is also described as their
“receiving”
the
Spirit (10:47),
their
being “baptized
with the Spirit”
(11:16),
and their
being “given”
the Spirit
(15:8).
And to most of those
expressions
the speaker adds “as on/to us at the
beginning.”
The Samaritan account has similar features. It
equates
the
Spirit’s “falling upon”
the Samaritans
(8: l6)
with their
“receiving”
or “being given” the Spirit
(8:15, 17, 18, 19). Luke thus
appears
to know of only one
gift
of the Spirit. Luke’s editorial
explanation
in 8:16
virtually precludes
the view that he thinks the Samaritans have already earlier received a gift of the Spirit that
brought
salvation and life. In 8:15 we read that Peter and John
prayed for the Samaritans “that
they might
receive the
Spirit,”
and in 8:16 he explains,
“for the
Spirit
had not
yet
fallen
upon any
of them, but
they
had only
been
baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Then in 8:17 he
goes back to the
language
of receiving the
Spirit.
He tells us that when the
apos- tles laid hands on them, the Samaritans “received the Holy Spirit.”
I suggest that is not the
way a two-stager
would write the account. For it implies there was no
reception
of the
Spirit
of
any
kind before the
apos- tolic
laying
on of hands. Had Luke meant
otherwise, he would
surely
have rewritten 8:15-16
something
like this: Peter and John
prayed
for them that they might
be filled/baptized with the
Spirit,
for the Spirit had not yet fallen upon
them with power, but
they had only
been
baptized
in the name of Jesus and had received the gift unto salvation and life.
But that is not what he wrote. For
Luke, those who have not received
Academic Press, 1999); Robert P. Menzies, The Christian
with Luke-Acts
Developmeftt of Early Pneumatology
Special Reference to (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); idem,
Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); John Michael Penney, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Piieumatologs (Sheffield: Sheffield Empowered for
Academic Press, 1997). Compare James B. Shelton’s more open position in Miglrtv in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson. 199 1).
267
3
Joel’s charismatic
Spirit
of
prophecy-to put
it
sharply,
those
(after Pentecost)
who have not been
baptized
with the
Spirit-simply
have not received the Spirit at all. And
accordingly,
when the Paul of Acts 19 asks the Ephesian
twelve whether
they
had received the
Spirit
when
they believed, they
do not
respond,”Yes,
we have received the
indwelling Spirit,
but we have not heard of the Pentecostal fullness.” that have not heard of the Spirit being given at a11.6
6
They reply they
I think we need to concede that
point.
There is simply no evidence that Luke himself
thought
of Christian
experience
within the framework of a two-stage pneumatology.7
And if he
did,
it would raise serious
questions about
why
he has
passed
over in total silence that
all-important gift
of the Spirit
which
brings
salvation and
life, just
to
give
such exclusive
promi- nence to what is theologically
merely
a secondary empowering for service. We will return to that later.
But one-stage Pentecostal
explanations
of Acts 8 face
important ques- tions. First, there are
questions
about the
soteriology implicit
in such a claim. What does it mean to speak of the Samaritans’
receiving
“salvation” through Philip’s ministry,
before their
reception
of the
Spirit?
What is the content of such salvation and
by
what divine
agency
is it made
present? Second,
there are questions about the
pneumatology implicit.
Does the pas- sage suggest
that “subsequence” is normal or abnormal? Is reception of the Spirit specially
linked to mission, or is it also linked with what Luke means by the life of “salvation”?
Soteriological
Issues
For Menzies-the chief architect of one-stage Pentecostal
explanations of Acts-salvation in the
present
means
essentially
two
things:
initial
justi- fication or “forgiveness of sins” and
incorporation
into the people of God.8 This is normally the presupposition for
reception
of the
Spirit,
rather than
6 Pace Arrington, Acts, 193.
7 lnterestingly, the nearest he comes to this is in respect of Jesus, who is conceived by the Spirit ( I :35), yet receives the Spirit’s empowering at the Jordan (3:21-22). But when he describes dis- ciples
after Pentecost, there is no equivalent to the former, unless it is incorporated within the one gift of the Spirit to believers.
8 Development. 258, 276, 279; Empowered,
defines salvation in terms of that
chap. 12; “Spirit,” 52-53. Roger Stronstad simi-
“regeneration, initiation and incorporation” which pre- cecles the gift of the Spirit in Luke (Prophethood, 121 ). For analysis and
larly
see M. Turner, “Does Luke
Believe
Reception of the ‘Spirit of
makes all response
with
Prophecy’ ‘Prophets”? Inviting Dialogue Roger Stronstad,” forthcoming in Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological
Association.
268
4
brought
about
by reception
of the Spirit. For
Luke, following
intertestamen- tal Jewish
understandings,
the
Spirit
is exclusively prophetic (bringing rev- elation,
charismatic
wisdom,
and
inspired speech)
and
missiological
in focus-equipping
believers to serve
others, mainly (but
not
exclusively) outsiders.9 But the Spirit is not required to provide that sort of basic wisdom and
understanding
needed for the individual to enter and to remain in authentic Christian life.10 From
this,
it is
transparent
how Menzies will interpret
Acts 8. With such a limited view of salvation, the case for subse- quence
and
separability
is all too easily made.
My problem
with this is its inadequate soteriology. For
Luke,
salvation is far more than initial
“justification”
and entry into the
people
of God, des- tined for resurrection and eschatological bliss. Even most
pious
Jews would have
thought they already
had these
things-before
the
coming
of the Messiah-through
the covenant, the
temple,
and the
Day
of Atonement. Luke would
probably
have
agreed
with them. So what was the salvation
they awaited, and which Luke thinks arrived with Christ? ‘ ‘
To judge
by intertestamental expectations, clearly
reflected in the can- ticles in Luke
1-2,
and
beyond, they hoped for
“salvation ” in the form of God s
self revealing
and
transforming presence
and rule in
liberating
and cleansing power
that would restore Israel as a
light
to the nations.12 In short,
Luke understood that
they
awaited the
Kingdom
of God, conceived mainly,
but not exclusively, in the form of Isaianic new exodus
hopes. Many (including
John the Baptist) anticipated that this would come about
through the work of a messianic
servant-liberator, working
in the power of the Spirit. And such
hopes
were
certainly
seen
by Luke to have
been
partially
realized within the ministry of Jesus. This is crystallized in Luke’s account of the ser-
9 Earlier Menzies had regularly spoken of the gift of the Spirit as
a view I had criticized as
exclusively missiological empowering, being too narrow a formulation: see Max Turner, Power from on High : The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1996); Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and
and cf. Max
Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996); Turner, “Empowerment for Mission? The Pneumatology
of Luke-Acts: An Appreciation and Critique of James B. Shelton’s Mighty in Word and Deed,” Vox Evaitgelica 24 ( 1994), 103-122. Menzies has qualitied his position in his most recent article, “The Spirit of Prophecy, Luke-Acts and Pentecostal Theology: A to
Response
Max Turner,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15 ( 1999), 49-74, here 53-54.
