Delphi And Jerusalem Two Spirits Or Holy Spirit A Review Of John R. Levison’s Filled With The Spirit

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

| PentecostalTheology.com

Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

Delphi and Jerusalem: Two Spirits or Holy Spirit? A Review of John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit

James B. Shelton

Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature,

Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma

[email protected]

Abstract

Levison presents a sweeping panoramic overview of the Holy Spirit throughout Scripture while noting signiﬁcant Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian parallels. Te Spirit is the life force animating humans, the agent of regeneration, and the source of prophetic inspiration and power. Levison identiﬁes distinct pneumatological trajectories that show a continuity in the Spirit traditions that are clariﬁed and enhanced as they move through the Christian tradition. But how indebted is the Church to Greco-Roman spirit-concepts for her pneumatology?

Keywords

Holy Spirit, spirit, regeneration, life, prophecy, Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman parallels

In this panoramic overview,1 Levison shows the development of distinctive pneumatic themes and traces their trajectories from the early Israelite works to later Judaic and Christian literature. Among these themes are Spirit as cre- ator and life sustainer, as re-creator, as wisdom, purity, knowledge, and prophecy. Levison entertains the idea that Greco-Roman spirit-concepts inﬂuenced Jewish and Christian pneumatology. Since Alaine Buchanan pro- vides a substantive summary in this issue, I begin with only a few general observations and then focus on Levison’s interpretation of select passages, especially those in the New Testament, as they relate to the pneumatic themes.

Troughout his work, Levison uses lower-case letters to refer to the Holy Spirit, a practice that, from the perspective of early Israelite writers, is

John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009); references to this work will be made parenthetically in the text by page number.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

probably appropriate. But I will often capitalize Holy Spirit since the Church, historically, has typically identiﬁed the early pneumatic activity with the per- son of the Holy Spirit: “Tis is that,” to borrow Peter’s phrase at Pentecost (Acts 1:33). Te matrix for understanding the work of the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ coming into the world. Tat event and the works and words of Jesus are the deﬁnitive revelation of the Holy Spirit. Te Spirit is identiﬁed as the Holy Spirit by the Church, on whom the ascended Christ poured the same Spirit who enlightened and empowered him. For the Church, all of the Spirit’s works — past, present, and future — are understood through the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Church acknowledged the divinity of the Holy Spirit in its earliest artifacts, that is, the New Testament manuscripts, in which the scribes treated instances of to pneuma to hagion as nomina divina, even as they did the sacred names of God and Jesus, by abbreviating them and drawing a line over the top of them.2

General Observations

Levision uses the phrase ﬁlled with the holy spirit broadly to describe the vari- ous activities of the Spirit that in the original texts (both Testaments, Qum- ran, and so forth) do not refer to fullness. Although the phrase serves as a helpful catch-all category, it does sometimes lead to confusion since, in some cases, texts containing the words ﬁlled/full and Holy Spirit have a more spe- ciﬁc function. Tis is especially true in Luke-Acts, in which the predominant use of “ﬁlled with the holy spirit” is to indicate inspired witness.3 Levison does make the valid point that one cannot always limit the Spirit’s work to only one particular activity or realm: “Te marvel of the word ‘spirit’ . . .

Tis is similar to Jewish scribes’ deferential treatment of the name of God to avoid blas- phemy. Larry W. Hurtado, Te Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 95-135.

James B. Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: Te Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 58-59. Bruner and Hordern provide an example of how a broad use of “ﬁlled with the Holy Spirit” does not work well in Acts. “How then, may one be ﬁlled with the Holy Spirit? I can paraphrase Paul’s answer to the Philippian jailer’s similar ques- tion about salvation and give the correct answer: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be ﬁlled with the Holy Spirit, you and your whole house.’” F. D. Bruner and W. Hordern, Te Holy Spirit: Shy Member of the Trinity (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 20. Luke does not use the phrase here, but he does say the jailer would “be saved.” Since the primary meaning of the phrase for Luke is inspired witness, his intent must be honored.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

cannot be neatly diced into various domains . . . on our interpretative cutting board” in regard to human or divine realms (73-74).

