The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: A Narrative-Critical Response, Part 1

Differing with Walston, classical Pentecostal Robert Graves writes that the doctrine of initial evidence and the subsequence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are taught by scripture.

 Editor Introduction

Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), 235 pages.

The thrust of Rick Walston’s book The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is that the two major distinctive doctrines of Pentecostal theology—the initial evidence of tongues and the separability/subsequence of Spirit-baptism—are wrong. In his own words, Walston is “attempting to lead the reader to the obvious conclusion that Luke does not intend to establish tongues-as-evidence as a doctrine or as a paradigm” (85); the same can be said for the doctrine of separability and subsequence, though he devotes a scant eight paragraphs to it (141-144).

Walston’s endeavor to disprove these aspects of Pentecostal theology relies on a number of strategies. First, he attempts to show that whereas Pentecostals believe Luke’s theology is predominantly pneumatological, it is in fact more soteriological. For Walston, this entails (1) accepting Acts 2:38-41 as the paradigmatic passage of Acts, (2) statistically comparing the occurrences of pneumatological and soteriological passages in Acts, and (3) redefining the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a salvific event. Second, he constructs an anti-Pentecostal interpretation of Acts using the hermeneutical principle of authorial intent as a singular, over-arching, controlling interpretive canon. This entails building a massive construct upon what Luke does not say at opportune times.

Before examining Walston’s success in developing his argumentation, it should be noted that the work, as a whole, is written in a popular style. There is nothing wrong with this; we need writers who can translate biblical truths into common language. However, in this case, there seems to have been a severe oversight of the most recent scholarship in the relevant fields. When I pick up a book on the charismatic/Pentecostal elements of Luke-Acts, one of the first things I do to determine the extent of its scholarship and, thus, its academic value, is turn to its bibliography. If key authors are missing, the work’s integrity is immediately suspect. On the subject at hand, I would expect to find several entries by James D. G. Dunn, Howard M. Ervin, Robert P. Menzies, and Max Turner, to name a few. These are missing from Walston’s work. (There is a passage [47-48] referencing Dunn but only in that he was the stimulus of a response from a Pentecostal theologian.) In that Walston’s work was published in 2003 and the others’ earlier, the omission of interaction with these authors is inexcusable and misrepresentative, leaving the reader with thoughts of either unfair or unprofessional source selectivity; it is an extreme case of stacking the deck. Furthermore, Walston’s heavy reliance upon a single source to bolster his arguments, in this case Gordon D. Fee, leaving the work of other influential scholars virtually unmentioned, is incredible.

 

Acts 2:38-41 as Paradigm of Salvation Alone?

According to Walston, “[S]ince Peter proclaimed [in Acts 2:38] … that all who believed would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and since all of the three thousand on Pentecost received the Holy Spirit in the same fullness as the 120 had and just as Peter said would happen, then it cannot be denied that a paradigm was established. However, it is not the paradigm of baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Rather, the paradigm was (and continues to be) ‘repent and accept Jesus and automatically receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit’” (138). The paradigm, having been “clearly explained” (79) by Peter became “the divinely established pattern” (77). “Perhaps the strongest argument for this is Acts 2:41: ‘Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day’” (125). Thus, for Walston, not only is Acts 2:38 paradigmatic, but it is illustrative of Luke’s emphasis throughout Acts, which is “predominantly soteriological” (72-73).

In Walston’s opinion, because the three thousand “accepted his [Peter’s] message,” “were baptized,” and “were added to their number that day,” clearly they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. “Logic demands (and Luke implies) that they did receive the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’” (125). Walston rushes on to the subject of the absence of tongues in the passage, leaving the reader wondering what logic? and what implications? Only an uncritical reading of this passage, driven by an inordinately strong dependency upon a particular interpretation of Pauline literature, could lead to these conclusions.

In pursuing Luke’s intent in Acts 2:38, first, consideration needs to be given to the grammatical construction of the verse. After all, if the Greek future (“will receive”) demands an immediate consummation rather than allowing a dilatory (later) fulfillment, the argument is half over. It would be “half” because Walston still has to prove that tongues did not occur and that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was the cause of and not in addition to salvation.