10 “Spirit,” 54-57.
11 For a much more detailed account of Luke’s soteriology and related literature, see Turner, Power, esp. chaps. 5-7, 9, I1 and 13; more briefly, Max Turner, “The Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Support
or a Challenge to Classical Pentecostal Paradigms?” Vo.r Evallgelica 27 (1997), 75- 101.
12 For elucidation, see Turner, Power, 133-137, and Chs. 6-7.
269
5
inon at Nazareth. Jesus reads the words of Isaiah 61-words which
express precisely
the Isaianic new exodus
hopes-and
then claims
explicitly
to ful- fil them
(4:21 ). Through
his own words and actions in the power of the Spirit he brings good news to the
poor,
releases
captives,
liberates the
oppressed, and
brings
about the
“year
of
good
Lord’s
good
favor.” Different
people experience
this salvation in different
ways
and in different
degrees.
For some the
Kingdom
of God or “salvation” is experienced in healings and/or exorcisms
(Luke 11:20, etc.),
even
though
this does not
always
lead to dis- cipleship.
For a few it came in the restoration to life of a beloved one
(not to mention
protector
and
provider),
such as in the case of the widow of Nain’s son in Luke 7:11-17. For others it may come in vivid moments of reconcil- iation and restoration to God, such as we
may
assume lies behind the
story of the sinful woman
forgiven
in Luke
7:36-50,
and which is beautifully pic- tured in the parable of the prodigal Father in Luke 15:11-32. For still others it was experienced in social restoration and in the partial transformation that is effected
through ongoing discipleship
to Jesus and his
teaching,
as for example
in the case of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-9. All these wonderful
things are
aspects
of the
salvation/Kingdom
of God that Jesus announced and effected. And they were
wrought through
the impact of the Spirit at work in Jesus’ words and actions.
More
specifically,
within the
Gospel
the
Kingdom
of God and salva- tion are
essentially
so strongly bound
up
with Jesus and with the
impact
of his
ministry
that a potential problem is created
by
his
impending departure through
death and ascension. How will the
Kingdom
of God and salvation continue to be an
experienced presence
when Jesus
departs?
Hans Conzelmann saw the
problem completely,
and he concluded-logically, but I think
utterly wrongly-that,
after the
Passion, salvation
or God’s
reign would
simply
cease to be experienced dynamically until the parousia. ? ? All that would be left would be the
memory
of what salvation was
like,
record- ed in the
gospel
and awaited at the end. That is
quite
the
opposite
of what Luke means, however. For Luke, the death of Jesus is the eschatological ful- filment of the Passover and is anticipated to bring in the
Kingdom,
the new covenant and new exodus, more
fully
rather than less (Luke 22: 1 4-22). ‘4 By and
large,
the
hopes
for Israel’s transformative restoration announced in
13 H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber. 1960), chap. 4. Ironically, Conzelmann understood the Spirit as a partial substitute for the real
presence salvation in the church.
of Christ (see Theology, 204), but did not explore the import of this for the presence of
14 For critical reactions to Conzelmann on this point, see especially I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), chaps. 4, 7, and 8; Eric Franklin, Luke: lrrterpreter of
Paul. Critic of Matthew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), chap. II.
270
6
Luke 1-2 are not met within Jesus’
ministry.
Nor does the life of the com- munity
of Jesus’
disciples
then meet
anything
like the hopes expressed in his preaching.
But all these
hopes
are
quite radically
realized in the communi- ties of Acts. In short, the “salvation” or reign of God announced in the infan- cy narratives
is more
strongly present
in the church
of Acts
than in the time of Jesus. Accordingly
in Acts
15, James
can
appeal
to Amos 9:11-12 as ful- filled,
which he essentially interprets to mean Israel has been transformed and restored as the
light
to the
nations, so the Gentiles may now enter.
“Salvation,” for Luke, then, is not
just acceptance
of the
gospel (including
its announcement of
forgiveness)
and church
membership, entered
upon
and maintained
by purely
human wisdom and will. Salvation centers on the
self-revealing
transformative
presence
and
liberating
rule of God and his Christ made
dynamically
and experientially present to disciples (as individuals
and as community).
At this
point,
we can return
(albeit
somewhat
briet?ly)
to the Samaritans. 15 How does Luke relate them to such an
understanding
of sal- vation ? The answer is that he gives only minimal and rather
ambiguous sig- nals.
(I)
Contra Dunn, Luke indicates no palpable doubts about the
quality of the Samaritans’
belief.16
As with all good converts in Acts,
they
whole- heartedly accept Philip’s “good
news” about the
Kingdom
of God mediated through
Christ (8:12). If
they
do so because
Philip’s signs
and wonders accredit the
message
more
fully
than
anything
had
previously
accredited Simon
Magus,
that is
entirely
in
keeping
with Luke’s view that
apostolic signs
and wonders
appropriately bring many
to believe the Christian mes- sage.
When Peter and John arrive,
they
make no
attempt
to correct or to complement
the Samaritans’ faith.
They
take its authenticity for granted, and just pray
that
they
now receive the
unexpectedly delayed gift
of the Spirit.
(2) Yet,
at the same time, Luke does not in any way
suggest
that the Samaritans themselves
initially experienced anything
of God’s transforma- tive presence and power as a result of their belief and baptism. He does not, for
example, give any
hint of the fear of the Lord, vibrant
corporate
“life,” sharing
of
riches, communal (eucharistic?) meals,
and
worshipful praise
of God, that he attributes to the Jewish Christian churches in the earlier sum-
15 For a critical review of the relevant issues, see Turner, Power, 360-378.
16 See J.D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the Nerv Testament Teaching
on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (London: SCM, 1970), chap.
5. Per contra, see Menzies, Empowered, 204-213; Turner, Power, 362-367.
271
7
maries
(2:43-47; 4:32-37).
