Book Reviews
Wayne Grudem,
(Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan $16.95
paper.
ed.,
Are Miraculous
Reviewed
by Jon Ruthven
Cessationism,
Today significant
155
Gifts for Today?
Four Views Publishing House, 1996).
368
pp.
spiritual gifts
died
the issue Theological Society meeting
in
Recently, Christianity
the doctrine that “miraculous”
with the
apostles,
remains a hot
topic among Evangelicals,
being
the focus of a
Evangelical
Jackson, Mississippi,
in November of 1996.
listed cessationism and
spiritual gifts
as three of the
top
ten most
issues
among Evangelicals.
.
In Are Miraculous
Gifts for Today? Wayne
Grudem has coordinat-
ed and edited an extensive formal debate
by
four
representative per-
whose are described as
(Richard Gaffin, Jr.,
Westminster
(Robert Saucy,
Talbot
Seminary),
Samuel
Storms, Vineyard)
and “Pentecostal/ Charismatic”
spectives
on
cessationism, “Cessationist”
But Cautious”
Oss,
Central Bible
College, A/G).
surrounding
ment
This
positions
Seminary), “Open
“Third Wave”
(C.
(Douglas The book arose out of some 17
1) The format
to
to respond level.
2)
Because
hours of face-to-face
discussion,
with much labor before and afterward.
The chief value of this discussion is three fold:
some
degree
forced the various contributors on cessationism
to each others’
arguments
at a careful,
sophisticated
of the
high
caliber of scholars
assembled,
none of the constituencies for any position
could
seriously
claim their case was not well articulated or defended.
3)
The book
brought
attention not
only
to the differences
the issue of the continuation of
spiritual gifts,
but to the sizable area of
agreement
held
among
the
participants-with agree-
far
outweighing
differences.
last observation leads us to a peculiar paradox that
emerged
in the discussion. All of the
participants
were both “cessationists” and “continuationists”
(Gaffin’s word).
Even
Gaffin,
a
“cessationist,” allowed for the continuation of some
gifts (41),
of miracles
(in
the
of
healings)
and revelation
(at
least in the sense of the illumina- tion of
scripture
and
personal guidance) (343),
while the “continua- tionist”
positions (Storms
and
Oss)
denied the continuation of at least
sense
1
156
eviscerates
with 13:8-12 and
Eph
All the
participants (341).
All
appeared
one
gift: apostleship (45, 291),
a
denial,
Gaffin
rightly notes,
that
two of the continuationists’ main
proof texts,
1 Cor 12:29
4:11-13.
were
eager
to
protect
the canon of
Scripture
to be arguing, not so much the
question
of whether
how
frequently
and (342f.).
“revelatory” events, according
today,
e.g.,
divine works
(healing, revelatory guidance) appear today,
as much as
how
intensely
these events should be
expected
For
example,
Gaffin allows for illumination or
leading (both
to
Saucy, 142f.)
so
long
as one is not “carried
along” by
the
Spirit (53). Or,
God
may
heal
“miraculously”
if one does not claim the event to be a “gift” of
healing
or mira- cle (41 f.). Obviously,
the
term,
“miracle” was not
carefully
staked out.
some
scriptural commands,
that
you may prophesy” (
Cor
Th
5:19)
do not
apply
to today’s
reader,
at least in their
original
sense.
but
cautious,” argues
that since miracles cluster
“foundational”
events,
we should
expect
far fewer of them
Accordingly, best
gifts, especially
Saucy,
more
“open, around
today ( 126).
not
“gifts
“desire
earnestly
the
14:1; cf 14:39;
1
or “a word of knowl-
Here the
edge,”
but
“leadings”; issue
One is left with the
feeling
that the whole debate could be resolved by
a
simple change
in labels
(not “prophecy,”
of healing,” but
“healings”).
is not so much what God
actually
does
today,
so
long
as one avoids
identifying
these events as “miracles”
accrediting
new doctrine.
By contrast,
the “continuationists”
ministry
of disciples mative
expression
example,
while
insist that all
Scripture narrating
the
apostles,
and
others),
as
are
parenetic:
that the in
power
were normative for his
that the essential and nor-
limited.
the life
experiences
of role models
(Jesus,
well as the clear commands to
replicate them,
Jesus and its
expressions
and their
disciples,
ad cateneum:
of the
Kingdom
and
Spirit
of God is charismatic power.
