Mighty In Word And Deed

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

James B. Shelton’s *Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts* (1991) is contextualized within a significant scholarly dialogue, emerging as a Pentecostal response to the influential work of James D.G. Dunn, particularly his *Baptism in the Holy Spirit* (1970) and *Jesus and the Spirit* (1975). Reviewer John Christopher Thomas notes that Dunn’s earlier work sparked extensive reflection, eventually leading to a series of Pentecostal monographs aimed at challenging Dunn’s perceived misinterpretation of Lukan pneumatology through a Pauline lens. Shelton, drawing from his doctoral thesis, explicitly aims to delineate the role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts strictly on its own narrative terms before attempting comparative analysis. His methodological approach largely employs redaction criticism, a strategy noted for both its merits and limitations. Shelton’s central thesis, which underpins the entire monograph, posits that Luke’s primary interest in the Holy Spirit is the **anointing for witness and inspired speech**, rather than the Spirit’s role in conversion. This argument is significantly developed in his analysis of the infancy narratives. Shelton observes that Luke employs consistent terminology to describe the Spirit’s enablement of figures like Mary, John, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon, and Anna for prophetic witness, paralleling the inspired speech of the early church post-Pentecost. He concludes that Luke views the witness of pre-Pentecost believers as equally inspired, differing only quantitatively, not qualitatively, from later manifestations. This perspective challenges established ‘salvation history’ divisions, such as those proposed by Conzelmann and Dunn, suggesting instead a more progressive understanding of divine activity in Luke’s narrative. Extending this foundational argument, Shelton examines the baptism of Jesus, carefully distinguishing it from a simplistic equation with the disciples’ Spirit baptism, recognizing Jesus’ unique Spirit-conceived identity while still emphasizing anointing for inspired speech as a primary function. He further explores the Spirit’s connection to miraculous workings, viewing these primarily as confirmations of Spirit-inspired witness. A chapter dedicated to the Spirit, prayer, and praise notably considers a textual variant in the Lord’s Prayer, which, despite weak attestation, Shelton argues aligns with Luke’s consistent themes of the Spirit, prayer, and cleansing. Moreover, Shelton reinterprets the concept of blasphemy against the Spirit in Luke 12:8-10 as a failure to deliver inspired witness, situating it within Luke’s broader emphasis on public declaration. In his extensive treatment of the Holy Spirit in Acts, Shelton reiterates that phrases like “filled with the Spirit” or “full of the Spirit” denote empowerment for witness rather than initial conversion. John Christopher Thomas commends Shelton’s monograph for its substantial contributions to Lukan scholarship. The reviewer finds Shelton’s overarching thesis—that Luke emphasizes the Spirit’s role in anointing for witness over conversion—to be both convincing and meticulously argued. The work is lauded for offering a more comprehensive and detailed analysis than previous studies, particularly distinguishing itself from Stronstad’s *Charismatic Theology* by advancing further explorations. Furthermore, its accessible ‘popular format’ and affordable price point are identified as key strengths, ensuring broad readership and making it an excellent resource for introductory courses on Luke-Acts, especially when paired with Stronstad’s work. Despite these strengths, the review highlights several areas for improvement. Thomas questions the exclusive reliance on redaction criticism, suggesting that a foundational purely literary approach might have more fully captured Luke-Acts ‘on its own terms.’ Critically, the review notes the absence of engagement with contemporaneous or highly relevant scholarship, specifically R. Menzies’ work on the same topic and F. Arrington’s 1988 commentary on Acts and his earlier *Pneuma* article. Perhaps the most significant reservation concerns Shelton’s treatment of “tongues speech” in Acts. Shelton concludes that Luke has only a “peripheral interest” in tongues, subsuming it under inspired speech. However, Thomas deems this conclusion premature, arguing that the significant contexts (Acts 2, 10, 19) and evidential nature (Acts 11:15-18) of tongues demand more substantial attention. Nevertheless, the reviewer concludes by acknowledging the book’s overall utility and congratulating Shelton and Hendrickson for its publication, affirming its valuable place in the ongoing scholarly discourse.