Levison rightly notes that “holy spirit” in the Old Testament often refers to the life principle that is given to human beings at creation or birth and that leaves them at death. Tis theological trajectory arcs from the creation account to the literature of the Qumran covenanters and even has latent ves- tiges in the New Testament. A signiﬁcant development is the Christian dis- tinction between God’s Spirit and an individual human spirit. Te Christian tradition largely jettisons aspects of the concept of “the holy spirit” that reduce it merely to a life force; but even in the early Israelite literature, the Holy Spirit is becoming more than the life force. In 1 Samuel, the writer dis- tinguishes between “the Spirit of the Lord” and an “evil spirit,” and the depar- ture of the former from the soul did not necessarily result in immediate death (1 Sam 10:6-13; 16:13-14). Tus, the concept of the spirit as “other,” whether good or evil, arose early, although Christians still linked the Holy Spirit with the giving of life as a result of their continued use of the Old Testament. According to Levison, “spirit” as an anthropological category in the New Testament is the result of Hellenistic inﬂuence. Both Christian and Jewish writings accepted this Greco-Roman terminology. A strength of Levison’s work is the numerous parallels, some more relevant than others, that he draws between Jewish and Greco-Roman writings, on the one hand, and New Tes- tament pneumatology, on the other. Just how much these writings aﬀect the New Testament is open to debate, but they deﬁnitely do reﬂect how many early Hellenistic readers — both Gentiles and Jews — used their cultural ﬁl- ter to interpret the New Testament message. Levison shows that Christianity sprang from the rich soil of Judaism and that both Christianity and Judaism were inﬂuenced by Hellenism; thus current ideas moved laterally through the era from 200 BC to AD 100.

From its Israelite and Jewish heritage, the New Testament preserved the roles of the Holy Spirit in creation, renewal and reviviﬁcation, wisdom, and prophecy. To understand the New Testament pneumatologies, each of these roles must be acknowledged in terms of their distinctive emphases on the Holy Spirit while, at the same time, it is recognized that, to some degree, they are seldom completely isolated from one another. Levison successfully traces these trajectories from the Old Testament and demonstrates a healthy balance of them in the New. Happily, he resists the ever present temptation to homogenize the various authors’ pneumatological distinctions into a pneu- matic purée.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

In the chapter “Vestiges of Earlier Eras” (III.1), Levison deals with some of the pneumatic issues in Paul, Luke-Acts, and the Gospel of John, and refers as well to the Synoptics. For example, Luke writes that John the Baptist grew and became strong in spirit and, similarly, that Jesus became strong, was ﬁlled with wisdom, and grew in grace (Luke 1:80; 2:40, 52). Here Levison sees retained “this traditional scriptural conception of the force within that, from birth, can be strengthened, along with the implicit association of the spirit with wisdom, [which] evokes images of Israel’s illustrious leaders,” although Luke will later “supplant the age-old conception with the picture of a subse- quent inﬁlling” in the mission of Jesus and the Church (241). Further, the Holy Spirit as the agent of life is hardly vestigial in the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35). A further exploration of other Spirit passages in the Synoptics would have been welcome, such as more on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and more on John the Baptist and the Spirit, including the tantalizing parallels to Qumran. But the scope of the work is so broad that Levison is, no doubt, forced to be selective.

