Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
125
James B. Shelton,
Mighty
in Word and Deed: The Role
of the Holy Spirit
in Luke-Acts.
(Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1991). 208
pp.
$11.95
paper.
Reviewed
by John Christopher
Thomas
The
publication
of James D.G. Dunn’s
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit (SCM Press, 1970) inaugurated
a new
period
in the
dialogue
between Pentecostals and critical biblical
scholarship. Although
more than a decade after its
appearance
there were still no
full-length responses from Pentecostal
scholarship,
Dunn’s
monograph
had nonetheless sparked
an enormous amount of reflection in a
variety
of PentecostaUcharismatic circles.
Beginning
in
1983,
there
appeared
a succession of monographs
by Pentecostal
scholars which were
designed to
dialogue
with and
respond
to
many
of the issues raised
by
Dunn in Baptism
and its
sequel,
Jesus and the
Spirit (SCM Press, 1975).’
Each of these
responses
exhibits careful research as
nearly
all of them were revisions of theses and dissertations written in the
USA,
Canada and Scotland.
Of the
many
criticisms leveled
against
Dunn’s
work,
none has been more consistent than the
charge
that he has read Luke
through
Pauline eyes and, consequently,
has
misinterpreted
Luke’s distinctive pneumatology
as a result. Not
surprisingly,
most of the
activity among Pentecostal biblical scholars has been devoted to Luke-Acts. One of the most recent
offerings
comes from James B.
Shelton,
Associate Professor of New Testament in the
Department
of
Theology
and Missions at Oral Roberts
University.
The work is a popular revision of the author’s doctoral thesis at
Sterling University (Scotland),
which had been written under the direction of Dr. John Drane.
The
purpose
of Shelton’s
monograph,
described in chapter
one,
is to examine and
identify
the role of the
Holy Spirit
in Luke-Acts on its own terms.
Only
then is it
appropriate
to
compare
Lukan
pneumatology with its Pauline
counterpart.
In order to
carry
out this
investigation Shelton
begins by comparing
the Lukan texts which deal with the
Holy Spirit
with their
synoptic counterparts. Next,
he
pays particular attention to the
teaching
on the
Spirit
which is distinctive to Luke’s Gospel (the
so-called “L”
material). Finally,
the author turns his attention to the role of the
Holy Spirit
in
Acts,
where there are no synoptic parallels.
As
may
be deduced from this brief
description
of
‘ Cf. esp. H.D. Hunter, Spirit-Baptism: A Pentecostal Alternative (Lanham, MD: UPA, 1983); R Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984): H.M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the
MA: F.L.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Peabody, Hendrickson, 1984): Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1988); and R.M. Menzies, The
Christian
Development of Early
Pneumatology (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
1
126
purpose,
Shelton’s
methodological approach
is that of redaction criticism,
which
proves
to be both its
strength
and its weakness.
The
implications
of Shelton’s
approach
become
apparent
in his examination of “The
Holy Spirit
and the
Infancy
Witnesses” in chapter two and in many ways this
chapter
is
representative
of Shelton’s thesis and
approach. Observing
that Luke uses the same terms to describe the Spirit’s
enablement of
Mary, John, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon,
and Anna to witness as he does for
inspired speech
in the
early church, Shelton
concludes, “Apparently
Luke considers the witness of the pre-Pentecost
believers
equally
as
inspired
and valid as those he presents
in Acts after Pentecost”
(15).
If a distinction is to be drawn “between the
infancy
narrative witnesses with the
Holy Spirit
and that of the
disciples
at
Pentecost,
it must not be seen as a
qualitative difference but as a
quantitative
one”
(26).
In other
words,
these individuals are not
simply
heralds of the new
age, “they
themselves are part
of it”
(25).
Shelton
argues
that the clear-cut divisions in salvation history, emphasized by
Conzelmann and
Dunn,
are not of Luke’s making. Rather,
this
evangelist
does not
attempt
to
pinpoint
the arrival of the new
age
but sees salvation
history
as
progressive.
At
any rate, with each of these
infancy witnesses,
Luke’s
emphasis
is upon anointing
for witness
(inspired speech)
not conversion.
In
dealing
with the
Baptism
of
Jesus,
Shelton avoids the
simplistic deduction that this event was Jesus’
Spirit baptism
and as such can be equated
with that of the
disciples.
While there is a
great
deal of continuity,
in that the
Spirit’s anointing
is to result in
power
for ministry,
Jesus’
experience
is unique in that he was the
Spirit-conceived Son of God.
Nevertheless,
Shelton notes that one of the
primary functions of the
Holy Spirit
for Jesus is
anointing
for
inspired speech, which he seeks to demonstrate in chapters on the
Temptation
of Jesus and the
inauguration
of his
ministry.
