The Pauline Necessity of the Spirit in Sanctification and Christian Ethics

The following quote is from Scot McKnight’s commentary on Galatians in The NIV Application Commentary series:

McKnight (1995:272):

I know of no Christian parents or youth leaders, or for that matter any pastors who seriously believe what Paul teaches in verses 16-26 (of Galatians 5), that the sole foundation of Christian ethics is dependency on the Spirit and a life of freedom in the Spirit….I have met only one person who ever expressed this view of Paul in a definitive and, to him, practical way. That person was F.F. Bruce…

I would add Gordon Fee to that list in my own experience as I also shared this same conviction in my study of the reality of Spirit-fullness in the New Covenant. McKnight continues:

To be sure, Paul knew that when a person was controlled by the Spirit, that person was holy. He also knew that a person who lived in the Spirit lived in a loving way. Thus, he knew that the Old Testament moral guidelines and the teachings of Jesus on holiness, righteousness, and compassion would be confirmed by anyone who lived in the Spirit (1995:273).

Needless to say that we can be accused, just like the early Galatians, of wanting to derive our ethic from the law or traditions of men. I am not opposed to the “3^rd use of the Law” in relation to our sanctification, but if such is taught in a way that doesn’t necessitate the presence of the Spirit, then we may very well be acting like the early Judaizers.

It is sometimes said that the Holy Spirit is the neglected members of the Godhead. Study of Scripture, however, will make clear that the Spirit is the one who regenerates our hearts, accompanies the inward call, adopts us into our relational standing as children of God, seals the believer as an objective member of the New Covenant, empowers and guides our sanctification, as well as gifting the Church for ministry. I’m sure that there are pastors out there emphasizing this dynamic, however I resonate with McKnight when he claims F.F. Bruce as the first scholar which emphasized these points in Pauline Pneumatology. For me, it was the pages of Gordon Fee’s, “God’s Empowering Presence”, that had confirmed all that I had believed from my own study of Paul’s theology of the Spirit.

Charismata III from St. Vincent Ferrer

St. Vincent Ferrer
Famous Dominican missionary, born at Valencia, 23 January, 1350; died at Vannes, Brittany, 5 April, 1419.

“…It would be difficult to understand how he could make himself understood by the many nationalities he evangelized, as he could speak only Limousin, the language of Valencia. Many of his biographers hold that he was endowed with the gift of tongues, an opinion supported by Nicholas Clemangis, a doctor of the University of Paris, who had heard him preach.”

Before the end of the year 1392, St. Vincent being forty-two years old, set out from Avignon towards Valencia. He preached in every town with wonderful efficacy; and the people having heard him in one place followed him in crowds to others. Public usurers, blasphemers, debauched women, and other hardened sinners everywhere were induced by his discourses to embrace a life of penance. He converted a great number of Jews and Mohammedans, heretics and schismatics. He visited every province of Spain in this manner, except Provence and Dauphine. He went thence into Italy, preaching on the coasts of Genoa, in Lombardy, Piedmont, and Savoy, as he did in part of Germany, about the Upper Rhine and through Flanders. Numerous wars and the unhappy great schism in the Church had been productive of a multitude of disorders in Christendom; gross ignorance and a shocking corruption of manners prevailed in many places, whereby the teaching of this zealous apostle, who, like another Boanerges, preached in a voice of thunder, became not only useful but even absolutely necessary, to assist the weak and alarm the sinner. The ordinary subjects of his sermons were sin, death, God’s judgments, hell, and eternity. He delivered his discourses with so much energy that he filled the most insensible with terror. A great number of his sermons have come down to us, some in Latin and many in the vernacular. By them one seizes the man and the saint to the life. They are masterpieces of naturalness, intelligence, picturesqueness and, at moments, poetry. In their kind there is nothing better. And they all develop one same theme.

Charismata II

From this general period on, records indicate that the most likely center of activity of tongues-speech is the monastic movement. Antony, founder of anchor-itic monasticism in Egypt, was involved with healings, extraordinary perceptions and exorcisms. Pachomius, who in the meantime established coenobitic monasticism in the southern provinces of Egypt, was reported to have prophesied and to have exercised xenolalia. Jerome relates the account of a monk, Hilarion, using xenolalia in a battle with a demon-possessed man.’