Paul and the Spirit

In the chapter on Pauline letters (III.2), Levison selects target passages to demonstrate some general tendencies. Within his broad pneumatological spectrum, Paul continues several pneumatic trajectories from the Old Testa- ment. For example, he takes up key themes from Ezekiel’s vision — “spirit, sanctiﬁcation, and knowledge of God” (307). As is done in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul uses the reviviﬁcation theme portrayed so vividly in the valley of dry bones (Ezek 36-37; 253-67). Because of “the fateful act of Adam” (255), death enters into the human race, aﬀecting any pneumatic endowment of old, whether it be a holy spirit of life or the indwelling of God’s own pneuma, making a profound re-creation needed. Tus, the Spirit becomes the seal and pledge that this new creation belongs to God (258). In 1 Tessalonians 4:8, Paul gives another creative twist to Ezekiel’s vision: “God gives his Holy Spirit into you” (see also Ezek 37:5, 6; 37:10, 14). Usually Paul speaks of a past reception of the Spirit, but here it is a continual giving (didonta, pres. part.) of the Spirit. Te context speaks of sexual purity. In this battle, the endow- ment of the Holy Spirit is continually available to believers (263-67). Here and throughout the book, Levison makes powerful pastoral applications that would be welcome in any pulpit.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

In reference to Spirit reception, Levison does not speak only of initiation and forensic theology; rather, he notes that Paul is also speaking of the pneu- matological signs and miracles that accompany salvation. Here he sees Paul presenting a multifaceted Spirit act that includes nuances often seen in Acts (267-69).4 Similarly, in Galatians, “the bedrock of Galatian experience, from Paul’s perspective, is the spirit” (269). Levison sees the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit not simply as one of conversion but as one that includes mira- cles; he is not afraid to have his feet in more than one theological camp. He suggests that Paul may be reacting to communities such as Qumran in his repudiation of “the mutual interdependence of spirit-ﬁlling and Torah obser- vance” (271). Ten, to round out the chapter, Levison discusses the role of the Spirit in Paul’s themes of slavery versus Sonship, spirit of the world versus the Spirit of God, and the new Temple.

Levison could have examined other important Pauline passages. For exam- ple, although he discusses the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12-14, Levison does so while treating Luke’s pneumatology; he does not show how they are integral to Paul’s view. Surprisingly, he does not address the only actual occurrence of the phrase ﬁlled with the Spirit in the Pauline corpus, which presents fullness as an ongoing continuous state (pl ērousthe) modiﬁed by present participles that demonstrate that Spirit is to inundate every aspect of Christian existence, individual and corporate, familial, ecclesial, and secu- lar. Multiple trajectories of the Spirit meet and embrace here: ontology, trans- formation, empowerment, sanctiﬁcation, and inspired speech. A substantive presentation on Ephesians 5:18-6:9 would have undergirded Levison’s enter- prise well.

Te Spirit in Acts

In treating Acts (III.3), Levison curiously starts the discussion with the silenc- ing of the slave-girl controlled by a spirit of divination ( pneuma pyth ōna) in Philippi (Acts 16:16-19). Tis spirit of the python was associated with the Delphic Oracle and “belly talkers” (ventriloquists) who delivered messages

Similarly, Paul Elbert sees an empowerment theme in Paul’s pneumatology as well as con- version. “Possible Literary Links between Luke-Acts and Pauline Letters Regarding Spirit- Language,” in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter, eds., Te Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Teory and Practice (Sheﬃeld, UK: Sheﬃeld Phoenix, 2006), 226-54.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

from the Greek gods. Because the python spirit described Paul and company as “slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation” (16:17), Levison suggests that this cannot be a completely evil spirit since it describes their mission in quintessentially Lukan terms. Later, some Chris- tians would view the pagan Sybil as a genuine oracle. Is Luke doing some- thing similar here for the spirit of Delphi? Paul does not rebuke the spirit, Levison argues; rather, he is annoyed because she cries this out continually as she follows the apostolic band. Tus, only in exasperation does Paul ﬁnally dismiss the pythonic spirit. Levison does note that the exorcism in Luke 4:31-37 parallels Acts 16, for the evil spirit in Capernaum knows Jesus’ real identity. But in Luke 4, Levison argues, this is a clear confrontation between good and evil; in Philippi, it is not so much a confrontation as an irritation, and, accordingly, Paul utters no censure. Tus, Levison suggests, the spirit controlling the girl is not necessarily an enemy.