In a book this
size, exegetical
minutiae were
necessarily The
many questions
the writers were asked to address in the book’s for- mat-it was unfortunate to allow the discussion of “second
blessing” theology
to intrude on the cessationism debate-detracted from a good deal more
illuminating exegetical
work that could have been done. For
the standard
passages,
1 Cor
1:4-8; 13:8-12; Eph
4 :7- 11, Eph 2:20;
Heb 2:4 were
examined, they
could have received a great deal more meticulous attention. Other
passages, connecting
with the end of this
present age,
were left
undeveloped
the continuationist
position: Eph 1:13-13, 17-21; 3:14-21; 4:30; 5:15-19; 6:10-20;
Phil
1:9-10; Col 1:9-12;
1 Th 1:5-8; 5:11-23;
2 Th
1:11-12;
1 Pt
1:5; 4:7-12;
1 Jn
2:26-28;
and Jude 19-21. The universal
principle
about charismata not
being withdrawn,
gifts considerable
potential
for
spiritual for their
2
157
to which Paul
appeals
for a specific
case,
the salvation of the
Jews,
was also
ignored (Rom 11:29).
Nevertheless,
Miraculous
Gifts represents
a major breakthrough in the debate on cessationism:
nothing quite
like it in terms of
depth
and sophistication
has ever
previously appeared
in one volume. Oss and Storms
implicitly
framed the debate as one between biblical
theology and traditional
dogmatics.
It demonstrates
just
how far the balance has swung
from cessationism in the last two decades.
Despite this,
the
participants remain,
to
varying degrees,
theo- logically
enthralled with the
confining, historically-conditioned
terms of the cessationist debate as framed
by
the Reformers. Future discus- sion on cessationism cannot advance
fully
until the interlocutors break this
spell
and
develop
a radically biblical
understanding
of the follow- ing concepts underlying
cessationism:
1) sign/miracle/attestation, 2) apostle, 3) “foundation,”
and
ultimately, 4)
the essential
expression
of the Christian
gospel beyond
“word” to “word and deed”
(as
in Lk 24:19;
Rom
15:18).
1) Philosophy
has advanced the discussion on “miracle” far beyond
that found in this
present work,
as has biblical
theology
with the con- cept
of
“sign.” Many today
would
argue
that the unfortunate
English translation
“sign”
trivializes the
profound
NT
concept
with a Thomistic, evidentialist,
extrinsicist flavor. That
is,
a
“sign”
has no value
except
that it points to
something
which has
(66, 105). By
con- trast,
the NT
“sign”
is much more
organic
and
integrated
with the gospel:
if a heartbeat
may
be used as a “sign” that a person is alive, it cannot mean that the heart
must, perforce, stop beating
when the stethoscope
is removed
(cessationism), although
Acts seems to be using
the
phenomena
of
Spirit baptism
as a normative indicators for inclusion into the church. In the NT the
mighty
works do not attest the gospel
so much as they
express
the
gospel.
Just as preaching is a “wit- ness” to God’s
message, quite similarly,
miracles are a
parallel
“wit- ness”
(Heb 2:1-4).
2)
The Reformers’ anti-Romanist
polemics
left us with the idea that a NT
apostle
is
essentially
a l6th
century pope-replete
with ulti- mate
religious authority,
but
safely
stuck in the first
century.
Can we rid ourselves of the anti-biblical
spectre
of
apostolic
succession
long enough
to examine how a
gift
of
apostleship might operate
in the NT and
today?
Is the narrative on the criteria for
apostleship (Acts
1 :22- 26) prescriptive
or
descriptive?
If Evangelicals see this
passage
as pre- scriptive
for the nature of
apostleship
in this one
case, by
what hermeneutical criterion do
they disqualify
the four cases of the
Spirit’s coming
as also
prescriptive? (See Ruthven,
On the Cessation
of
the Charismata,
Appendix:
“Does the
Spiritual
Gift of
Apostle
also Continue?”)
‘
‘
3
158
imply
Jesus be
generations after “replicative”
hermeneutic tionism debate?
3)
Does the
‘!foundation
of the
apostles
and
prophets”
in Eph 2:20
a
unique chronological stage
in church
history,
as cessationists would have
it, or a pattern
to be replicated? If historical, how then can
the
“capstone”
or “keystone” appearing for the first time
many
the “foundation”? How is this “historical” vs.
applied
to many other
passages
in the cessa-
between early
Christians
other
words,
was Jesus’ charismatic
disparity
ministry
atonement,
or was it a norma-
worked
through
4)
Related to
my
third observation is the considerable
the charismatic
emphases
within the ministries of Jesus and
versus that of Reformation
theology explainable only by the concept
of “miracle-as-proof,”
or, do we have,
as some critics of Protestantism
suggest,
a religion about Jesus rather
than from
Jesus? In
an evidential device to legitimize
his
deity
and
substitutionary
tive
pattern
for all generations of
disciples?
It
may
well
be,
when these issues are
sufficiently
and if
present
trends
continue,
that the doctrine of cessationism will
in the Museum of
Theological
the
Gap Theory,
the
bodily
ascension of Mary and the doctrine that Mussolini is the Antichrist.
one
day
assume its
rightful place Curiosities-joining
Aspettando
Massimo
Introvigne,
mo. Intrevista a Matteo Calisi
Presentazione di Mons.
Giuseppe Edizione
Messaggero,
1996).
125
pps.
Reviewed
by David Bundy
during
tradition.