In Palladius’ Lausiac History 17 the story is told of Macarius of Egypt who received “the gift of fighting spirits and of prophecy.” Also the church historian Sozomen (EH 3:14) writes that Macarius was endowed with divine knowledge, wrought extraordinary works and miraculous cures, and restored a dead man to life. The work entitled Fifty Homilies of Macarius of Egypt was most probably not authored by Macarius but by someone unknown to us. Speaking of his own day the writer (Homily 36:1) specifies tongues as one of the gifts of the Spirit and tells (Homily 29:1) about some who possessed gifts of the Spirit but failed because they fell short of love. Isidore supported (Ep. 2:246; PCC 78:685) the exercise of spiritual gifts in the Christian community. Palladius’ Lausiac History 1:1–5 relates ecstatic experiences of Isidore and adds numerous accounts of the presence of the charismata among the monks up to his own day. Palladius tells about the problem with demons (18:6), about the gift of healing (12:1), the gift of knowledge (38:10), the gift of prophecy (17:2), and of visions (32:1).

Harold Hunter JETS 23:2

Charismata

Writing in the Journal of Evangelical Theology 23:2 Harold Hunter says:

The Cappadocian fathers, all of whom had been monks, uniformly spoke of the contemporary exercise of charismata and perhaps also tongues-speech. In his Shorter Rules 278, answering the question of how a man’s spirit prays while his understanding remains without fruit, Basil states that “this was said concerning those that utter their prayers in a tongue unknown to the hearers.” Gregory Nazianzen talked (Oration 32; PCC 36:185; Oration on Pentecost 41:12; On the Holy Spirit 5:12:30) about the charismata and perhaps tongues-speech as still present in his day. Likewise Gregory of Nyssa spoke frequently of the charismata.
The reaction of Epiphanius to the Montanists and Alogi was that the church should maintain the veritable charismata (PCC 41:856). Using present tenses, Epiphanius says of the work of the Holy Spirit: “To this one is given wisdom by the Spirit, to another tongues and to another power and to another doctrine.” When enumerating the attributes of the Holy Spirit, Didymus the Blind says that the Holy Spirit is “a fountain of exhaustless charismata.”

Governed by the Spirit

Galatians 5:25 reads: εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.  It is variously translated:

• “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (NASB)
• “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.” (NIV)
• “If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit.” (NRSV)
• “Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives.” (NLT)

But my favorite rendering is by F. F. Bruce in his Expanded Paraphrase of the Epistles of Paul: “So then, if our principle of life is the Spirit, let our behavior also be governed by the Spirit.”

This is what makes Christianity unique.  The Christian life is not the exercise of a new religion, it is the outgrowth of being governed by the Holy Spirit.  The extent to which we experience the fullness of “Christ living in us” (Gal. 2:20) is determined by the extent to which we cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s ministry to us.  That’s why Jesus stressed the coming of the Holy Spirit to his disciples.  That’s why it is so important that the Church stress “life in the Spirit” from the moment that life in the Spirit begins – at conversion.  Note how F. F. Bruce translates Galatians 5:16:

“What I want to emphasize is this: live continually in the power of the Spirit, and you will not carry out the cravings of your old nature.”

That should be our consistent and constant focus – “Live continually in the power of the Spirit.”  Living continually in the power of the Spirit, being governed by the Spirit, is the Christian life.  And, if we stay in step with Him, he will lead us into all that life in Christ entails and equip us with every experience and gift that living that life “to the full” requires.

Remember, since the origin of your Christian life is the result of the working of the Holy Spirit, the continuation of your Christian life will be the result of the same.  Let Him govern your behavior.

Former Assemblies of God Pastor Andrew McIntyre Weighs in on “Initial Physical Evidence”

I posted a review of some comments from William and Robert Menzies book, “Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience” (here).

It drew a clarifying comment from Endued blogger, Matt:

I’m unclear Pastor Rick if it is your position that the baptism of the Spirit is BOTH conversion AND the initial filling, such as the Third Wave view (As I understand it), or is the Baptism of the Spirit what happens at conversion and then there is later an initial filling of power? Just curious, I’m still undecided on it.

Matt

My response:

Matt, I hold that the prescribed patter of initiation into union with Christ comes from Peter in his Pentecost sermon: “Repent, Be Baptized, Receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit”. Let me clarify that a bit…I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, nor do I believe that their is a singular reception of the Spirit that comes AFTER one repents and is baptized. In the Ordu Salutis (order of salvation), I believe that one can’t repent apart from some work of the Spirit, which I would call regeneration. Even my Wesleyan friends would acknowledge a prior work of the Spirit in bringing one to faith. Once one repents and is baptized, it is impossible for them to be a believer and not have the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9). So, in a theological rendering of initiation, one isn’t a Christian apart from the Spirit.