If the Samaritans have
experienced
the Kingdom of God and
joy
at
healing
of some of their citizens
(8:8),
this is
purely through,
or as a reaction
to, Philip’s
actions as one full of the Spirit, and it is before their conversional
baptism.
This
contrasts, for
example,
with the Ethiopian eunuch,
in the next
episode,
whose
rejoicing/joy
is
post-bap- tismal, entirely
based in the
gospel
he has embraced
(8:39),
and not
merely a response to some miraculous
healing
he has received
(of which
there is no mention).
This
may suggest
the Samaritans’
experience
has a closer analo- gy
to hearers of Jesus within the
ministry,
and of the partial
experience
of salvation
they encountered,
than to those afterwards.
Clearly
we cannot argue
too much from silence, because Luke is notorious for silences. But there is no support here for Menzies’ case that these
disciples
have received what Luke means
by post-ascension
“salvation” before
they
receive the Spirit.
(3)
For those for whom “salvation”
principally
means
crossing
some rubicon between a future of damnation and one of life, this
may
all sound confusing.
If one
puts
the
question
in terms of that
(quite inadequate!) understanding
of salvation, the Samaritans
probably
crossed the
necessary line when
they
believed the
gospel
and submitted to
baptism-because before this Luke
regards
them as essentially under the domination of Simon Magus’ magic,
and that, for him, is a dangerous
place
to be. It is quite unlike that
of,
for example, pious Cornelius, whom Luke
may
well have
regarded as already on the safe side of such a rubicon, even before Peter
brought
him the message of salvation
(cf. Acts 10:2, 4, 30, 34-36).
But if we ask the ques- tion about whether the Samaritans have received “salvation” from within Luke’s own construal of salvation, the answer is a more
complex yes-and- no. God’s
reign/saving presence
has liberated them from their thraldom to Simon’s
magic,
at least to some extent
(Simon’s
own case
may, however, raise
questions
about
just
how radical the
change
in Samaritan attitudes has been on this
point).
Salvation has also come to some in the form of release from evil
spirits,
lameness, and
paralysis (8:7),
and the communal
joy
that such deliverances
brought.
Much more
importantly,
the encounter with God’s
reign
has brought them to the conviction that they should embrace the teaching
about the Kingdom of God and
acknowledge
the
lordship
of Jesus through baptism (8:12).
At least this much is on the
“yes”
side of the
ques- tion of whether the Samaritans had begun to receive “salvation.”
(4)
But let us now look more
fully
at the borderline issues and at the possibility
of a negative answer to our
question.
We may start
by pointing out that all the aspects of the presence of salvation in the account are expres- sions of the impact of Philip’s ministry. And that raises a crucial
question
of the kind that we examined earlier about
potential
effect of removing Jesus
272
8
for the
continuing experience
of salvation in the
community
he founded. If
Philip
is the source of the
Spirit’s soteriological effects,
what would
happen
if he were removed from the scene
(as
he is
later)
without the Samaritans
having
received the gift of the Spirit? It is admittedly an entirely
hypotheti-
cal
question,
but it is important heuristically. I think we would be forced to
one of three answers.
The first
possibility
is that they would continue to experience salvation
through
the Spirit that
began
his work in them
through Philip.
On this view
one
might argue
that while
Philip
moves
off,
the
Spirit
would not. He has
come to indwell them
through
their
acceptance
of Philip’s inspired preach-
ing,
and he remains in them
(or
“with”
them, as Pawson
would
prefer)
as
God’s
transforming presence.
To put it this way,
however, clearly
must lead
to some form of the double
reception
of the
Spirit pneumatology
we earlier
rejected
as non-Lukan. For on this view
they have already
received the Spirit
in the instant of conversion, and
yet,
as we know from the narrative,
they
will later receive the gift of the
Spirit through
the
prayer
and
laying
on of
apostolic
hands. This
may provide comforting soteriology,
but it tlies in the
face of Luke’s own
pneumatology,
and raises
important theological prob-
lems which we will discuss later.
The second
possibility
is that Luke would
regard
the Samaritans as
continuing
to
experience
salvation because he believes Gods
dynamic
transformative
rule can be present
by .some means other than the Spirit.
This
view
presupposes
either that God and Christ can be immediately present to
the disciple in transforming
power
or that Luke knows of some other means
by
which the
presence
and action of God
might
be mediated. We
may
dis-
pense
with the first
possibility:
Luke does not
anticipate
the unmediated
presence
of Jesus or the Father to disciples. If the
appearance
to Paul on the
Damascus Road is a Christophany, that is entirely
exceptional.
Otherwise
God’s
presence
and
activity
are always somehow mediated. This mediation
is most
frequently through
the Spirit, but Luke knows that God can at times
communicate
by other means, e.g., through angels.
But angels do not help in
this case: Luke does not think that the Samaritan
experience
of salvation will
be maintained
through
a series of
angelic
visitations. Are there
any
other ., means of divine
presence
visible in Acts?
Occasionally
scholars have
suggested
that Luke considers that Christ
may
be present by means of “the
name,”
and
point
to Acts 3:16 in support, where Peter
says,
“And
by
faith
his name
[that is, the name
of Jesus], his name has made this man
strong.”
H. Flender
goes
as far as to say, “We must at all costs free ourselves of the
popular dogma
that Christ is present in the
community through
the
Spirit,”
273
9
and argues that he is present “in the name” instead. 17 But Acts 3:16 is an iso- lated
(and syntactically convoluted)
case. Nowhere else does Luke
speak
of the name as the
subject
of a verb
describing
the performance of actions. He does not
say things like,
“and the name was with
them,
and gave them
great courage
and joy,”
or, “the name
was with them to heal,” or whatever. Even here in 3:16 the name is not strictly a means of Christ’s
presence
in healing power
at all, but
(as
elsewhere in Acts) it is a circumlocution for that
pres- ence. Thus when
people preach
or teach about the name of Jesus
(4:17-18; 5 :28, 40 ; 8:12; 9:15),
or believe in the name
(8:12),
or call
upon
the name of Jesus for salvation
(2:21; 4:12; 9:14; 22:16),
or suffer for the name
(5:14; 9:16; 21:13), etc.,
we are not to
imagine
the name as some kind of inde- pendent hypostasis
of
Jesus,
or a quasi-magical power, but
essentially
as a way
of
referring
to Jesus himself
(cf.