In a personal interview of New Testament scholar Paul Elbert, I asked his opinion about the following passage from Catholic scholar George T. Montague’s The Spirit and His Gifts (New York: Paulist Press, 1974): “The future lēmpsesthe of Acts 2:38 is not a dilatory future but the future of unqualified promise, to be fulfilled immediately upon the conditions preceding,” (53). Elbert responded: “He [Montague] has no basis to say that other than his opinion.”¹ Fourteen years later, Elbert would write that the use of this word, “predicts the expected reception of the gift to take place at a time and in a form designed by the Lord, anticipating its evangelistic use within a future occasion as the Lord directs.”²

As I mentioned earlier, Walston places incredible weight upon the work of Gordon Fee. Pre-dating the interview with Elbert, I corresponded with Fee and asked him the same question that I put before Elbert concerning the future tense of the Greek lēmpsesthe. He replied: “You will note that no good commentary (Cadbury-Lake, Haenchen, Bruce) even take[s] up Montague’s questions. The question, by the way, is not what the Greek will allow (it will ‘allow’ either), but rather what did Luke intend his readers to understand by so reporting Peter’s words” (October 19, 1981). So, even Fee agrees that, on a strictly grammatical basis, the future tense of “will receive” does not have to be interpreted as an immediate fulfillment.³

For Walston, Acts 2:38 is the Lukan paradigm or pattern for conversion. Here are the components: (1) repent, (2) be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ, (3) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Conditions 1 and 2 are not enough since the gift of the Holy Spirit is what saves: “If one is a Christian, he has been baptized in the Holy Spirit; in fact, it is this gift of the Holy Spirit that separates him from the world and makes him a Christian” (135). “The dual idea that there are Christians who are ‘spirit-filled’ and Christians who are not ‘spirit-filled’ is an idea that is foreign to the New Testament. … One does not receive Christ and not receive the gift of (or baptism in) the Holy Spirit” (135). “The New Testament never makes the distinction between (1) getting saved and (2) being filled with the Holy Spirit as though they are two entirely different experiences” (139). Literally speaking, does this mean that we are baptizing non-Christians? In Walston’s world, it must mean this, for they are not Christians until they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and they cannot be Christians until they have fulfilled the conditions of the “divinely established pattern,” which requires repentance and baptism before the promise of the gift can be realized.

If one repents, accepts Christ as his savior, is baptized in water, and then receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, what is the function of the gift? One need only follow Luke as he leads Theophilus (who stands in for all of us) through the narrative of Jesus’ promise in Acts 1:8 to its fulfillment in 2:1-41 to see that the gift is not for one’s personal salvation but is a prophetic empowerment for service and witness. In fact, as Roger Stronstad writes, “Peter restricts the eschatological gift of the Spirit to the penitent, the saved.”⁴ Eduard Schweizer agrees, “[T]he Spirit is imparted to those who are already converted and baptized.”⁵

William and Robert Menzies argue forcefully against the view that Acts 2:38-39 is primarily soteriological:

Yet we must not miss the fact that “the promise” of Acts 2:39 embraces more than the experience of conversion. Consistent with Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33, the promised gift of the Spirit in Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of Joel 2:28, and thus it is a promise of prophetic enabling granted to the repentant. … There is simply no evidence to support the notion that by referring to Joel 2:28-29, Luke intended his readers to think of some commonly expected, all-embracing soteriological bestowal of the Spirit, the details of which were pieced together from a variety of Old Testament texts. … [T]he most that can be gleaned from the text [of Acts 2:38] is that repentance and water baptism are the normal prerequisites for reception of the Spirit, which is promised to every believer.⁶

If Luke, as Walston believes, is setting up Acts 2:38 as the soteriological paradigm, we should expect to find the paradigm illustrated somewhere in Acts. This is what Walston believes, for he writes in another context that “Had Luke made a point of clearly, repetitiously, and consistently depicting throughout the book of Acts that all who were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues, then there would be a paradigm (norm) that we would have to follow” (153). In an effort to demonstrate the preeminence of Luke’s soteriological interest (evidently through repetition and consistency), Walston identifies twenty-six passages where Luke mentions people being saved. Here is how they compare to Walston’s declared paradigm gleaned from Acts 2:38: (1) repentance is not mentioned in any of the passages, (2) water baptism is mentioned in only seven of them, (3) the gift of the Holy Spirit is mentioned in only five. Thus, using Walston’s own methodology, the statistical evidence does not support the claim that Acts 2:38 is a soteriological paradigm encoded with the non-Lukan concept of a soteriological Spirit-baptism.⁷