Now what does Peter mean when he says that one will receive the Gift of the Spirit in the package including repentance and baptism? I actually DON’T hold that this is the gift in a “Sonship” paradigm, or merely a converting work of the Spirit that Peter is offering. I think Peter is referring to the work of the Spirit has had been witnessed in the disciples. So in my ordu salutis, I would make a distinction between the work of the Spirit preveniently bringing one to repentance (Regeneration), the adoptive sealing work of the Spirit that indwells the believer who has repented and is baptized, the sanctifying fruit-bearing work of the Spirit that follows the life of the believer in a gradual manner that is different for various believers, and the empowering work of the Spirit that now proceeds from the life of the believer in context to their union to the Church for the edification of the Church.

If anything, I am willing to make even more than 2 distinctions in the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. What I am opposed to is stating that their is a primary secondary work that necessarily requires tongues as the infallible proof that you have gotten the second work. Luke doesn’t give an exact paradigm. The Samaritans reception of the Spirit in some sense was lacking following their repentance and baptism (Acts 8). This is seen as exceptional and not normative. I think folks argue for too much when they say that the Samaritans weren’t “saved” (James Dunn) and that Pentecostals argue for too much when they claim Acts 8 as a prooftext for what they consider to be normative. I’m willing to grant that Acts 8 was a “two step” process and don’t even feel the need to give some practical reasons for why it needed to be that way. For Peter in Acts 10, the Gentiles got up and spoke in tongues while he was preaching!!! Their repentance was assumed and they were admitted to the waters of baptism following this demonstrative act of God’s acceptance. It would be silly of me to say that Acts 10 is normative and that people must get up and speak in tongues in the middle of a sermon before they can be baptized. Essentially, Acts is a unique transitional period and God is pretty much doing things as He wills. While Peter prescribes repentance, baptism and reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, we have two accounts here: where full reception of the Spirit was lacking following baptism (Acts 8 and where tongues preceded baptism in Acts 10).

I’m okay with attributing to the Spirit His sovereign freedom in these matters. If someone insisted that they were baptized with the Spirit subsequent to salvation and spoke in tongues, I would affirm that as a work of the Spirit. If someone spoke in tongues during an evangelistic message at some local park, I would accept that as a work of the Spirit and encourage baptism. So while I hold the “one baptism many fillings” paradigm as the prescribed norm, I am okay with the Spirit working in a “two step” process if that’s how people want to read it. Essentially, I am opposed to the doctrine of “initial physical evidence” which dogmatically asserts that Spirit-baptism is a “necessarily” distinct second work of grace that is validated solely by the manifestation of tongues, thus dogmatically asserting that this is how the sovereign Spirit MUST WORK. Like I said, I am the first to say that the Spirit has worked this way, and continues to work this way, and does give tongues as a manifestation of the reception of the Spirit (in fact I would argue that the Spirit not only bears fruit, but will normatively manifest Himself in a “charismatic” manner, whether it be tongues or a great zeal for administering mercy). What I am not willing to say is that the Pentecostal position is the prescribed normative view. While I hold the broad “Evangelical Charismatic” position as what I see as the normative paradigm, there is room enough for me to acknowledge that the Spirit can act in an analogous fashion to what the Pentecostals expect. They, however, can’t grant such charity to me. They can’t say, according to their doctrine, that I have been baptized with the Spirit in an empowering fashion unless I give testimony to tongues in my life. They would have to say I am lacking the baptism of the Spirit and am still deficient in some sense for having not spoken in tongues.

It drew the following comment from Assemblies of God Pastor Andy Harris (
http://www.centralonthehill.com
):

Rick,
The “initial, physical evidence” doctrine as you note is the primary thing that distinguishes traditional Pentecostalism from the wider evangelical world. That, of course, and the fact that the largest Christian missions force in the world is led by those who hold to the “initial, physical evidence” doctrine. The Pentecostal explosion in global missions is the greatest defense of a subsequent experience of empowerment for Christians and
that speaking in other tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is promised to all believers (Mark 16:16-17; Acts 1:8, 2:4, 38-39, et al).

My response was as follows:

Andy, I am grateful for the success of “Evangelical” missions, including the Pentecostals. I would even go so far to say that there is a correlation to the success of distinctly Pentecostal missions in various parts of the world. Their emphasis on the empowering work of the Spirit, spiritual warfare, and the imminence of God in an experiential fashion are all good. I am still 99% Pentecostal. It is my heritage and I don’t repudiate it. I also differ on how I understand God’s Sovereignty from most Pentecostals, but that would still be compatible within the confession of faith.