Therefore,
nowhere has
la Pentecoste. Il
quarto
ecumenis-
e Giovanni
Traettino,
con
Casale e Paolo Ricca
(Padua:
(and
Jehovah’s
Witnesses)
The
history
of the Pentecostal Movement in
Italy
has been a diffi- cult one. The
persecution
of Pentecostals
the Fascist
period
is one of the
tragic
stories of that troubled era and a formative
experience
for an
important
branch of the Pentecostal
the
development
of the Charismatic movement had more ramifications for Pentecostals than in
Italy.
The strong
Italian Catholic Charismatic
movement,
which combines devo- tion to the Catholic faith and the church with a Pentecostal
theology and
spirituality,
has
changed
the
political dynamics
and social
experi- ence of Pentecostals in
Italy.
This volume edited
by
Massimo
It is dedicated to David du Plessis and Leon
Joseph
Cardinal
of
dialogue.”
Central to the book are interviews with Matteo Calisi and Giovanni Traettino. Calisi is Co-President of the Consultazione Carismatica Italiana. He is involved at a national
change.
Suenens, “pioneers
Introvigne
is evidence of the
4
159
level in
dialogue
with other Christian traditions. Traettino is a gradu- ate of the
University
of Naples where he wrote a dissertation on Italian Pentecostalism. He is the founder of the Istituto Italiana de Studi Storici e Teologici «Gian Francesco Alois». He is Co-President of the Consultazione Carismatica Italiana. The editor, Massimo
Introvigne,
is a
sociologist
who teaches at the Pontificio Ateneo
«Regina Apostolorum»
and serves as Director of the Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni.
He is well known for his research on
global religious
life with a focus on
religious
life in
Europe.
His
phenomenological approach
to the
subjects
of
inquiry
has
provided
a method for
arriving at understanding based on the internal
logic
of the traditions studied.
The
unusually significant
forewords to the book are contributed
by Monsignor Guiseppe Casale, Archbishop
of
Foggia-Bovino,
and Professor Paolo
Ricca,
Dean of the Waldensian
Faculty
of Theology at Rome. The first establishes an irenic tone for the
volume;
the second discusses the earlier historical contexts in which
Pietist/mystical spiri- tuality
has contributed to the life of the
church, demonstrating
that the present
renewal is not without its
precedents.
The book builds on the earlier
publication
edited
by Introvigne,
La
Sfida
Pentecostale [Presentazione
de Mons.
Giuseppe
Casale
(Centro
Studi sulle Nuove Religioni;
Collana
Religione
e Religioni,
106;
Torino: Editrice Elle di Ci, 1996)].
The introduction
by Introvigne (15-32)
is an excellent
summary
of the
history
and varieties of Pentecostalism within the context of the Reformation tradition and American
religion.
It traces the
ways
in which these “waves” of Pentecostalism and reform have led to the encounter between Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal. Introvigne clearly
understands the
complexities
of the tradition and the theological
commitments which
distinguish
it from the other varieties of American
religious
life.
The interview with Calisi and Traettino
(33-93)
summarizes the entire
history
of interaction between Pentecostals and
Catholics,
the rise of the Charismatic
Renewal,
the Catholic-Pentecostal
Dialogue and
finally explores possibilities
for the future of the
dialogue.
The focus is on Italy and the Consultazione Carismatica Italiana. The inter- view is divided into two sections. The first
begins
with the
personal testimonies of the two scholars as they reflect on the
personal pilgrim- ages
which were formative of their
religious
and ecumenical commit- ments.
They
then move to recall the work since 1980 which has fos- tered the
ongoing
work of the consultation. It is acknowledged that the work has been
complicated,
and sometimes
enriched, by
the fact that Italian Pentecostalism is itself divided into various
theological
and ecclesiological perspectives.
The
position
of the Italian Assemblies of God has been both
complicated by the anti-Catholic pressure
of certain
z
5
160
segments
of the American Assemblies of God, but
inspired by
the work of SPS
stalwarts,
Cecil M. Robeck and Del Tarr.
There is no fear to confront the difficult historical issues between Pentecostals and Charismatics in
Italy.
The infamous Buffarini-Guidi Circular,
which summarized the rules of
agreement
between the Mussolini
government
and the Catholic Church to eradicate dissident religious groups
within
Italy,
is discussed. Traettino
argues
that this terrible
history
should neither be allowed to dominate nor limit the future of relationships between the Catholic and Pentecostal traditions.
The second section of the interview is devoted to a discussion of the issues which still divide. Both Calisi and Traettino note that there is significant agreement
on
many theological
and social issues.
Among the
points
on which there is a difference of
opinion,
the interviewees mention the
relationship
between
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
and con- version as well as the definition and sacramental function of the
expe- rience. In this section the discussion turned to the
evolving
status of talks in the United States between Catholics and
Evangelicals.