Although Levison does say that the Jews reject ventriloquism and mentions that the Septuagint associates it with witchcraft (Deut 18:9-14; Isa 8:19; 29:4), he persists in his suggestion. Several factors should be addressed. First, when and how does Paul know he is dealing with the python spirit? Is the girl masquerading as a new convert? Does Paul perceive the nature of the spirit after a period of days through the gift of discernment (1 Cor 12:10)? If Paul is merely annoyed, why does he not ask her to be quiet? If the spirit is not hostile, why does Paul banish it altogether? Peter had previously rebuked Simon Magus for aspiring to use the Spirit for gain and for oﬀering money for power. Here again money and manipulation of the supernatural are not tolerated. Jesus himself rebukes evil spirits who correctly identify him as the Messiah. He wants to avoid such announcements at this point and even pro- hibits the man he has healed from publicizing the healing, although the man disobeys and proclaims it openly, so that Jesus was no longer able to move freely in the cities. Satan’s suggestion that Jesus jump from the temple heights appears to be an attempt to speed up Jesus’ messianic self-proclamation in Jerusalem itself. Te spirits do not proclaim him Messiah as a favor but as a way to derail his messianic timetable or else to force him to proclaim himself a militant messiah. Jesus silences them and casts them out. Te confrontation of the Philippian python resembles Jesus’ no-quarter policy with demons. In Ephesus, a spirit acknowledges who Jesus is in the aborted attempt at exorcism by the sons of Sceva — “Jesus, I know.” When the believers hear of the evil spirit’s positive acknowledgement, they do not approve of the spirit; rather, they burn the magic books. Only the Holy Spirit’s witness to Jesus is

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

approved (Acts 19:13-20). Tere is no compelling reason to make an excep- tion for a reptilian spirit from Delphi.

Levison begins his description of the Pentecost event by reminding his readers of the parallels in the Greco-Roman world, such as the Delphic, pythonic priestess, in which “the faculty of rational reference” is displaced, to use Plutarch’s words (326-27). Similarly, he cites Pseudo-Philo describing Kenaz who, after prophesying, does not know what he has said or seen (327). Levison notes that Luke is using the spirit terminology of the day, but it should also be noted that similar language is used in the Old Testament, including references to fullness in association with the Spirit and related con- cerns. But it appears that in Luke-Acts and in the entire New Testament cor- pus, prophets and those practicing glossolalia have not had their wills and mental awareness set aside, although in the latter the understanding is fruit- less (1 Cor 14:15, 32-33; Rev 10:4). Te New Testament makes a distinction between inspiration and possession.

Regarding the wind, tongues of ﬁre, and Spirit-inﬁlling, Levison describes the scene on the day of Pentecost as “pandemonium . . . chaos . . . piling up uncontrollable element upon uncontrollable element . . . cacophonous” (329). He asserts that, in the Greco-Roman context, such phenomena would be “understood as an experience that ignited and inﬂamed a person possessed” (329). He compares tongues to the “Delphic Pythia” described by Luke as one who “boils over with ﬁerce ﬁre” as Apollos shoots “dart[s] of ﬂame into her vitals” and “is cursed to be unable to say that she knows” (329). Similarly, he sees “the ﬁlling and the ﬁre” as resulting in “an ecstatic state over which Jesus’ followers had no control.” If extasis means completely devoid of reason, consciousness, or will, then the Greco-Roman parallels break down.

Absence of human control does not automatically mean chaos. Tongues of ﬁre stand over each human head like divine exclamation points punctuating the experience! Luke has already given his readers a frame of reference for the experience in his Gospel. Te disciples in the upper room are waiting as instructed “to be clothed with power on high” (Luke 24:49). Tey, like Mary, stand in docile receptivity to the Holy Spirit, “the power of the Most High” who overshadows them, poised to inundate them with a theophanic charism (Luke 1:35).