I would disagree with you however in stating that the success of Pentecostal missions validates “initial physical evidence”. My goodness, Mormons and Islam is growing as well, does that validate Joseph Smith and Muhammad? They would argue along the same lines. I am gracious enough to say that there is a correlation of Pentecostal pneumatology and practice on a broader level to their “success” on the mission field, but to insinuate that the success is owing entirely to “initial physical evidence” and that such a doctrine is validated by the “success” is logically erroneous. Does the success of non-Pentecostal missionaries validate their convictions that none should speak in tongues? Does the overwhelming “success” of the Anglican Church on the African continent validate the 39 Articles of Religion and prove infant baptism to be true?

And now, a recent friend I have met, who is a former Assemblies of God pastor, Any McIntyre has chimed in:

First, let me frame my comments, especially for Andy, by saying that I used to be an Assemblies of God minister for 22+ years and had been a member of the Assemblies of God for over 40 years. I also have two degrees from A/G schools (B.S. & M.A.T.S.). And, finally, I have no axe to grind against the A/G; instead, I have many great memories from the two churches that I was privileged to pastor.

A Response to William and Robert Menzies “Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience”

I think that Pentecostals William and Robert Menzies, whose scholarship I much appreciate, are misunderstanding Charismatic Evangelicals like me in suggesting that I am undermining the Pentecostal emphasis of an empowering work of the Spirit. My thoughts are below:

Menzies and Menzies (2000:48) respond to Dunn’s argumentation that Pentecost was not a subsequent work designed for empowerment, but rather the inception of New Covenant experience and sonship:

In other words, for the Evangelical, Spirit-baptism is equated with conversion. It is that which makes a person truly a Christian. By way of contrast, most Pentecostals insist that the Spirit came on the disciples at Pentecost not as the source of new covenant existence, but rather as the source of power for effective witness. Thus Pentecostals generally describe Spirit-baptism as an experience (at least logically, if not chronologically) distinct from conversion, which unleashes a new dimension of the Spirit’s power; it is an enduement of power for service.

I am pleased to see that Menzies and Menzies are willing to grant that Spirit-baptism need not be chronologically distinct from conversion. I would say an amen to granting a logical distinction within Pneumatology regarding the empowering work of the Spirit from the regenerating work of the Spirit; however Menzies and Menzies (2000:48) don’t seem all that pleased by such a concession on my part, and the part of most of Evangelicalism:

The differences outlined above cannot be simply dismissed as semantic games played by theologians, ivory-tower stuff with no bearing on the life of the church. While “one baptism, many fillings” may be affirmed by Evangelicals and Pentecostals alike, our different understandings of the nature of this baptism (and subsequent fillings) dramatically impact the contours of our faith and practice. Consider this: If the Evangelical is right, then Pentecostals can no longer proclaim an enduement of the Spirit that is distinct from conversion and available to every believer—at least not with the same sense of expectation….Furthermore, if the Evangelical is right, Pentecostals can no longer maintain that the principle purpose of the Pentecostal gift is to grant power for the task of mission. In short, a Pentecostal perspective on Spirit-baptism is integral to our continued sense of expectation and effectiveness in mission.

Well, I am either some weird Evangelical or Neo-Pentecostal for saying this, but I think that Menzies and Menzies create a false “either or, all or nothing” dichotomy. I hold the Evangelical position and still believe that we need to note that Pentecost was an empowering work, that is part of the ongoing work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. I hold to the “one baptism, many fillings” position and see how it is wholly consistent with emphasizing both regeneration and the need for ongoing empowerment.

A Few Thoughts on James Dunn’s “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, His Disagreements with Dispensationals and Similarities with Oneness Pentecostals

The below are some notes from my research. These quotes are taken from the following:

Dunn, J.D.G. (1974). Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in relation to Pentecostalism today. London, UK: SCM Press

J.D.G. Dunn (1974:47) dialogues directly with dispensational readings of Joel 2:28-32:

Dispensationalists often argue that Peter did not consider Pentecost a fulfillment of the Joel prophecy; e.g. M.F. Unger: ‘ “This is that” means nothing more than that “this is (an illustration of) that which was spoken by the prophet Joel”’ (Bib.Sac. 122 [165] 177). This is special pleading. Luke (and Peter) clearly regard the outpouring on the 120 as at least the beginning of the outpouring on all flesh, and the ‘last days’ in which ‘whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Acts 2:21) have certainly arrived.