Acts
9:34,
where Peter
announces, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals
you”)
in ways that are
suggestive
of divine sta- tus. Furthermore, the action of the name in Acts 3:16, is not independent of the
Spirit,
as Flender
suggests,
at all; for it is
precisely
as one full of the power of
the
Spirit
that Peter
pronounces healing
in the name of Jesus. Elsewhere I have tried to demonstrate in more detail that the
attempt
to locate in Acts some means of divine
presence
and
transforming power
other than the Spirit is a quest for a mare’s nest. 18 There
simply
is none. As far as I am aware, that leaves us with only one further
possible
answer to our hypo- thetical
question
about what would
happen
to the Samaritans if Philip with- drew.
The third
possibility
is that the Samaritans would
simply
cease to expe- rience salvation as
anything
other than a
memory,
an
identity,
and a
hope. They
would not continue to
experience
God’s
dynamic, saving reign
and presence,
because
they
would have no means of such
presence. They
would be left as a group working, believing, and praying merely in their own native human resources-not as a church vibrant with the
presence
and
grace
of God,
such as is described in the summaries of Acts
2, 4,
and 5.
This last
observation,
of course,
prompts
a most
pressing question. By what means does the Jerusalem church
experience
the
dynamic
and trans-
For details of Flender’s position with rejoinder, see Turner, Power. 422-427.
1 g lbid., 4! 8-427. Some of my Pentecostal dialogue partners have suggested that, for Luke, the Father and the Son are omnipresent, and so can be “received” and known independently of the gift
of the
(see 20 below). But for Judaism, as for Paul and John. it is precisely the which is the means Spirit of God’s
Spirit
self-revealing omnipresence. If the Father and the Son could reveal themselves, and so direct and empower disciples, without the gift of the Spirit, then the latter would essentially become
of the
theologically irrelevant. In any case, Luke gives no evidence that (in the period church) disciples can have “intimate fellowship” with the Father and the Son without having received the Spirit.
274
10
forming presence
of God? How is it that the church in the mother
city expe- riences a fuller measure and
depth
of the
promised
salvation than was evi- dent within the ministry of Jesus? A line of scholars from Gunkel to Menzies has insisted that for Luke the answer cannot have
anything
to do with the Spirit-and
it is certainly true that Luke does not explicitly attribute the new life of the church to the outpouring of the Spirit. But what other
explanation is there? As we have
pointed out,
Luke indicates no other means of divine presence.
Can it
really
be mere coincidence that it is
precisely
with the arrival of the
Spirit
at Pentecost that we begin to see the hoped-for restora- tion of Israel
dramatically taking place
in the
church,
and
yet
that all this should be attributed to some other undisclosed means of the power and grace of God,
concerning
which Luke chose to be entirely silent? I find that hard to believe. If it was by the Spirit that Jesus
brought
the Kingdom of God into people’s
lives
during
his
ministry,
is it not easier to suppose that it is pre- cisely by the outpouring
of the Spirit on all his
people
that the Christ exer- cises his
cleansing
and
powerful
rule in the church from the
right
hand of God? And if it is by the Spirit that Philip first brought the
Kingdom
of God into the lives of the
Samaritans,
is it not highly probable that Luke
thought it was by their own subsequent
reception of the gift of the Spirit (at the hands of the apostles) that they were able fully to enter into the life of salvation and to have an
ongoing experience
of God’s
transforming
rule in their lives through
Christ? I find that answer much more
compelling.
In sum, the Samaritan
episode
raises
important questions concerning the divine means of God’s
saving presence
and rule. In so far as salvation for Luke is
essentially
a
way
of
speaking
of the
ongoing transforming power and
presence
of God’s messianic
rule, Pentecostal interpretations
leave unexplained
how the Samaritans could
experience
this
(except
in a relative- ly minor
and
temporary,
but
significant, way through Philip, teaching
and acting
in the
power
of the
Spirit).
Either
that, or they posit
a double
recep- tion of the Spirit, which tlies in the face of Luke’s evidence and raises
grave problems
for his
pneumatology,
to which we must soon turn.
But before we leave Lukan
soteriology
we must
press
one further
ques- tion on the borderlines of
soteriology
and
pneumatology-perhaps
the sharpest
and most
important question
of all. For Christian
theology,
the heart of salvation is not
justification, regeneration,
or
incorporation
into the church.
Important
as those
are, instead, the heart of salvation is being
drawn up
into the
blazing, joyful,
and
transforming
trinitarian love between the Father and the Son
through
the
Spirit.
In Johnannine terms the
very
essence of salvation thus consists in this transformative
knowing
of the Father and ‘ the Son
(John 17:3); or, in the words of
I John 1 :3b, having “fellowship with the Father and with his son, Jesus Christ.” For
Paul,
it is clearly
very
much
275
11
the same: one
might point immediately
to such well-known
passages
as Galatians 2:19-20;
Philippians
1:21; 3:10; Romans 8:9-11, etc. So here comes the all-important
question
at last: Does
Luke, or does he not, embrace something
like this soteriology? And
if he does,
what does he regard as the divine means
of that communion?
I think it is fairly clear that he does. The
Kingdom
of God is principal- ly God’s personal presence
in power and rule,
bringing
his own
loving
rec- onciliation to those who will receive it, and
evoking joy, worship
and praise. In Luke’s
Gospel
this is tied
very
much to a personalized relationship with Jesus. Where, for
example, healing irruptions
of God’s
reign
are not met with
discipleship,
such encounters are seen as abortive
(cf. the healing
of the ten
lepers
in Luke
17).
The
request
of the
repentant
thief on the cross, “Remember me when
you
come into
your kingdom,”
is met with the response, “Today, you
will be with me in
paradise” (22:42-43).
Acts,
far from
being
characterized
by what
has been called an absentee
Christology, in fact embraces a Christology of divine
omnipresence
that can be summed up in the words of the Lord to Paul: “Do
not be afraid, … for I am with you” ( 18:9- I 0: cf. Lk 21:1 S; Acts 2:14-38; 5:31;
9:4-5
(22:7; 26:14), 9:34, etc..).’9
9 But if we ask how the Father and the Son can be self-revealingly
present
to and active in the disciple-if we ask
by
what means the believer can enter communion with the Father and the ascended Lord-I think there can
only be one answer.
Any early
Christian would
.say it is through
the Spirit alone that one can have “intimate
fellorvship
with and
knowledge of
God.
” 2U Until the Samaritans receive the Spirit, then,
they
cannot
experience
what is the
very
heart of salvation. With that observation we can turn more
directly to pneumatological issues.