While both sides see
significant hope
and confirmation of their
experience
in this
development,
and while an Italian translation of the
“Evangelicals and Catholics
Together”
document is included
(95-116),
no one seems to have noticed
that,
while Catholic Charismatics were invited to the table,
not a single one of the
signatories
is from the Pentecostal move- ment. This
suggests
that there are serious ecumenical
problems
within the American
“Evangelical”
traditions that
people
have not had the courage
to address
openly
and
frankly.
The final
section,
“The Future of the
Dialogue” (87-93),
allows both
participants
to affirm the need for the
dialogue
to continue. Traettino
eloquently argues
that the Pentecostal movement has histori- cally
affirmed that its goal is the renewal of all of the Christian church- es and that
through
that renewal an ecumenism of faith is possible.
This
passionate
book is
part
of a laudable
project,
that of under- standing
the
challenge
of the Pentecostal churches to the historic churches and of the older churches to the Pentecostals. The
dialogues presented
in this volume demonstrate that each tradition has its own contributions to make to this
process
of mutual
understanding
and mutual
recognition.
It is a wonderful case
study
of what can
happen when
people
of faith and
good
will endeavor to know the “other.” Real progress
can be made in fostering
knowledge
and
understanding.
This , volume
will become one of the standard texts for
tracing
and
analyzing the
development
of Catholic-Pentecostal relations and
dialogue.
It is all the more
important
since it is undertaken at the
very
door of the Vatican. It is to be hoped that the
example
of this
dialogue
can encour- age
others in the
project.
6
161
Alf
Lindberg,
Människans
väg.
En bok om människans
väg frÅn
det jordiska paradiset
till det himmelska
(TranÅs: Eget [Lindberg’s] Förlag, 1996).
299
pps.
Reviewed
by David Bundy
Dr. Alf Lindberg is a well known Swedish Pentecostal historian and theologian
due to his extensive
writings
which include several
major books:
(1 )
Trons
budskap (Orebro: Evangeliipress, 1977)[with
a sup- plement,
Trons
Bodskap Studieplan
Mariannelund: Firma EvangeliSkrift, n.d.)], (2)
Fran Urkristendom till Katolsk
kyrka (Pingstkolomas Skriftserie;
Stockholm:
n.p., 1980); (3) Reformation och Vdckelse
(Pingstkolornas Skriftserie;
Ekerb:
Kaggekolms Folkhogskola, 1982)
and
especially, (4) Förkunnarna
och deras utbild- ning. Utbildningsfrigan
inom
Pingströrelsen,
Lewi Pethrus ideolo- giska
roll och de
kvinnliga förkunnarnas
situation
(Bibliotheca Historico-Ecclesiastica
Lundensis, 27;
Lund: Lund
University Press, 1991).
These earlier volumes are all
major
contributions to the devel- opment
of Pentecostal
history
and
theology.
This volume is no
excep- tion. Entitled “The Human
Journey:
A Book about the Human
Journey from the
Earthly
Paradise to Heavenly
One,”
it is an
important
effort to articulate a Swedish Pentecostal
approach
to theology.
In many
ways
Mdnniskans
väg
is a return to his earlier
book,
Trons budskap,
in both the
subject
matter
(systematic theology)
and commu- nity study (a study guide
is incorporated in the volume
through
discus- sion
questions posed
at the end of each
chapter). Despite
the similari- ties of
subject
and
mission,
there is a world of difference between the two volumes
reflecting
two decades of serious
scholarly
work. The material is presented in ten
chapters: (1)
the
Bible, (2)
the creation of angels, (3)
the creation of the
universe, (4)
the creation of humans,
(5) the
development
of the
species, (6)
the
meaning
of
time, (7)
death and the
afterlife, (8)
eternal
punishment, (9)
humans and
judgment,
and (10)
the new creation. It is evident from the
range
of
subjects
that Lindberg
is not afraid to tackle the controversial
subjects
of creation and
eschatology.
The
approach
taken to the issues
might
be called a canonical critical
approach exhibiting
an extensive awareness of the discussions in the relevant scientific and
theological
literature.
Thus, Lindberg’s analysis
of the nature of the biblical text attrib- utes divine
authority
to the received
text,
but does so without
resorting to
anything approaching
North American fundamentalist
casuistry. The text is understood to constitute communication from God
(13),
but came
through
the
agency
of humans. The classical criteria of
apos- tolicity, recognition/use
in the
community
and
clarity
of
teaching
are
‘
7
162
developed (21-25).
The texts of the canon are used as a seamless text in the discussion of the
theological
issues that follow the
analysis
of biblical text and
authority.
The
chapters
on the creation owe
considerable, although
not men- tioned,
debts to the
developmental spirituality
and
philosophy
of Plato, Philo
Dionysius
the
Areopagite (angels
and
hierarchy)
and Joachim of Fiore
(angels)
as well as Aristotle and
Augustine
who are discussed. There is an analysis of the
arguments
about
evolution, Darwin,
and the “big-bang” theory.