Dunn (1974:46) actually thinks that Joeline fulfillment on Pentecost is central to the whole idea of a new age:

…it was only at Pentecost that the Joel prophecy was fulfilled. In the old two-age view of Jewish eschatology the gift of the Spirit was one of the decisive marks of the new age. Certainly for the first Christians the gift of the Spirit was the decisive differentia which marked off the old dispensation from the new…

While J.D.G. Dunn (1974:53-54) makes it quite clear that he rejects the two step emphases of Pentecostal theology, he does highlight the Pentecostal experience as somewhat paradigmatic in a qualitative fashion of what it means to be a Christian:

In one sense…Pentecost can never be repeated—for the new age is here and cannot be ushered in again. But in another sense Pentecost, or rather the experience of Pentecost, can and must be repeated in the experience of all who would become Christians. As the day of Pentecost was once the doorway into the new age, so entry into the new age can only be made through that doorway, that is, through receiving the same Spirit and the same baptism in the Spirit as did the 120.

What I find ironic about Dunn’s pleading is that while he offers correctives to the classical Pentecostal understanding of Spirit Baptism, he seems to almost be saying that a Pentecostal experience of some sort is proof that one is truly a Christian. In Dunn’s fifth chapter, titled “The Riddle of Samaria”, he contends that the Samaritans’ conversion was deficient under Phillip because there was no manifestation of the Spirit. Such reasoning is consistent with Dunn’s overall thesis that conversion was a radical experience that was noted by some sort of manifestations.

I don’t want to lump Dunn’s arguments with those of “Oneness Pentecostals”, but he sounds similar on many points. They take the traditional Pentecostal emphasis of tongues, but rather than tie it with a subsequent work of Spirit Baptism, they instead view it as normative in initiation. Essentially, “Oneness Pentecostals” believe that one must speak in tongues to validate their initiation into the Christian faith. Dunn does not believe that tongues are a singular sign, nor a normative sign for Christian initiation, but when he questions the Samaritans’ initiation because they weren’t manifesting the Spirit in an analogous fashion  to Pentecost, he does seem to argue that one needs to prove their faith by manifesting the Spirit in some radical or extraordinary fashion.

Dr. Walter Kaiser’s “Reformed” Pneumatology sounding “Charismatic”

In the book, “Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views”, Dr. Walter Kaiser is tapped to present the “Reformed” position. I was delighted at his thoughts and share the following:

Kaiser (2004:35) makes a helpful concession relating to the various works of the Spirit, “We agree that Spirit baptism is a separate work of the Holy Spirit from the fruit of the Spirit or the filling of the Spirit.”

Kaiser, however, is not advocating a classical Pentecostal view, but instead sees Spirit baptism as that work of regeneration which places us within the body of Christ. The filling of the Spirit is better rendered as fillings, for Kaiser agrees with Stott and Carson in suggesting that there are many subsequent fillings in the Christian life. As for the “fruit of the Spirit”, Kaiser understands this as the work of sanctification. In some sense, Kaiser is acknowledging that the Spirit works distinctly in ways similar to Wesleyan and Pentecostal emphases, but sees all proceeding from Spirit baptism as a one-time work. Kaiser then makes theological distinctions between regeneration, sanctification, and empowering without viewing these necessarily as distinct one-time works in the life of the believer, with the exception of Spirit baptism, which he likens to regeneration.

Kaiser (2004:36), not representative of all “Reformed” theologians, makes it clear that he doesn’t wish to be considered a “cessationist” in regards to the charismata, “Nothing we have written ought to lead the reader to conclude that this writer therefore takes a cessationist point of view with regards to the supernatural gifts.”

Kaiser’s position is reflective of how Evangelicalism, as represented in Reformed circles, thought not embracing the “charismatic” title, has certainly made clear they don’t embrace the “cessationist” position. This position in-between cessationism and charismatic is sometimes called “open but cautious”. I have also heard some refer to themselves as “weak cessationists” or “weak continuationists”. I find that the theology is much the same on paper, but there are differences in what exactly the gifts look like and whether they should be pursued in the context of congregational worship. I also find an increasingly large number of folks who respond to tongues with the “seek not, forbid not” position. Such a position is certainly within the middle of both cessationism and charismatic. They are not “charismatic” in that they don’t encourage people to necessarily seek and desire the gifts, and they are not cessationist in that they feel it necessary to discourage people from exercising Spiritual gifts.

Kaiser (2004:37) also sounds very “charismatic” in his understanding of a distinct “empowering” work of the Spirit for specific tasks of ministry, “However, it continued to be possible for all believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit and empowered for specific tasks at specific times.”