Pneumatological
Issues
Virtually
all Lukan
scholarship agrees
that Luke understands the gift of the
Spirit
as Joel’s
promise
of the
“Spirit
of prophecy,”
bringing
all manner of revelations
(in dreams, visions, “words,” etc.), spiritual wisdom,
and
ly Cf. H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke Chri.rtology (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 2H-23I; idem, “The Divine Saviour,” in Wimess to the The
esp.
Gospel: Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1998), 107-124.
20 The
is from Menzies, 52, who asserts that Luke does not hold such a wording quoted
“Spirit,” curiously
position. Either he is saying that such fellowship and knowledge is possible through some other means (of which Luke is entirely silent) or he is saying that for Luke intimate fel- lowship
with God is not important or possible.
276
12
invasive forms of
prophetic
and
doxological speech, including tongues.21 For E.
Schweizer,
such an identification of the
Spirit
as the
“Spirit
of prophecy”
in both Judaism and in Luke would
preclude associating
the Spirit
with either acts of power or with
religious/ethical
transformation. In this he has been followed
by
R.P. Menzies, who has
considerably strength- ened his case. In responding to
Menzies, however,
I think I have been able to show that his view of Judaism is
improbable
on both
points,22
and Levison’s detailed
monograph
on The Spirit in First
Century Judaism
now puts
that beyond doubt.23 We need not enter into debate with Menzies about whether Luke attributes works of power
(like healings
and exorcisms) to the Spirit,
because even in Menzies’ own (I think rather
strange)
view-accord- ing to which the Spirit merely generates dynamis
and it is only the latter that performs
the miracles-the
Spirit
still remains the ultimate source of the miracles.24 The
only
substantial area of
disagreement
or concern to us is over the
question
of whether Luke’s
“Spirit
of
prophecy”
is exclusively a prophetic/missiological empowering (as Menzies, Stronstad,
and
Penney maintain)
or whether it is
profoundly soteriological
too. What
light
does Acts 8 throw on the
subject?
Pentecostal scholars see this
passage
as firm support
for their view that the gift of the Spirit is exclusively
prophetic/mis- siological empowering, subsequent
to and
separate
from
any
divine soterio- logical
functions.
Does Acts 8 Support
Subsequence?
At first
glance
there
appears
to be a clear element of
“subsequence” here. But it is worth
noting
three
things.
( 1 ) Acts 8 does not portray anything
like the sort of
subsequence
that the
early
Pentecostals
experienced,
often
including years
of fruitful Christian life and service before
being baptized
in the
Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:12-16 in fact records no
post-baptismal expressions
of Christian life among
the Samaritans at all.25
What,
if
anything,
we are to make of the
21 For a survey of scholarship on Lukan pneumatology, see Turner, Power, chaps. 1-2.
22 Ibid., chaps. 3-5.
23 John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
24 In response to Menzies’ view, see M. M. B. Turner, “The Spirit and the Power of Jesus’ Miracles in the Lucan Novum Testamentum 33 ( 19911), 1 24- 1 52. Menzies ed a rejoinder in
Conception,” provid-
“Spirit and Power in Luke-Acts: A Response to Max Turner,” Joumal for the the
Study of
New Testament 49 ( 1993), 1 I-20. Turner, Power,
25
provides a surrejoinder.
Simon’s adherence to Philip. mentioned in v.13, is not to be explained as an expression of “Christian discipleship” as much as fascination with Philip’s miracles.
277
13
silence is
very
unclear. Pentecostal
interpreters may
assume that the Samaritans are
immediately engaged
in full and vibrant Christian life and worship,
like that of the Jerusalem
congregations,
but it is
merely
an assumption.
An alternative
reading might be that it is precisely
because there is no such life that
Philip
and the
apostles
came to the conclusion that the Samaritans had not yet received the Spirit.26 If so, Acts 8:12-16 is not
gen- uinely
about what
might
be
regarded
as normal
subsequence,
but about unusually
and divinely
delayed experience
of salvation.
(2)
Luke himself
appears
to regard the absence of the
Spirit
as anom- alous-something
to be corrected
immediately.
If he thought it was usual for people
to be converted and
baptized
without
receiving
the
Spirit
in the process,
he would not have added the
slightly
awkward editorial comment in 8:16. The
story
would have been
perfectly comprehensible
without it; the addition would
just
be repeating the obvious.
Similarly,
when Paul discov- ers that the
disciples
at
Ephesus ( 19:1-6)
had not received the
Spirit
he immediately
asks them
what,
in that
case, their baptism
was about. The assumption
there too is that the
Spirit
would
normally
be received in close connection with conversion
expressed
in baptism. When he discovers
they only
received John’s
baptism
and that
they
have not
yet
learned that the coming
Christ about whom John
preached
is none other than Jesus, he gives them Christian
baptism
and
lays
hands on them to receive the
Spirit.
No delay
is anticipated. Indeed, the
laying
on of hands
may
well have been
part of the rite of baptism. All this fits within the norm announced in 2:38-39: “Repent…
be baptized in the name of Jesus… and you shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit.”
Acts 8 does not
support subsequence-it
subverts it by branding
it anomalous. The
only way
the story helps the Pentecostal case is that it shows that the
gift
of the
Spirit
is not
necessarily given
in the some- times
protracted process
of
conversion-initiation, and people can readily enough
detect when it has not been
given. Normally
it does
accompany
con- versional
baptism,
but God
may sovereignly
defer the gift (e.g., out of a wish for the Jerusalem leaders to be involved in this first move of the
gosper beyond
the boundaries of Judaism, and to see it dramatically confirmed
by God to them),
just
as he can
give
it even before the
gospel
is
formally embraced in the case of Cornelius and the first Gentile converts.
(3)
Given these observations, it is not
surprising
that even Pentecostal
26 In support of such a reading one might point to Peter’s accusation that Simon is “still in the gall
of bitterness and bond of iniquity” (8:23). Dunn deduced from this that Luke thinks Simon had not yet come to authentic faith, and that the other Samaritans were in the same state before they
received the
is
Spirit. But this interpretation is at best insecure with respect to Simon, and it entirely unjustified with respect to the other Samaritan converts: see Turner, Power, 362-367.
278
14
Lukan scholars now
largely agree
that
any subsequence
is
merely logical rather than
necessarily temporal.
In short,
subsequence pretty
well
collapses into separability.
Is the Gift of the
Spirit Prophetic/Missionary Empowering
in Acts 8?