In these
chapters
it becomes clear that the
primary goal
of the volume is to
provide
a structure within which Pentecostal spirituality
can be understood. Humans created in the
image
of
God, placed
in the midst of the
creation,
are to move back toward God. In this
process
he allows that the traditional
understandings
of creation do not detract from
adequately understanding
the “human
journey.”
The
eschatological
focus is on the nature of the life
beyond
the
pre- sent life that can be
expected by
the individual whose
responsibility
it is in life to lead a life
congruent
with the will of God. The
goal
is to be part
of the “the new creation” both here and in the hereafter. What a person
is and how a person lives makes a difference to one’s
spiritual- ity
both in the
present
life and
eternally.
This
argument
is buttressed
by an appeal to the biblical
texts,
with attention to the translation
process.
This volume is an
important
contribution to the
discipline
of
sys- tematic
theology
within Pentecostal circles. If there is any
regret
about the
volume,
it is that there is not more interaction with the rich Swedish and
Norwegian
Pentecostal traditions of biblical
scholarship, especial- ly in
the
scholarly periodical
literature.
However,
it was not
Lindberg’s intent to write a history of Swedish Pentecostal biblical
interpretation. The
suggestion
of the
importance
of that tradition of reflection is not said to detract from the
quality
of
Lindberg’s
work but to
suggest another
project!
As it
is, Lindberg
has
already placed
us in his debt! For a Swedish Pentecostal
analysis
of the
volume,
see the review of Olof
Djurfeldt,
“Finns de
eviga
straff eller “bara”
tidsaldrig
tukan?” Dagen (Onsdag
11 Juni
1977),
12-13.
8
163
Max
Turner, Power from
on
High:
The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts
(Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
511
pp. $57.50,
cloth.
Reviewed
by James B. Shelton
In this
lengthy presentation
of the
pneumatology
of
Luke-Acts, Max Turner sheds much
light
on the interrelated issues of salvation and the
Holy Spirit
and demonstrates that the work of the
Holy Spirit
for Luke is more
pervasive
than
traditionally
assumed
by
either the Pentecostal or non-Pentecostal. He
begins
his work
by identifying
the “diverging explanations
of the essential character of the
gift
of the Spirit”
in Luke-Acts. Included
among
these is a review of J. D. G. Dunn who sees the
experiences
of salvation and the
reception
of the Holy Spirit
as
occurring
either
during
or after Pentecost. Turner cor- rectly
criticizes such a sharp distinction between the so-called
epochs. He also faults views that fail to account for the dominant Lukan theme of
Holy Spirit
and
empowerment.
Turner also is critical of those who
emphasize
the
reception
of the Holy Spirit
at the sacrament of confirmation
(N. Adler)
since he main- tains that in Acts there is not an adequate distinction between Christian initiation and later confirmational
reception
of the
Holy Spirit.
It is here that the classical Pentecostal and sacramentalist have a common cause in the
“two-step” experience
of believers in Acts: conversion and sub- sequent reception
of the
Holy Spirit.
In spite of his
attempts
Turner has not made a convincing case that the
experiences
cannot be
sequential. Nevertheless,
he does
ably
show the
deficiency
of the classical Pentecostal insistence that
reception
of the
Spirit
must
always
be sub- sequent
to
conversion,
and he demonstrates sufficient doubt that tongues
must
always
be the initial indicator of
Spirit-reception.
The author also shows that the
argument
that the work of the
Holy Spirit
in Luke-Acts is exclusively empowerment for mission with little or no link to
soteriology
suffers from overstatement
(contra
E. Schweizer,
R.
Stronstad,
and R. P.
Menzies).
He notes that there is another
approach
which more
closely
links the
“Spirit
of prophecy and Soteriological Spirit” (J. Kremer,
G. W. H.
Lampe,
J. B.
Shelton,
H. S. Kim,
and Dunn as of
1994). Finally
he presents the “Pentecostal
gift
as a broadened form of the
Spirit
of
Prophecy:
the ‘charismatic
Spirit”‘ (G. Haya-Prats).
The rest of Turner’s work consists of
demonstrating the
strengths
and weaknesses of these
positions
as he
systematically analyzes
the evidence in Luke-Acts.
In Part II Turner
analyzes
the roles of the
Holy Spirit, prophecy,
and “prototypical” gifts
in Judaism. Here he
convincingly
demonstrates
‘-
9
164
that the
Holy Spirit
was associated not
only
with
prophetic
utterances
but also with miraculous
power
and salvation. In
doing so,
he shows –
that Robert Menzies has too
narrowly
defined the
Spirit
of prophecy as
consisting
of the first tenet. This
“Spirit
of prophecy” is a term of con-
venience which Luke does not use. It occurs
only
once in the New
Testament in Revelation 19:10 to refer to “the
testimony
of Jesus.”