I am encouraged that Kaiser represents a “Reformed” understanding of the Spirit that sounds very analogous to my own “Reformed” understanding of the Spirit’s ministry within the New Covenant.

Dr. James Shelton Replies

Dr. James Shelton was gracious enough to share some thoughts in response to my earlier blogpost.

Rick,

I am honored that you looked at Mighty in Word and Deed.
We are dealing with a mystery here. A mystery revealed but not a mystery completely explained. Jesus was completely human and completely divine. The hypostatic union of his humanity and divinity means that he did nothing apart from either nature. So in one sense one could say that his union with divinity would preclude his sinning; like we avoid sin only by the presence of his bountiful grace.
Yet, in his humanity he was like us in that he depended on the Holy Spirit to help him overcome evil. In one sense the doctrine of perichoresis says that Jesus as God the Son does nothing without the Holy Spirit and the Father. But he was a real human and therefore empowerd by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:48; Luke 4:18). Like the hymn, Veni Sancte Spiritus( Come Holy Spirit) we say to the Spirit “Come fill our hearts; for without your grace all turns to ill. Veni Sancte Spiritus.”
Jim Shelton, Ph. D.
Prof. of NT and Early Christian Literature
Oral Roberts University

My Angst with Dispensational Defiance of Rejecting an Apostolic Hermeneutic of the Old Testament

The cited material comes from Robert L. Thomas’ volume, “Understanding Spiritual Gifts”. Thomas (1999:141), who is an able exegete and professor at the Master’s Seminary, evidences nonetheless a priori commitment to a systematic paradigm that influences, in my estimation, a reading of certain texts, namely Joel 2:28:

Prophets in the future will minister to people of Israel and the world at large during the seventieth week of Daniel, after the rapture of the church (Joel 2:28). They will not be the prophets described in relation to the gifts of the Spirit bestowed on members of the body of Christ because the church will no longer be on earth during that period.

Thomas’ dispensational paradigm won’t allow him to see any application of Joel 2:28 to the church, even in the face of Peter’s application of such to the “Church”. While Dispensationals will respond by stating that Peter’s application of Joel was only applicable for the nation of Israel, this ignores the fact that Peter offers the same promised Spirit to those “afar off”, to all who would repent and be baptized. 3000 Jews repented on the day of Pentecost, so one can’t say that the Joeline promise was pulled from the table because of Israel’s rejection. Israel’s acceptance opens the door for the same promise to extend outward to include even Gentile believers, which was the great scandal of the Gospel. While I admit that Peter may have been speaking better than he knew, it is clear for me, that according to Luke’s recounting the Joeline promise was distributed to Gentiles and would continue to be dispensed upon all who turn to Christ in repentance.

For Thomas to run roughshod over Peter’s application and state so clearly that Joel’s application is relegated only to Daniel’s seventieth week to a specific number of prophets who are mainly ministering to the Jewish nation is a rejection of the expansion of this promise to the New Covenant. It is a reading of Joel that ignores the fact that Peter applied it in a way that contradicts a priori hermeneutical conviction that Joel must apply to ethnic Jews and within a brief appointed time in God’s eschatological theme. Dispensationals wish to deal with the OT on its own terms, which is commendable, but almost treat the Apostolic hermeneutic of the OT as erroneous and an inconvenience. Do these Dispensationals really understand the OT better than Jesus and the Apostles?

Thomas (1999:134) also argues against the application of Joel 2:28-29 to the current New Covenant era based on the fact that not “all” prophesy:

Based on Numbers 11:29 and Joel 2:28-29, the expectation of all God’s people was that everyone would prophesy, but God has appointed only a limited number to be prophets. The idea that Christians should seek the gift as thought it were available to all is misleading if it is available only to a restricted number of Christians.

I agree that not all prophesy, but hardly see that as proof that Joel is not being fulfilled. It is like saying that the New Covenant promises of salvation being extended to all people isn’t literally being fulfilled because not all people are saved. Should we dare claim the promises to people and encourage them to seek salvation knowing that not all are saved? Thomas is presuming that to be faithful to Joel’s promise, all of God’s people must prophesy. The irony is that most Dispensationals don’t even believe that all will prophesy when Joel is fulfilled in Daniel’s seventieth week. Thomas thinks that, “The idea that Christians should seek the gift as thought it were available to all is misleading if it is available only to a restricted number of Christians.” Well, apparently Paul had no problem encouraging the Christian community to desire prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5). Peter presumed that the collective Christian community was endowed with “charismata”, including speaking gifts (1 PT 4:10-11).