That it was a powerful
experience
need not be denied. It
apparently struck Simon
Magus
even more than Philip’s signs and wonders! God attests the Samaritan inclusion with sufficient
power
that no one in Jerusalem sub- sequently
raises
any questions against it, despite
considerable Jewish enmi- ty against
Samaria. But is the experience
primarily
about
prophetic/mission- ary empowering?
Is that what the
gift
is
given
for?
According
to
Penney, Luke
regards any delay
in the giving of the Spirit to converts as anomalous, because it is of the
very
essence of the church to act as the Isaianic servant of the Lord and
light
to the Gentiles-that
is, to be witnesses to the gospel from
day
one. In this connection
he, like Menzies and Stronstad,
appeals especially
to Jesus’ words in Acts
1:8, which he takes
as paradigmatic: “You will receive
power
when the
Holy Spirit
has come
upon you,
and
you
shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem,” etc.27
There are two important but
widespread misunderstandings
here. First, as Peter Bolt has shown, Luke does not believe that all Christians are “wit- nesses.”28 He uses the noun “witness”
only
for people who can
give legal
or quasi-legal testimony
of an eye-witness sort
–
which is why the
replace- ment for Judas must be chosen from
among
those who have been with Jesus from the Jordan to the ascension
(1:21-22).
As 10:41
clarifies, only
those whom God chose to see the risen one can be called witnesses to his resur- rection
(cf. 13:31),
not
people
who
merely
believe in
it, however passion- ately.
The
only
other
believers
described as “witnesses” or as
“giving
wit-
27 For detailed response to Penney see Max Turner, “Every Believer as a Witness in Acts?: In Dialogue
with John Michael Penney,” Ashland Theological Journal 30 (1998), 57-71. Stronstad’s Prophethood makes a similar that the of the of makes all and
point, arguing gift Spirit prophecy
prophets,
the form of prophecy Luke has foremost in mind is
tion of the
inspired proclama-
gospel. But this too narrowly defines the scope of the actions of the “Spirit of prophecy,” and it goes against Luke’s use of the “prophet/prophecy” word group. Luke nizes
a few as prophets or able to prophesy-Agabus’s group (11:27; 2 l:10), five in the
recog- church only at Antioch, including Paul and Barnabas ( 13:1 ), Judas and Silas ( 15:32), the four ters of
daugh- of
Philip (21:9), and some others, including the apostles and Stephen. He probably knew
more, but the fact that he singles a few out as prophets (or as able to prophesy) means he does not regard all as such. For detailed response to Stronstad, see my “Does Luke Believe…
28 Peter G. Bolt, “Mission and Witness,” in Witness to the Gospel, The Theology of Acts, ed. Marshall and Peterson, 191-214.
279
15
ness/testimony”
in Acts are Paul
(who
is described as a witness to “the things
he has seen and heard” in the Damascus Road event;
22:15)
and Stephen,
at his trial, who sees the heavens
opened
and the risen Lord stand- ing
at the
right
hand of God
(22:20;
cf. 7:56). Those who
simply
embrace the faith and
proclaim
it are not called witnesses
by
Luke. Acts 1:8 is thus not
paradigmatic
at
all;
it
applies
to the
apostles
and a
very
limited circle beyond.
The verse cannot be used to define the essential nature of the gift of the
Spirit given
to
subsequent
converts. The
Spirit
does not make
people witnesses-but if they are witnesses the
Spirit
can
empower
the
delivery
of their
testimony
and attest it in signs, for example.
The second common mistake is to assume that Luke
expects
all con- verts
immediately
to become involved in some sort of proclamation of their faith
(even
if it is not
technically witnessing).
In
fact, Luke only
describes one convert
immediately doing
so: not
surprisingly,
it is Paul
(9:19-20).
In the summaries of the life of the Jerusalem church he makes no mention of ordinary
believers
proclaiming
the faith:
rather,
converts have
fellowship, receive
apostolic teaching,
attend the
temple together,
share
goods, break bread
together, pray
and praise together. Yet surprisingly, it is only the apos- tles who are said to preach. Of course, Luke knows that others were involved in
sharing
the
gospel
too. Nevertheless, he
gives
the
impression
that it is either
merely occasional,
such as with the friends of Peter and John in 4:31, or that those involved were the more
outstanding people
like
Stephen
and Philip, Apollos,
Barnabas and
Silas,
John
Mark, Timothy,
Priscilla and Aquila,
and several more. But nowhere does he suggest that all believers,- or even the
majority
of
any congregation,
were
involved,
and
certainly
not from
day
one of their Christian lives.29
Acts 8 conforms to this
pattern.
Luke does not
say
that all the Samaritans went out and spread the good news; rather he says that the apos- tles took the word elsewhere in Samaria on their
way
back to Jerusalem (8:25).
In 9:31 he reports
that,
“the church
throughout
all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built
up; and walking
in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy
Spirit
it was multiplied.” But this
hardly pre- supposes
that all were involved in active
proclamation.
It is perfectly con- sistent with Luke’s view that,
(a)
God blessed the
corporate
life of the church,
and therefore it was attractive to outsiders; and (b) some were active- ly proclaiming
the gospel.
In
short,
there is no
sign
that Luke
thought
the
gift
of the
Spirit
was
29 For detailed argument, see my “‘Empowerment for Mission?”‘ and “Every Believer as a Witness.”
280
16
given
to all, first
and foremost
as
empowering for evangelization.
Nor could such a view
explain why
he thinks the Spirit should
normally
be given right at the
beginning
of Christian
life,
since he does not describe believers as being
involved in evangelization at that
stage.
All this
suggests
we need to look a little more
carefully
at the
question
of separability.
,
Acts and
Separability
In the second
part
of this
paper
I argued that the notion of salvation in Luke-Acts includes much more than
forgiveness
of sins and inclusion in the people
of God destined for
eschatological
bliss. It also centers on the self- revealing
and transforming presence of God in liberating and restoring mes- sianic rule-in short, the
ongoing,
and
fuller,
presence
of the
Kingdom
of God. I argued that Luke
probably
understood that as a
personal
and self- communicating presence
of the Father and the Son with the
disciple,
not merely
an
impersonal power.
In other
words, he stands more
or less shoul- der-to-shoulder with John and Paul in
holding
that the heart of salvation involves
intimacy
of communion with the Father and with the risen
Lord, that is, some kind of personal knowledge of God.