Part III covers the
Holy Spirit
in the
infancy
narrative and in the life
of Jesus. In
speaking
of the
infancy narrative,
Turner states that there
are “two
completely separate epochs,
and hence Luke must remove
any
hint
(e.g.,
Luke
10:9-20)
that the
disciples
have
already participated
in
the
Spirit
before Pentecost”
(33).
This
assertion,
which contradicts his
criticism of clear-cut
epochs,
is
unconvincing
since
Mary, Elizabeth,
the
prenatal John, Zechariah, Simeon,
and Anna all
appear
to function
in the
Holy Spirit very
much like the
disciples
after Pentecost. Turner’s
argument
that before Pentecost
they
function in the
spirit
of prophecy
as opposed to manifesting the
gift
of the
Holy Spirit appears
weak since
he
argues
for a
spirit
of
prophecy
that includes
prophetic utterance,
miracles,
ethical
renewal,
and salvation. It is not clear how the
experi-
ence of the
disciples
after Pentecost was
significantly
different from
that of the witnesses and followers of the infant Jesus. The
experience
of the latter is typical, not
prototypical.
It is also
unconvincing
to assert
that in Luke 10 the
disciples
of Jesus ministered devoid of the
Holy
Spirit
but
only through
the merit of Jesus’
presence.
In spite of his on-
again, off-again
attitude toward
epochs
in
Luke-Acts,
Turner
presents
the idea of three
epochs: (1)
the
Spirit
of prophecy,
(2)
“an
interregnum
of the
Spirit
between Jesus’ ascension and Pentecost … in which the
Spirit
is no
longer present
on
earth,”
and
(3)
a salvation
epoch
of the
Spirit (33, 179).
He
argues
that the
Holy Spirit’s
absence in the second
epoch
was the reason the
disciples
resorted to lots to choose Judas’ suc-
cessor.
First, why
could not the
Spirit speak through
lots?
Second,
given
Turner’s
all-encompassing
definition of the
Spirit
of prophecy, it
is
unlikely
that Luke would see the
Holy Spirit
at
any
time as a deus
absconditus.
It is because the work of the
Holy Spirit
before and after Pentecost
is
essentially
the same that Luke uses identical
terminology
for the
Spirit
before and after. Turner admits to the
difficulty
of
maintaining
a
separation
between the
ministry
of John the
Baptist
and that of
Jesus,
but when he
says
that “John’s
teaching
is not
portrayed
as oracular
speech
but as charismatic
expository
discourse” he is creating too fine
a line of distinction.
Clearly if Luke
has
epochs
in mind, he has blurred
them in
regard
to the
Holy Spirit’s activity.
Turner
says
the
Spirit’s
activity
in Luke 1-2 and his
activity
in Acts are alike
yet different,
but
the differences are not at all clear
(165).
,
10
165
Turner’s
critique
of the uses of “filled with the
Holy Spirit”
and “full of the Holy
Spirit”
addresses
my
work
(Mighty
in Word and Deed: The Role
of
the
Spirit
in Luke-Acts
[Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991 ]).
He is correct that “full” refers to a special, gifted, godly
character of an individual
(e.g.,
Luke
14:1,
Acts
6:3)
as I too have noted
(Mighty, 137-138).
He does note that “filled” indicates a special activity
of the
Holy Spirit through
someone for a special occa- sion.
However,
both
phrases
are used
repeatedly
in contexts which are dominated
by inspired speech,
and
they
are there
by
Lukan redaction- al intent. Their use in “common contexts” before and after Pentecost demonstrates that Luke does not
clearly
see how the
epochs
are differ- ent,
if any distinctions are in his mind at all.
Turner asserts that “Jesus’
experience
at the Jordan was a
unique messianic
anointing
without
clearly
intended
parallel
in the
disciples’ experience” (188),
a point he admits he
perhaps
has
overpressed.
But then
why
does Luke use identical
language
to
express
Jesus’ and the disciples’ experience
with the
Holy Spirit? Clearly they
were not that alien.
Perhaps
in overstatement Turner has
provided
a healthy reminder that Jesus’
empowerment
at the Jordan was
part
of his role as the mes- sianic David and the
eschatological
Moses and therefore is greater than the
experience
of his witnesses and
disciples.
The
presentation
of Jesus as both Davidic and Nfosaic is particular- ly
instructive and
helps
one to see Jesus’ messianic
anointing
in a wider soteriological
role. Luke sees Jesus’ role of Moses
through
the lens of the
prophet
Isaiah. Turner believes that Luke has
merged
the Davidic and Mosaic
christologies.
The exodus motif is helpful in understanding Luke’s
concept
of salvation,
especially
in light of the travel narrative of 9:51-19:27. Turner
argues
that Jesus’ role as
Elijah
has been absorbed into the Mosaic messianic office since he sees such tendencies in Judaism. In doing
so, he minimizes
Luke’s distinct connection between Jesus and
Elijah.
He has not
adequately
dealt with the allusions to Elijah
and Elisha
especially
in Luke 4:24-27 and 7:11-16 as well as in the ascension
parallels. Apparently,
Jesus did not see the role of
Elijah absorbed into that of Moses.