Shelton sees a close
relationship
between the work of the
Spirit
and the
working
of miracles in Luke-Acts,
devoting
an entire
chapter
to this topic.
While not
denying
an
important
role to the
miracles,
the author sees them
primarily
in terms of
confirming
the witness
produced by the Spirit.
In another
chapter (eight)
Shelton takes
up
the
relationship between the
Holy Spirit
and
prayer
and
praise.
In this section he gives a fair amount of attention to a textual variant in the Lord’s
Prayer
which reads, “Father,
hallowed be
your
name. Let
your Spirit
come
upon
us and cleanse us.”
Despite
its weak textual attestation Shelton believes that it merits serious consideration as
original
because it so fits wit “Luke’s
program
of
Spirit
and
prayer
and also
parallels
his minor theme of linking
the
Spirit
and
cleansing” (96).
In
chapters
nine and ten Shelton discusses the
“Holy Spirit
and Blasphemy
and Witness” and the
“Holy Spirit
and Jesus’ Farewell Address and
Ascension,” respectively.
Here he
argues
that in contrast
2
127
to the other
synoptic accounts,
for Luke
blasphemy
of the
Spirit
is failure to
give inspired
witness
(105).
This conclusion is based
primarily on the fact that the
blasphemy saying
occurs in Luke 12:8-10 between words about the fearless
acknowledgment
of Jesus before others
(w 4-7)
and the
promise
that the
Spirit
will
inspire
witness when believers are
brought
before hostile authorities
(w 11-12).
Shelton’s
longest chapter (eleven)
is devoted to the
Holy Spirit
and believers in Acts. In this
chapter
the author seeks to demonstrate two primary points. First, despite
some
degree
of
fluidity,
in each of the crucial texts Luke is interested not in the conversion of certain individuals but in their
empowerment
for witness. This section in particular
demonstrates how
differently
Luke’s accounts read when approached
on their terms.
Second,
he offers evidence in support of his contention that the
phrases
“filled with the
Spirit”
and “full of the Spirit”
are used
by
Luke
primarily
to indicate
inspired speech.
In a final
chapter
Shelton summarizes his
arguments
and draws out some of the
implications
for academics and the
church,
both nonpentecostal/noncharismatic
and Pentecostal/charismatic. This chapter
is followed
by
an
appendix
in which the author offers further reflection on
“Jesus, John,
the
Spirit,
and the New
Age,” dialoguing
in even
greater
detail with some of Dunn’s conclusions.
Shelton has
produced
a most valuable
monograph
in many
ways.
Its general thesis,
that Luke’s
primary
interest in the work of the
Spirit relates to
anointing
for witness rather than
conversion,
is
convincing and well
argued.
It offers a fuller and more detailed
analysis
than its excellent
predecessor,
Stronstad’s Charismatic
Theology,
and in that regard pushes explorations
further in a most
promising
fashion. Its popular
format
(and
its reasonable
price)
means that it will be accessible to a wide
readership
and as
such, along
with
Stronstad, would make an excellent introduction for courses on Luke-Acts.
Despite
the work’s numerous
strengths,
there are a few weaknesses. Although
Shelton has demonstrated some of the benefits of
applying redaction criticism to this
topic,
in this
day
of methodological shifts one wonders what a
purely literary approach
would contribute on this subject.
This observation should not be taken to
imply
that Shelton ignores
such dimensions of the
text,
but that to take Luke-Acts on its own terms
might
more
appropriately
take as its
starting point
a literary analysis
of Luke-Acts before
turning
to issues of parallels.
It is unfortunate that Shelton was not able to
dialogue
with R. Menzies’ work on this
topic,
which
appeared
about the same time as Shelton’s. What is a bit more difficult to understand is the absence of reference to F.
Arrington’s commentary
on
Acts,
which
appeared
in 1988,
and his article “The
Indwelling, Baptism,
and
Infilling
with the Holy Spirit:
A Differentiation of
Terms,”
Pneuma 3
(Fall 1981): 1-10, the title of which shows its relevance to Shelton’s thesis.
3
128
Although
Shelton
gives precious
little attention to the role and significance
of
tongues speech
in
Acts,
he nevertheless concludes that “Luke is
only peripherally
interested in
tongues
in relation to the fullness of the
Holy Spirit” (162).
For Shelton this seems to mean that tongues-speech
is to be subsumed under the rubric of
inspired speech. However, given
the
significant
contexts in which
tongues appear (Acts 2, 10, 19)
and its somewhat evidential nature
(Acts 11:15-18)
such a conclusion seems
quite premature
and
begs
a host of questions.
These reservations
aside,
Shelton and Hendrickson are to be commended and
congratulated
for
producing
such a useful volume.
John
Christopher
Thomas is Associate Professor of New Testament at the Church of God School of
Theology, Cleveland,
Tennessee and a Co-Editor of the Journal
of Pentecostal Theology.
4