We noted too that unless we
may
assume that Luke attributes the pres- ence of this salvation to the
Spirit (as
John and Paul do) he identifies no divine means
by which
it would be possible. He would
thereby
leave a glar- ingly empty
slot in his theology. If we look at the question from the point of his pneumatology, however, we must
immediately recognize
that it is exact- ly the “shape”
of the
“Spirit
of prophecy” which fits the
empty
slot. After all,
as the Spirit of prophecy, the
Spirit
is first and foremost a powerful rev- elatory
and
wisdom-giving presence
of God. What more would one need to provide
the
lively
awareness of
God,
and
transforming
and
motivating understanding
of the
gospel,
than this
gift
of the
Spirit
of prophecy? There could
hardly
be a better
explanation
of the
dynamic
life of the Jerusalem church, meeting
as it does the
hopes
and
expectations raised
in Luke 1 :72- 79. Indeed, to
posit
some
separate,
and
duplicating,
divine means of the presence
of what Luke means
by salvation
invites the serious attention of Ockham’s razor.
From this vantage point we can
immediately
see the central
problem
of separability.
Salvation, for Luke,
requires
a
revelatory
and
wisdom-giving presence
of God. But charismatic service and mission also
requires
a dynamic revelatory
and
wisdom-giving presence
of God. So
why
should one assume either,
(a)
that
they
derive from different divine means-an unspecified
one for salvation and the
Spirit
for charismatic service-or,
(b) that both derive from the
Spirit,
who is
given
first for salvation and then quite distinctly again
for charismatic service? To
put
the matter more con-
281
17
cretely : on Sunday,
a young woman
experiences
an overwhelming sense of God’s love for her, her heart is flooded with joy and peace, her tongue
rejoic- es with
praise
and thanksgiving, and she
gives
her life over in fuller conse- cration to God. On Monday her heart is flooded with a sense of God’s love for her neighbor, she shares it sensitively,
joyfully,
and winsomely with him, and he turns to Christ. On what
possible
basis do we
say
that
Monday’s charismatic activities, oriented toward a third
person, require
either a differ- ent divine means, or at least a second
theologically
distinct
giving
of the Spirit,
from those involved in her
Sunday’s experience?
It seems to me that there is no difference in the kind of divine activities involved at all. Both involve God’s self-revelation,
bringing spiritual understanding
and evoking inspired speech.
I cannot see how he could
possibly
attribute
Monday’s experience
to the Spirit of prophecy, but deny
Sunday’s
to the same
Spirit.30
To suggest that Luke has made such a distinction, however difficult it may
be for us to understand,
requires
that we
adopt
one of the
following three
problematic positions.
( 1 ) Luke so
wished to
emphasize
the
Spirit’s prophetic/missiological force that he came to identify the gift of the
Spirit
with that
exclusively.
He was aware that the Pauline and Johannine
churches,
with which he had such rich contacts, had a much broader view of the Christian
Spirit
of prophecy- one that included what he would
recognise
as God’s
soteriological
activities. Nevertheless, he decided that such a view did not give sufficient focus to the prophetic/missiological.
This view is very difficult to believe for at least two reasons. First and foremost,
as we have
seen,
Luke does not in any way promote the view that the
majority
of believers are
actively
involved in mission or become “prophets.”
Second,
the hypothesis requires that we believe that Luke delib- erately
used the early church’s
language
of “receiving the
gift of the Spirit,” while
equally deliberately suppressing
the whole traditional
soteriological content and
leaving
unanswered the
question
of how the latter was accom- plished.
And we have to believe he did this even
though
he would
inevitably have
recognized
that most of the soteriological activities involved were
pre- cisely
what some Jews and most Christians
might expect
from the
Spirit understood as the “Spirit of prophecy.”
(2) One might support
the view above
by suggesting,
as Menzies does, that Luke is reverting to a purely Jewish view of the
Spirit
of prophecy, and
30 Yet this is exactly the sort of divide Menzies appears to imply when he argues, “the disci- ples
receive the Spirit… not… as the essential bond by which they (each individual) are linked to God: indeed, not primarily for themselves. Rather, as the driving force behind their witness to Christ, the disciples receive the Spirit for others,” Development, 207.
282
18
that within that
understanding
the Spirit was
simply
a donLCm superadditum. But such an
explanation
does not take into account the fact that much of Judaism had a far broader and more
“soteriological”
view of what it expect- ed of the
eschatological gift
of the
Spirit
of
prophecy.
So
why
should Luke adopt
the narrower Jewish view over
against
the broader one that was already fully accepted
and
Christologically developed by
the churches before him?
(3)
Luke
inexplicably
avoided the easier and more
enticing solution, which would have been to
develop
a two-stage or double
reception
of the Spirit, according
to which converts first received the
Spirit
of prophecy in association with conversion-initiation. Thus
they
received the sort of revela- tion, wisdom
and inspired
speech
relevant to their own walk with God, and, subsequently,
a second
experience
of “fullness” of Spirit that launched them into a more charismatic domain of service and mission.
A Unified and Inclusive View of Luke’s
Pneumatology
There is no good reason to attribute to Luke
any of three difficult
views that I have just described. Rather, there is every reason to think that he saw the one
gift
of the
Spirit
of
prophecy
as enabling both the life of salvation and as
empowering
Christian service and mission. Both
spheres
utilize exactly
the same
prototypical gifts
of the
“Spirit
of
prophecy;”
revelation, wisdom, and inspired speech.
This view of the Spirit
is, as I have argued elsewhere,
confirmed in the following ways:
(a) The Pentecostal Spirit
is identified at Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8 as the fulfilment of Isaiah 32:15 and 44:3; that
is,
as the
soteriological power of Israel’s
cleansing.
transformation and restoration.
(b) The same message
of the
Spirit’s import
for Israel’s
cleansing
and transformation is implied in the Baptist’s promise that the Messiah will bap- tize with
Holy Spirit
and fire
(Luke 3:16).
As the
baptist
himself has cleansed Israel with a water
rite,
so the Messiah will do so with fiery Spirit. Acts 1:5 then
anticipates
that Jesus will
accomplish
this
by pouring
out the Spirit
of prophecy from God’s
right
hand.3
t
(c)
A similar
understanding
is
implicit
in the Cornelius incident. In 11.16,
Peter “remembers” the
promise
of John the
Baptist,
not because
31 Menzies takes Luke 3:16 to mean that Jesus will sift Israel with
in the same
powerful preaching,
and Acts 1:5 is then understood
way: the by
the
Spirit
will sift Israel with their proclamation and witness. But this disciples empowered
interpretation of Acts 1 :5 cannot work, for there Jesus uses the
passive “you will be baptized with Holy Spirit,” not an active, will
baptize with Holy Spirit.”