Turner identifies Pentecost as “Jesus’ enthronement as Israel’s Messiah and the
Spirit
as his executive Power in Israel’s restoration” (ch. 10).
He sees Moses’ ascent to God to receive the law as the model of Jesus’ ascension and the
subsequent
release of
Holy Spirit power (Acts 2:33). Perhaps
this is so, but
Elijah’s
ascent and the descent of the Spirit
on Elisha seems a more
emphatic
model in Luke’s mind
(Luke 4:24-27, 24:49; Acts 1:8, 2:33). He also sees the ascension as exaltation “to the eternal throne of David.” In some sense the ascension is Davidic,
but the Davidic restoration had
already
been
significantly
11
166
.
established at Jesus’
baptism.
The descent of the
Spirit upon
Jesus at the Jordan
(parallel
with 1 Sam.
16:13)
and the
heavenly
Voice announcing
his
Sonship (Luke 3:21-22)
show that Luke saw Jesus act- ing
as Davidic
King long
before Pentecost.
Again,
Luke has not observed such
nicely fitting epochs
in regard to
soteriology
and
pneu- matology (see
also Luke
16:16).
Yet the eleven
disciples replaced
the twelfth
disciple
in anticipation of some
future, greater
fulfillment of the restoration of Israel
(Acts 1:16-26).
Apparently
Turner believes that the restoration of Israel is incre- mental
(307-308)
and that there are more fulfillments in the Samaritan campaign,
the conversion of
Cornelius,
and the Jerusalem Council.
This sounds like what we have
argued
earlier: the new era extends from the advent of Jesus and the
Spirit
in the
infancy
narrative to the con- clusion of Acts
announcing
the transition of the
kingdom
to the Gentiles. It is not so much
punctiliar
as it is successive. The ascension is not a completely
eschatological
realization of the
Spirit
or Kingdom.
In Part IV the
relationship
of the
disciples
with the
Holy Spirit before and after the ascension is discussed. Here Turner
argues
that “Luke
regards
the
disciples
as themselves
experiencing
the
“kingdom of
God’,
‘salvation’ and the
Spirit
within the
ministry
of Jesus to a far greater degree
than Dunn” allows. He affirms that “the
promise
of the Spirit
to the
disciples”
is “very much
empowering” (318).
But he also disagrees
with
Stronstad, Mainville,
and Menzies that
empowering
is the sole issue nor does he
agree
that this
empowering
is for all. Rather the Pentecost event is the “chief means of the
disciples’ on-going
and deepening experience
of
‘salvation’,
when Jesus
departed” (318).
He grants
that
people
like Zacchaeus do not receive a defective salvation
before Pentecost
(324;
contra
Dunn, 329).
But he asserts that “the dis- ciples
did not receive what Luke calls ‘the
gift
of the
Spirit’
until Pentecost”; rather, they experienced
“the life of the
Kingdom” (333). Given the
strong
link between
Kingdom
and
Spirit
in Luke this dis- tinction seems artificial.
Furthermore,
it is curious that Turner
rightly insists that the so-called
Spirit
of
prophecy
includes salvific
aspects (contra Menzies), yet
he wishes to avoid associations of the
Holy Spirit with the
gift
of salvation before Pentecost.
Perhaps
Turner is more like Dunn after all. His
frequent
and curious use of ‘salvation’ in
single quotes
makes one ask if he means that it is somewhat
incomplete
or defective? He
attempts
to divorce the
disciples
in the
Gospel
of Luke from a direct
experience
with the
Spirit by advocating
a so-called asso- ciation of the
disciples
with the
Spirit
via the
presence
of Jesus, but this is not
impressive.
His distinction between
“experiencing
the
Spirit
as the
gift
of
‘Spirit
of
prophecy’”
and “God’s
liberating power
at work through
the
disciples”
seems strained. It would
appear
that the differ-
12
167
ence between
experiencing
the
Spirit
before Pentecost
(which
the infancy
narrative witnesses
did)
is a qualitative
one,
not a quantitative one. It is the same
Spirit
of old
poured
out on all
flesh,
not a new and improved Spirit experience
at Pentecost
(Luke 3:6,
Acts
2:18).
Regarding
the
reception
of the
Spirit
in Acts, Turner
rightly
chal- lenges
the idea that the
Spirit
must be received
subsequent
to salvation; Acts 2:38
clearly
links the two. But as another reviewer has
noted,
his explanation
of the
delay
of the
Spirit
in Samaria is not water
tight (George
T. Montague, Catholic Biblical
Quarterly
60
[January 1998], 177-178).
The state of the
Ephesian Baptist disciples
and Cornelius as believers before the advent of the
Spirit
also
argues
for a
subsequent visitation of
empowerment,
not a
delayed
salvation
experience.