If Thomas thinks it erroneous for Christians to be so mistaken as to dare seek prophecy, he stands in contradiction to Paul and Peter. Paul and Peter apparently didn’t share Thomas’ exegesis and theology on this point. Prophecy is not only available to the Christian community, but they are actually encouraged to seek it. While not all will prophesy, this is hardly proof against the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29, which Peter seem convinced was the best explanation for the observed behavior on Pentecost. Who are we to believe in this matter? I would encourage Thomas and dispensational to stop accusing folks like me of altering the literal meaning of “all” in Joel 2:28-29 when there is Apostolic precedent that the text wasn’t understood, nor applied in that manner.

As much as I disagree with a Covenantal view of Joel’s application within the New Covenant, they at least view Pentecost itself as fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29. While they restrict the fulfillment to Pentecost, they prove more faithful to Peter than the Dispensationals do.

Craig Keener’s Argument for the Continuation of “Charismata”

NT scholar Craig Keener makes what I have always found to be a simple and logical conclusion on the implications of Pentecost and Peter’s preaching to the continuing nature of the New Covenant with relation to Spiritual gifts.  This excerpt is from his volume, “The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts”. Keener (1997:197-198) contends against the notion that the accompanying signs of the Spirit’s reception in Acts was confined to some brief era:

The phrases “and your children” and “As many as God shall call” likewise make clear that Luke does not envision the outpouring of the Spirit as a past, temporary gift; if Luke does not regard it as still available, then by his argument God’s calling, the new era, and the availability of salvation must have also been retracted. In this case Luke expects his Christian audience to reject the whole point of Peter’s sermon, as he reports that Peter’s unrepentant Jewish hearers did. The implications of such an interpretation run totally counter to Luke’s theology; clearly he assumes that Pentecost’s endowment of the Spirit and dynamic manifestations of the Spirit such as glossolalia are to continue until Jesus’ return. If “the last days” did in fact begin on Pentecost (2:17), and if, in the words of many scholars today, Luke’s view of the kingdom is “already” as well as “not yet,” Luke believes that Spirit baptism remains normative for God’s community, both to Israel and to “far off” Gentiles.

Jesus’ Dependence Upon the Holy Spirit, His Impeccability, and Our Sanctification

In my reading of James B. Shelton’s volume, “Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts”, I offer the following quotes and thoughts.

There is much discussion if the Spirit, for Luke, was primarily an empowering agent for ministry and witness, or also an agent of renewal and transformation. I think that Shelton (1991:57-62), in his chapter, “The Holy Spirit and Jesus’ Temptation”, shows that there is adequate Lukan material to suggest that Jesus’ triumph over temptation is paradigmatic for believers’ today as well. Shelton (1991:60) states:

Luke’s use of “full of the Holy Spirit” and “led by the Spirit” makes it doubly clear that Jesus’ temptations were real and that he was truly human. He relied not on his own power and resources but on God’s.

Shelton (1991:60) elaborates:

While Luke maintains that Jesus experience as God’s Son through the work of the Holy Spirit is unique, he also shows that in his humanity Jesus is dependent upon the Holy Spirit to overcome temptation and carry out his ministry. this is why Luke use the same terms to express Jesus’ relationship with the Holy Spirit and that of believers. This is good news to Luke’s readers. The temptations of Jesus are real, as real as anyone else’s dilemmas. Jesus does not rely on the uniqueness of his Spirit-generated birth (LK 1:35) or his office of Messiah to win over temptation. He overcomes evil as God expects all people to triumph—through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Shelton (1991:61) concludes the chapter by the following summary:

Thus for Luke enduring the temptations is not merely a staged act by a divine being incapable of being tempted, but it is a lifestyle of a human being endowed by and dependent upon the Holy Spirit. Luke’s emphasis on the Spirit in the temptation narrative is simultaneously sobering and encouraging for the followers of Jesus in their struggle with evil.

I hold to the impeccability of Jesus, meaning that He could not have sinned. Even so, I sometimes think the debate on the issue a vain thing as it only speaks to hypotheticals. The fact is that HE DID NOT SIN. That’s what matters in the whole enchilada. Having said that, I don’t think that taking a position of the impeccability of Christ is contradictory towards Shelton’s emphasis on Jesus’ dependence upon the Spirit to overcome very real temptations.

The fact is that God ordains “means” to fulfill His purposes. Jesus dependence upon the Spirit, His prayers, and learning of the Scriptures were all “means” which enabled Him, in a very real way, to live a life fully devoted to the Father, thus fulfilling all righteousness.