.
“you
283
19
Cornelius and his household have received a powerful second
blessing,
but because their dramatic
reception
of the
Spirit
of prophecy shows that
they too
belong
to the Messiah’s cleansed and restored Israel-and without embracing
torah and circumcision. And, in Acts 15:8-9 their
reception
of the Spirit
is said to show that God had cleansed their hearts
by faith. Here, then, the Gentiles’
experience
of
Spirit baptism appears
to be
partially equated with their hearts
being
cleansed and their
entry
into life.32 It takes no imag- ination to see how Luke’s
“Spirit
of prophecy” might be expected to accom- plish
this.
(d)
This view is the
only
one
presently
on offer that
provides
a satis- factory explanation
of the vibrant Christian
religious
life reflected in Acts and the epistles,
including,
as it does, awareness of the
presence
and
ongo- ing activity
of God and Christ in the life of the believer.
(e) The view provides
as satisfactory an account of Acts 8 as any other. Philip
and the
apostles
could be
expected
to have no
problem
in
detecting that the
Spirit
was not
yet given.33
Failure of manifestations of the
Spirit such as tongues and prophecy might raise
suspicions,
failure of the range of other activities and
expressions
of God’s
dynamic self-revealing
and trans- forming presence
in grace would confirm the issue.
(f) Finally,
I suggest that this is the only view that does not break down when confronted
by modern analogies.
Pentecostals are
prone
to read other Christian
groups
outside the Charismatic tradition as
exemplars
of Samaritan-type
faith. That is,
they
are seen as
people
who still need to receive what Pentecostals think Luke means
by
the
gift
of the
Spirit.
This typology
works at a distance, but it
usually
breaks down
rapidly
when Pentecostals are confronted with robust men and women of God who are clearly
marked
by grace, deep
devotional life, and fruitful ministries. Pentecostals
usually agree
that such
godly
life must be derived from the Spirit,
and so their
positions collapse
back into one sort or another of two-stage pneumatology.
For
example,
in his
exegetical
elucidation of the
32 Menzies has understood the words, “by faith cleansing their hearts,” as making faith, rather than the Spirit, the divine means of such cleansing. But for Luke, faith is not a divine means at all; it is a human openness to, and expectation of, God’s saving acts. It is then most the Spirit that is the means, and this meshes well with the
probably
language of baptizing with Holy Spirit.
33 Pawson sees this question of how the apostles knew that the Samaritans had not received the
as a key one. For him the answer is in 8:16: they charismatic Spirit saw the had not “fallen” on any of them, i.e., had not yet come with the dramatic
Spirit
expression that Christians had come to expect. But 8:16 tells us nothing about how the apostles came to their evaluation. Instead, in this verse we simply hear the voice of the narrator who knows what happens next.
284
20
gift
of the
Spirit,
David Pawson
(not
himself a Pentecostal) offers a deci- sively one-stage interpretation
of Spirit
reception.
A person has not received the
Spirit
until he or she is dramatically
baptized
in the
Spirit
with charis- matic manifestations. However, when he comments on live Evangelicals, he argues
the
Spirit
is with such
people,
but not
yet
in them.
They
would become even more devoted and fruitful believers if they received the
Spirit to indwell them. This is clearly a two-stage
pneumatology
in all but
name, and I have criticized it elsewhere.34 But this is not Luke’s view. Luke does not
say,
nor
suggest,
that before the arrival of the
apostles
the
Spirit
was richly
with the Samaritans as an abiding presence,
bringing
them transform- ing knowledge
of God and
Christ, and all manner of Christian
graces.
He does not have the Ephesian twelve
respond
to Paul,
“Yes, we know the Spirit has been
powerfully
and
graciously
with us since John
baptized us,
but we had not heard that we could also receive the
Spirit
to live inside us.” Such fine distinctions of spiritual geography would not make
any sense
to Luke.35 For him, a person may temporarily be addressed and challenged by the Spirit working through
another, but persons must receive the Spirit for themselves if they are to enter authentic Christian life with God.
On our more
integrative
view of the Spirit of prophecy,
any person
who demonstrates
spiritual life, vitality,
and
gifting
has received what Luke means
by the Spirit
of prophecy. And,
given
the nature of the
gift, any
such a
person
should be
open
to
expect prophetic
charismata from the same Spirit.
Conclusion
Acts 8 is an ambiguous text, full of gaps that different readers can fill to their own satisfaction, if not to that of others. Pentecostals have
usually read the
passage assuming
a two-stage pneumatology,
according
to which the Samaritans first receive the
indwelling Spirit
for
salvation, then,
at the hands of the apostles, receive the “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” thus empow- ering
them for mission. Those who
recognize
that Luke
envisages only
one giving
of the
Spirit,
not two
(conversional
and
subsequent empowering), face difficult choices. Those who retain the view that the gift of the Spirit of prophecy
is essentially a donum
superadditum
of charismatic
empowering
34 Max Turner, “Receiving Christ and Receiving the Spirit: In Dialogue with David Pawson,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology I S ( 1999), 3-31. Cf. his reply in the same volume. 35 The Spirit “in,” “with,” and “on” are
same kinds of
just different spatial metaphors for speaking of the
activity of the Spirit in the life of a person: see M. M. B. Tumer, “Spirit Endowment in Luke-Acts: Some Linguistic Considerations,” Vox Evangelica 12 ( 1981 ), 45-63.
285
21
tend to reduce salvation to something not recognizably
“Christian,”
which is mainly
within unaided human
powers
to obtain. Either that or they leave the divine means of the
presence
of salvation
unexplained.
As this salvation depends
on revelatory and
wisdom-granting functions,
Pentecostal
interpre- tations that fail to attribute salvation to the
Spirit generate problems
of coherence within their
pneumatology.
Acts 8 may not itself
provide
a deci- sive
victory
to any side, but Pentecostals have not yet managed satisfactori- ly
to face the
questions
it raises
concerning soteriology
and
pneumatology and the relation between the two. To date the answers look more like defeat than the decisive
victory
that
they
sometimes claim for their side. I suggest that the view that the
Spirit
of
prophecy performs
both
soteriological
and empowering
functions
provides
as yet the most coherent account of Acts as a whole, and of the Samaritan incident in particular.
286
22