He admits that the Samaritans were not “sort of saved” before Peter arrived. He calls the hiatus between the
baptism
of the Samaritans and their
Spirit-reception
an
anomaly,
but the
anomaly
lies not in the mind of Luke but in the minds of modem
readers, asking questions
that Luke does not entertain.
Apparently
issues other than “When does the new
age begin?”
or “How can witnesses function in the
Spirit
before the
Spirit
is
given?” preoccupy
Luke’s attention. If it were foremost in Luke’s mind to iden- tify Spirit-reception
with initial
reception
into the
body
of
believers,
it is rnost
unlikely
that he would have been
responsible
for the
confusing “anomalies” of a delayed Samaritan Pentecost
(Acts 8) or
the
spiritual identity
of Cornelius
(Acts 10)
and the
disciples
at
Ephesus (Acts 19) as well as mention so many pneumatological
experiences
and salvation encounters before Pentecost. If these
questions
were foremost in Luke’s mind he certainly muddied his answer.
We must be content to be silent where Luke is silent and
only
in the most tentative terms
suggest implied meaning
for Luke in regard to the pneumatological-soteriological interchange.
It may well be that Luke’s redactional
overlay
of
emphasis
on the
Holy Spirit’s empowering
of believers has made it
impossible
to retrieve
clearly
his
understanding of the
interchange. Perhaps
we would do better to direct that
question to Paul.
Our author does well to remind us that the
Holy Spirit
manifests himself in more
ways
than
tongues
and witness to unbelievers which again
resembles the
variegated presentation
of the
Spirit’s activity
of St. Paul.
Joy, discernment,
miracle
power,
and boldness are also the domain of the Lukan
Spirit.
Turner
argues
that it is
“probably
a mis- take” to
say
the
promise
of
power
for witness in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8 are for each individual believer
(399).
Yet in 411-412 he
says joy
is for
all,
so why not witness?
13
168
Turner assumes that witness and mission are directed
only
to non- believers. “Filled with the
Spirit”
is
inspired speech
and
may
well wit- ness to the believers as well as nonbelievers. A perusal of Luke’s use of the
martyreoldiamartyreo
word
family
demonstrates this. Thus his cri- tique
that witness is too narrow a role for “filled with/full of the
Holy Spirit”
is vitiated.
Inspired
utterance is its dominant
although
not exclu- sive
meaning
in Luke-Acts.
One could read Power
from
on
High
and
get
the idea that Turner and some other students of Lukan
pneumatology, including myself,
are sitting
in the same boat
arguing
that
they
are not.
Regardless
of whether our individual nuances are considered real or contrived the reader must not miss Turner’s conclusions and
applications
which
consistently
hit the nail on the head. The church can
only ignore
Turner’s final
insights at her own
peril. First,
the dominant role of the
Holy Spirit
is
inspired utterance in Luke-Acts.
Second,
Jesus had a unique experience with the Holy Spirit
as Messiah.
(Yet,
Turner is too cautious about Jesus as our paradigm
for a
Spirit-filled
life. It is worth the
risk.) Third,
the
Holy Spirit
in Luke is not
just
a mere
empowerment
for mission.
Fourth, Lukan
pneumatology
is a challenge to non-pentecostal, noncharismat- ic sectors of the church. He
warns,
“The
Spirit
is the God who cannot be
gagged.”
Well
put!
The church must make room for divine inter-
vention.
Tellingly
he
muses,
“It is an
interesting
and
sobering question whether Simon
Magus
would be
tempted
in the same
way by
what he saw
(or
did not
see)
in
many
of our churches
today.”
He calls for allowance for the
Spirit’s
transcendence in
worship
and
thanksgiving, invasive charismatic
praise,
and
glossolalia (441).
The church must be “shaped by
the drive for encounter with God”
(442).
Fifth,
Turner calls for a “democratization of the
Spirit” allowing
for a
“prophethood
of all believers” and a
recovery
of the more thau- maturgic gifts
of
tongues, prophecy,
and
healing (443). Sixth,
he calls for Pentecostals to avoid
simplistic
formulae of “be
saved,
then receive the
Spirit.”
The work of the
Holy Spirit
in our holiness is invasive from the
beginning.
Salvation must be holistic
(445).
Nor can we reserve tongues
as the
primary
evidence of the
Spirit’s activity (446).
“The rel- evant test is not ‘initial evidence’ but
ongoing
evidence.” He calls for acceptance
of a new broader
paradigm
for
pneumatology
which calls for the
Spirit
of
prophecy
“realized in
greater
than normal measure” (453).
Fullness of the
Spirit “poses
a challenge to all believers”
(454). In these
respects
we are in the same
boat;
the rest
is,
at
best,
minutiae. It is time to
stop arguing
in the boat and
pray
for the
Spirit
to fill our sails. Turner is right: the needs of the
twenty-first century
will be met only by
the
power
of the
Holy Spirit
and not
by
the
pretension
of
par- tisan
theology.
Veni Sancte
Spiritus.
‘
14
Leave a Reply