Earlier, Luke gave a reference point for the wind and ﬁre in the prophecy of John, the son of Zechariah, which was not chaos but a deliberate act of winnowing, purifying, and empowering (Luke 3:17-18; Acts 1:5). Levison has not fully appreciated the Hebrew parallels of ecstatic prophecy here (334).

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

Levison is right, no doubt, that some readers were tempted to look to Delphi, but Luke quickly diverts their eyes back to Judea, and certainly not to Gad- ara. Tough detractors describe the disciples’ actions as “drunken,” Peter quickly disabuses them of suppositions of a “Bacchic rout and frenzied mind” in the very precincts of the Temple when he says that the believers are not drunk but are participating in a divine plan foreseen by prophets (Acts 2:15-18). Te picture may not be tidy, but it is not chaotic; hurricanes have purposes, especially holy ones.

To be fair, Levison avers that the parallels to the Greco-Roman diviners are not exact and that Luke intended no literary parallel (331). He says that Luke “goes to no great length to dispel the impression that the ﬁlling and ﬁre of inspiration led the ﬁrst followers of Jesus into a state of ecstacy akin to drunk- enness” (332). But that is what Peter’s lengthy address indeed does: the Spirit, not wine, was their ﬁre and wind.

On numerous occasions, Jesus disassociates himself from the voices of other spirits, even when they get his identity right. In Luke-Acts, the spirits of magicians and the oracles, the pneumatic currency of the age, are soundly rejected by both Peter and Paul. In Ephesus, the Church does not add her “Amen” to the demon’s acknowledgement of Jesus, but instead the Christians burn their magic books. Tey do not consider them to be from allied spirits. Luke sees the prophetic Jesus and his successors not in terms of Cassandra and the priestess of Apollo, but in terms of Elijah and Elisha. Baal and his prophets are given no quarter.5 Te Elijah and Elisha cycles are not suﬃ- ciently developed in Levison’s work.

Levison suggests that Luke is redirecting the early tradition that Jesus’ ear- liest followers spoke in tongues, that is, in an incomprehensible mode of speech, to include speaking comprehensible language, which serves his frequent emphasis on proclamation of the good news to others by the empowering Holy Spirit. He does this by adding the word other to the word tongues in Acts 2:4, “which changes the tenor of the entire narrative” (336). If the account that follows Acts 2:4 is original and not a Lukan invention, then the insertion of “other” does not change the message; for the people heard and understood the disciples’ praise of God in spite of linguistic barriers. If one omits “other” and just reads “spoke in tongues,” then this means that some

For the frequent Elijah and Elisha parallels, see Raymond Brown, “Jesus and Elijah,” Perspectives 12 (1971): 98-99; Tomas L. Brodie, Te Crucial Bridge: Te Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretative Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 2000), 79-85; Paul Hinnebusch, OP, Jesus, the New Elijah (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1978); and Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed, 28-29.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

people recognized the language spoken by one of the speakers as their own native one, although the speaker does not understand it. Is it being assumed that glossolalia is not a genuine language while xenolalia is? Does the word ecstatic rule out a real language of either “men or angels” being spoken? In the case of glossolalia, it is always “other.” Too much weight is being placed on “other.” Levison uses the phrase sober intoxication to express comprehensibil- ity in the ﬁrst word and ecstatic incomprehensibility in the second.6 He does show that Luke is comfortable with both and has no problem with them existing side by side: “Te power of Pentecost may lie, in Luke’s estimation, not in either incomprehensibility or apprehension, but in the early believers’ ability to straddle both worlds” (344). For Luke, there is the work of the Holy Spirit in comprehensible witness, but there is also this untamed sovereign Holy Spirit that will not be bound and is ultimately in charge. Luke brings out the simultaneous coworking of both the human and the untamed divine in 4:29-32: Te believers witness, and the Spirit shakes the world. Levison laments the either/or choice that scholars tend to make between “comprehen- sible foreign dialects and incomprehensible speech.” In Pentecost, Luke pre- serves the ecstatic dimension and the comprehensibility; he celebrates both “ecstasy and restraint” (346).