The Soteriological vs. The Pneumatological

According to Walston, “Pentecostals have only minored on Lukan soteriology. … Classical Pentecostals have minored on what Luke majored on” (44). Yet, Walston continues, if Pentecostals would allow Scripture to speak for itself instead of interpreting it through their assumptions, it would become “obvious that Luke’s intent is to establish the soteriological nature of the early church in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel and the infilling of the Holy Spirit” (85). Walston quotes Pentecostal scholars Roger Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Douglas Oss’ contribution to Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, and Donald John’s contribution to Initial Evidence a number of times in an attempt to demonstrate that Classical Pentecostals believe that Acts is a purely pneumatological narrative (47-55).⁸ It is clear that Walston has misread the nuances of the Pentecostal argument. Luke records incidents of repentance, salvation, and conversion in Acts; these are soteriological elements and Pentecostals recognize them as such. However, Walston fails to realize that Luke does not directly associate these elements with the Holy Spirit. Thus, Luke’s pneumatology does not include regeneration, as, for example, Paul’s can be interpreted as including.⁹ Walston’s own list of twenty-six soteriological incidents in Acts is made up mainly of Luke simply saying, in various forms, that the Lord added to their numbers or certain people believed. This is the case in at least seventeen of the incidents, and in another five the Spirit is mentioned as the agent because what is being described is the baptism in the Holy Spirit, not salvation. In none of Walston’s twenty-six incidents of salvation does Luke describe the Spirit as being directly and explicitly active in the heart of the believer to effect regeneration. For these reasons, Pentecostals can validly say that although Luke speaks of salvation and regeneration in Acts, his focus is the Spirit in relation to the prophetic empowerment of believers for service and mission.

As mentioned above, Walston presents statistical data attempting to prove that Luke’s intent was soteriological and not pneumatological. As proof of this, he presents twenty-six reports of conversion and notes that only three explicitly mention tongues. (He also uses these statistics to show that it was not Luke’s intent to present tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I address this below.) In my own survey of Acts, I discovered that Luke narrates seventy-five scenes in which charismatic activity is present (e.g., tongues, prophecy, visions, healings, miracles) compared to sixty-six scenes where soteriological activity is present. These seventy-five and sixty-six scenes usually overlap, with the charismatic activity leading to the, usually, very generalized salvific outcome, which is just as we should expect given the promise in Acts 1:8. Using Walston’s methodology, statistically Luke’s emphasis leans not toward the soteriological but toward the pneumatological.

What do Pentecostal scholars actually believe about the soteriology of Acts? Based on Walston’s assessment, they think it is void of soteriology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just so there is no mistake, here are a few comments. In Stronstad’s work cited above, he writes that “Acts is the story of the geographic advance of the gospel” (63); “The inaugural gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is a pivotal event in Luke’s history-of-salvation theology” (49); and “[I]n the charismatic theology of St. Luke, the Holy Spirit plays a leading role on the stage of salvation history” (48). In a later work he writes that Acts “is primarily about Christ, salvation and the Holy Spirit. … In Luke’s theology, the day of Pentecost is a momentous and epochal episode in the forward movement of the history of salvation” (Prophethood 27, 70). Finally, he must have had Walston’s position in view when he penned the following:

Since Luke-Acts is the story of the origin and spread of the gospel, and since the Spirit of prophecy is given to the penitent, it is historically and theologically impossible for there not to be a close relationship between salvation and the gift of the Spirit. But in spite of the close relationship between salvation and the gift of the Spirit, for Luke-Acts the function of the gift of the Spirit is not soteriological but prophetic. To confuse the close relationship between the two as meaning an identity of function is a serious methodological error and leads to a gross distortion of Luke’s very clear and explicit pneumatology. (Prophethood 122)

In a paper read at the 2004 Society for Pentecostal Studies Conference, Paul Elbert speaks of Luke as having “two main thematic experiential nexuses, the soteriological one and the gift of the Holy Spirit [i.e., the pneumatological] one” (“Luke’s Fulfillment” 25). In the same work, he writes,