While we aren’t Christ, we are encouraged to employ the very same means in our own sanctification. We are to learn the Scriptures, pray, and walk in the power of the Spirit. While our faith is built upon the foundation of Christ’s righteousness as being ours, He does also serve as an example for our sanctification. After first answering “What Has Jesus Done?”, are we then able to answer “What Would Jesus Do?”. In fact, we answer the latter question by first understanding the former.

Another Pentecostal Calvinist?

I have long thought, from my own experience in a Pentecostal setting while growing up, that Pentecostals must embrace the Sovereignty of God in order for their theology and experience to make sense. While Pentecostals tend to be “Arminian” in their understanding of God’s sovereignty, I have long thought they were functionally “Calvinistic”. Pentecostal scholar David Lim (1993:245-246) confirms the Pentecostal’s high view of God’s sovereignty:

Biblical prophecy implies a sovereign God who is above all and knows all. He is greater than His creation. He commands and it shall be accomplished (e.g., Isaiah 45:18-25). Prediction and its fulfillment reveal His omniscience and omnipotence. He shapes the course of the universe, the destiny of nations, and the direction of individual lives. Yet, because He does speak to human beings through prophecy about their sin and need for repentance, about His hope in the midst of despair, or restoration, encouragement, and blessing, we see God as very near and very involved in our lives. He is both transcendent and immanent. Some say that God speaks to us only from the written Word. Although prophecy must be subject to the teaching and authority of Scripture, God has never stopped speaking to His people. He can break into the midst of any situation with His special word at anytime.

Pentecost Inaugurates a New Israel and a New Creation

Sweeney, M.A. (2000). The Twelve Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (vol. 1). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

M.A. Sweeney (2000:174) likens the outpouring upon Israel as a reconstitution of His people of sorts, hearkening back to creation and the work of the Spirit amidst the cataclysmic events:

Indeed, the image of the Hamsin/Sharav appears to underlie much of the imagery of cosmic transformation in this passage, but it is combined with the imagery of prophecy once again to demonstrate the interrelatedness of the natural and the human worlds in the book of Joel….The list of persons involved, sons and daughters, elders, young men, slaves and maid servants, is intended to be comprehensive. This phenomenon appears to project a return to a much earlier or ideal time prior to the establishment of Israel as a nation ruled by a king in its own land, such as the Exodus and wilderness period when the seventy elders of Israel began to prophesy when the “spirit” of G-d descended upon them (Num 11:25) or the period prior to the time of Samuel and the emergence of the first king, Saul, when 1 Sam 3:1 states that the word of YHWH and visions were rare at that time.

Sweeney (2000:174) adds the following:

To a certain extent, the passage attempts to portray a return to a state prior to creation, either of the natural world order or of the nation Israel, which of course enables both YHWH and Israel/Judah to start all over again on a new basis. The portents in the heavens and on the earth recalls both the use of heaven and earth as the comprehensive designation for all creation (Gen 1:1; 2:1,4) and the actions of YHWH in the Exodus narrative that forced Pharaoh to free the Hebrew slaves and that prompted the creation of Israel as a nation and its covenant with YHWH (Exod 6:1-9; 7:1-7).

Sweeney (2000:175) continues:

The images of “blood, fire, and columns of smoke” appear to be destructive at first sight and suggest the motif of YWHW’s battles against the nations that oppress Israel in the following passages. But these images are also the images of the altar at the Jerusalem Temple….Once the animal is slaughtered and prepared for the altar, it is set on fire and consumed entirely, resulting in a thick column of smoke that will stand over the site of the Temple complex. Although the imagery is destructive, it is also constructive in the sense that the Temple sacrificial ritual is intended to maintain or restore the order of the created world. In a similar manner, the Hamsin or Sharav that darkens the sun and causes the moon to appear red as blood is both destructive and transformative in that it marks the transition from one season to another; one reality is destroyed as another emerges. Altogether, such transformation in both the natural and the human world is labeled as the coming “Day of YHWH” in verse 4 [NRSV:31].

Pentecost therefore marks the commencing of judgment on the “old era”, which is passing away, and the inauguration of the “new era”, which is ever closer to its full consummation.  The signs and wonders surrounding the crucifixion, ascension, Pentecost and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem on 70 A.D. also marks a destructive work on the “old Israel” and the constructing of a “new Israel” that will bear fruit in keeping with repentance. The “last days” as a whole also have cosmic consequences as the “old earth” is literally passing away and is yet being renewed.