Levison next recognizes the Spirit’s role in the interpretation of Scripture and then notes how the Holy Spirit confronted the spiritual enemies of God in the form of two magicians. Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus and Paul’s of Elymas ultimately assess the pagan oracles that come to the mind of Luke’s Gentile readers. One wonders how Delphi can escape the condemnation of spirits in Samaria, Paphos, and Ephesus.

Levison could have treated Stephen and the Spirit in greater depth. Per- haps the Stephen account will produce fruit in subsequent research, especially in the multiple nuances of the fullness of the Holy Spirit there. Levison speaks of the eﬀects of inspiration on the eyes of pagan prophets. Similarly, Luke links “ﬁlled with the Holy Spirit” and “to stare intently at” (atenizō) in Stephen’s vision and Paul’s rebuke of Elymas (7:55-56; 13:9-11). Luke uses atenizō twelve times, usually in contexts of revelation where there is Spirit- ﬁlled staring and rapt attention of an audience. Pope Paul VI prayed that priests might have “prophecy in a glance,” a very Lukan concept!7

Raneiro Cantalamessa, OFM Cap., uses “sober intoxication” to show that contrary to wine, the Holy Spirit brings not only joy and good feeling but simultaneously a clear-mindedness and sobriety of the soul. Sober Intoxication of the Spirit: Filled with the Fullness of God, trans. M. Daigle-Williamson (Cincinnati, OH St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2005), 1-10.

Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed, 146, 156 n. 57-58.

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

Johannine Pneumatology

Space does not allow an extensive treatment here. Levison presents the salient distinctives of the Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles focusing on “Spirit, a New Creation and a New Temple” (III.4). John perpetuates themes found in earlier New Testament writers and thereby preserves and expands the pneumatic tradition. Levison compares John’s “Spirit of truth” with the two spirits of Qumran, that of light and darkness. In John, the Holy Spirit resides exclusively in Jesus’ community (383-90). Levison sees in John a “startling metamorphosis in the mode of the spirit’s presence. Rather than promising straightforwardly that the spirit of truth will ﬁll the disciples, Jesus promises two modes of the spirit’s presence: the spirit will be both within and alongside believers. Te spirit of truth, in other words, ‘remains with you and will be in you’” ( John 14:17; 391). But is this appreciably diﬀerent from the exteriority and interiority of the Spirit seen in Luke-Acts and Paul? As in his Pentecost account, Levison is not content to emphasize one point to appease a particular group. He lets the text speak fully. Tus, in the recep- tion of the Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel, the holy breath of Jesus eﬀects both a creative action of the Spirit and authoritative commission, with the latter dispensing to the Church the power to forgive sins ( John 20:19-33). Tis commission linked with the Holy Spirit has precedent in the earlier wit- ness provided at the end of Matthew’s Gospel (28:16-20). “Te dominant trait of this scene . . . could have been lifted from the pages of Matthew’s Gospel” (368). Te keys to the kingdom bind and loose in Matthew (16:19). In his discussion of the Johannine Epistles, Levison suggests that John the Elder is saying that since the community has received the anointing they no longer need teaching (1 John 2:18-20, 26-27), and thus they no longer need teachers. But obviously they do need a teacher, and that is why the writer addresses them. Perhaps John is telling them that because they have the anointing, they should not listen to the false teachers who have gone out from among them and wish to deceive them (2:19, 26). Tis is why they must test the spirits and what the spirits say in regard to Jesus. Levison sees the believing community as anointed with the Spirit regarding all things. Te members of this community are the pneumatic heirs of Moses and the proph- ets (421). He sees this as a “conviction that disconnects the spirit from Israel’s tradition of teaching and learning, of passing the faith from one generation to the next” (421). Is the dichotomy in the epistle that radical, or is it simply a rejection of a proto-Gnostic splinter group?