For Luke, the ministry of the earthly Jesus and of the heavenly Jesus are dynamically linked, the soteriological nexus of faith/repentance/forgiveness/salvation in the ministry of the earthly Jesus in characters’ lives (Prodigal Son, Woman with Ointment, Zaccheus) continues in characters’ lives under the ministry of the heavenly Jesus (Ethiopian Eunuch, Sergius Paulus, Lydia, Philippian Jailer, Crispus). The former characters can be understood by Luke to fulfill prophetic announcements from heaven and from the Holy Spirit prompted revelation that Jesus is a Savior, with narrative coupling to that same component of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:21). The latter characters can be similarly understood. And for Luke, the ministry of the heavenly Jesus also includes the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit, fulfilling a programmatic prophecy by John the Baptist, teaching on prayer and known predictions by the earthly Jesus and His narrative predictions, as well as another component of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:17a, 18). This ministry takes its literary place alongside the soteriological nexus in Lukan personification in another collection of experientially descriptive and delicately different phrases, namely the pneumatological nexus of Spirit-reception/Spirit-filling/Spirit-falling-upon/Spirit-outpouring. This latter pneumatological nexus of the Lukan gift of the Spirit is narratively connected … with distinctly noticeable and prominently placed promissory language. I argue that both the soteriological nexus and the pneumatological nexus are well illustrated by the expected examples and precedents and that both are contained in Luke’s programmatic concept of ongoing prophetic fulfillment. I also suggest that prophetic fulfillment is understood by Luke as underpinning the missionary guidance portrayed in Acts. (6)

Robert Menzies explains the relationship between the Holy Spirit and conversion in Acts, writing, “Luke always attributes forgiveness … which is granted in response to faith/repentance, to Jesus” (Empowered 217). “Luke does not view the gift of the Spirit as a necessary element in conversion. In Luke’s perspective, conversion centers on God’s gracious act of forgiveness (e.g. Acts 5.31-32; 10.43). … [I]n terms of human response, faith-repentance is the decisive element in conversion, for it forms the sole prerequisite for receiving the forgiveness of God (Lk. 5.20; 24.47; Acts 3.19; 5.31; 10.43; 13.38; 26.18)” (Empowered 224).

So, an examination of Walston’s claim that Pentecostals have “minored” on Lukan soteriology proves true. However, his claim that Pentecostals have “minored” on what Luke “majored” on proves false. Since Luke “majored” on pneumatology, the Pentecostal position aligns best with the material in Acts. Furthermore, Pentecostals do not believe that Acts is void of soteriology, but recognize that Luke is communicating to Theophilus (and us) information about the prophetic-empowerment available through the Spirit to accomplish the mission of Luke’s programmatic verse 1:8, i.e., Spirit-inspired disciples will spread the gospel.¹⁰

Redefining the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

In order to refute the view that there is a spiritual experience beyond conversion known as the baptism in/filling with/reception of the Holy Spirit and solidify a non-Pentecostal view of conversion-initiation, it is absolutely necessary that Luke’s characters in these pneumatological narratives be defined as non-Christians, thus rendering the pneumatological activity soteriological. Of the scholars who take this Lukan cessationist view, James D. G. Dunn has written the most enduring presentation in his 1970 Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press).¹¹ Gordon Fee, once a classical Pentecostal, in the 1980s fell into the camp of Pauline charismatics and Lukan cessationists. As mentioned earlier, Walston does not use Dunn or other reputable scholars to support his arguments, with the lone exception of Fee. Fee’s work that Walston relies upon most is Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. The actual chapters that Walston depends upon were first published in 1980 and 1985.¹²

Summarizing from Fee’s twenty-five-year-old work, Walston writes, “Fee says that to be saved is to be filled with the Spirit. … Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit by virtue of being Christians” (129). “[I]f people are saved, they are as a matter of course, baptized in the Holy Spirit” (114). For Fee to arrive at these conclusions, he must explain away the clear language of Luke. Fee must reach these conclusions in order to force them to match his view of Pauline pneumatology, and to rebut the Pentecostal doctrine of separability/subsequence. Walston accepts Fee’s assertions uncritically. (He should at least press Fee to demonstrate why the extemporaneous and independently valuable discursive writings of Paul should be used to interpret the carefully and elegantly designed rhetoric of Luke.)