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

Concluding Questions

Levison’s forays into pre-Christian concepts of spirit remind us of the age-old questions: “How much did early Christianity borrow from Greco-Roman and Jewish pneumatologies?” “What in them did the early Christians ﬁnd unac- ceptable?” and “How much of those pneumatologies did the early Christians unconsciously retain?” As early as the ministry of Balaam, the community of the elect has had an uneasy coexistence with the Zeitgeist. Te early Church recognized that the ungodly, that is, those “who suppress the truth by their wickedness,” could see the revelation of God in creation (Rom 1:19-20). Paul aﬃrmed Stoicism by enshrining two of its tenets in the Christian Scriptures (Acts 17:28). Philo’s “baptism” of Plato was embraced by the writer of Hebrews. Later, Dante presented Virgil as a spiritual guide, but he could take the poet only to the edge of Paradise; it was Beatrice, the ﬁgure of the Church, who escorted Dante further. Moreover, who has not gazed upon a Zen garden and not experienced profound peace, which Paul says is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22)? But, as the writer of Hebrews says, the Christian revela- tion is better than and deﬁnitive of all that came before, whether from Jew or Gentile (11:1-3).

Tertullian has framed the question in stark terms: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the academy with the Church?” Tough his response was negative, he acknowledged natural religion and assumed Stoic tenets. Justin Martyr was more positive, noting that even those who did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God did possess some truth, although his overuse of Plato did have some negative side eﬀects. Surely the emperor Julian went too far in drawing from non-Christian spirituality, thus earning himself the epithet “the Apostate.” Te Church has ever been on her guard against accommodation that creates a heteron euangelion; the subsequent anathemas that Paul pro- nounces are appropriate (Gal 1:6-9).

Tere is the nature of mystery (mystērion) in the question that must remain a mystery revealed, not a mystery resolved. Peter cites the parameters of bal- ance when he says on the one hand, “Tere is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), and on the other, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). Te dynamic tension must be main- tained; to resolve it to one pole or the other results in arrogance or relativism

J. B. Shelton / Pneuma 33 (2011) 47-58

respectively, neither of which exhibits the “fear of the Lord.”8 We cannot resolve it, for the Wind blows where he wills. He will honor the name of Jesus but not any “no trespassing” signs erected by humans. One cannot domesticate a tornado; we Oklahomans have learned that.

It is a good question to ask, “How far can the light be seen?” but a better question is, “How close to the light can we come?”

What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? A lot. But we are on a pil- grimage not north to Delphi but south to Jerusalem. It is there the Lord told us to tarry for the Spirit. Only from Jerusalem can we then go to “the utter- most parts of the earth.”

In Filled with the Spirit, Levison has the enviable ability to see the big pic- ture of the Spirit, and he traces trajectories of development over long periods of time. Te broad strokes he uses present a valid portrait in many ways, though some points have been contested. His work is informative, instruc- tional, and edifying, although, in the future, more interaction with Pentecos- tal and Charismatic scholars would be fruitful. Levison has given us a sustained overview of the Holy Spirit as the growth of a biblical tradition

in a culturally diverse environment. He has provided a pneumatological megastructure on which scholarship can continue to build.

Amos Yong warns that one must “steer between the Scylla of a monologistic, a prioristic, and colonialistic/imperialistic deﬁning of religious others on the one hand, and the Charybdis of a syncretistic, (simply) empiricistic, and relativistic attitude on the other.” Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Teology of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 19-20.

To borrow the title from another helpful overview of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages, George T. Montague’s Te Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition (New York: Paulist Press, 1976).

Delphi And Jerusalem Two Spirits Or Holy Spirit A Review Of John R. Levison’s Filled With The Spirit

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

PentecostalTheology .com

Be first to comment Click here to cancel reply.

Cancel reply

Prayer for 2015

Haber oku tuzla evden eve nakliyat