Luke narrates at length four episodes where believers are, for the first time, specifically baptized in or filled with the Holy Spirit:

1. the 120 Jewish disciples (Acts 2);
2. the Samaritans (Acts 8);
3. the Gentiles (Acts 10); and
4. the Ephesians (Acts 19).

(1) Acts 2: Since Walston agrees, albeit inconsistently, that the 120 were saved before they received the gift of the Holy Spirit (141), it is not necessary to discuss this episode.

 

 (2) Acts 8: Walston presents no evidence to counter the obvious separability/subsequence illustrated in this passage. Briefly, in Samaria the evangelist (and deacon) Philip preached Jesus, the people believed, the people were baptized in Jesus’ name (v. 12, 16), but they did not receive the Holy Spirit. The apostles in Jerusalem hear that the Samaritans have “received the word of God” (v. 14), so they send Peter and John who pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (v. 17). After laying hands on them, they receive the Holy Spirit. Obviously, any attempt to explain away the separability/subsequence exhibited in this passage becomes fantastical. Menzies calls this passage “an insoluble problem for those who maintain that Luke establishes a necessary link between baptism/Christian initiation and the gift of the Spirit” (Empowered 211).¹³

 

(3) Acts 10: Luke’s narrative of the Gentiles being baptized in the Holy Spirit is the single precedent that non-Pentecostal scholars have where the subjects of the narrative evidently were saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit simultaneously (note that it is still quite impossible to prove that the latter was the cause of the former). According to Walston, this passage “needs little argument” and provides “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” (122). He admits, “The first outward evidence that they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit was that they spoke in tongues (10:46)” (122). But remember, he believes that baptism in the Holy Spirit effects salvation. So, he explains, “[T]he first physical evidence that they had been saved was that they spoke in tongues (10:46)” (122, emphasis his). “[S]peaking in tongues was not just the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit; it was in fact the initial physical evidence of salvation …” (95). In Walston’s view, Peter associates tongues with a salvation experience (87). But why would Peter do this? Luke doesn’t portray Peter as having any experiences with unbelievers who, upon repenting, calling on the name of the Lord, and being baptized in the name of Jesus, receive salvation and tongues. On the other hand, Luke does portray Peter as having experienced, at Jerusalem then Samaria, believers receiving a baptism in the Holy Spirit, evidenced by glossolalia.

Although Luke does not, as in the other scenes, make clear the timing of the Gentiles’ moment of salvation in relation to the moment when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, he does hint that the Gentiles were saved before they received the Spirit when he has Peter say, “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (10:47). Walston agrees that the 120 at Jerusalem were saved before Pentecost (141). If then, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as they did, perhaps they were saved before they received this enduement of power, if not but by mere moments. Furthermore, using the interpretive principle of analogy of scripture, it is quite clear that the Jewish, Samaritan, and Ephesian episodes steer the reader to this conclusion.

Having said this, there is, it seems to me, a logical reason that God telescoped the Gentile experience of salvation and the baptism in the Holy Spirit into one event (or one of very close proximity), and that is because there is no outward, immediately observable evidence of salvation, without which the Jews would have been more apt to dispute and deny that God had “granted the Gentiles repentance unto life” (11:18). If one must be saved to receive this gift evidenced by tongues, as in the Pentecostal view, tongues are strong evidence that one has been saved.¹⁴

Of the four episodes involving the baptism in the Holy Spirit, this is the only one whose timing is ambiguous. Why make the possible exception, the rule?

 

(4) Acts 19: Quoting Fee, Walston argues that the disciples who are mentioned here “were obviously not Christians because the one essential ingredient [i.e., the Spirit] was missing” (Gospel and Spirit 114). However, Luke’s consistent terminology (“disciple” for believer in Jesus or disciple of Jesus) is insurmountable and reveals the speciousness* of the anti-Pentecostal interpretation.¹⁵ If that is not enough, these disciples, as Luke narrates the scene, are baptized in water (surely they are Christians by now), Paul then lays hands on them, and only then does the Holy Spirit come upon them (19:5-6). Obviously, the Holy Spirit comes upon them after they are saved.¹⁶

 

PR

 

In Part 2: “Is ‘Authorial Intent’ the Doom of Pentecostal Theology?”

 

Notes

¹ “Now it would be a fine thing if biblical scholars would start thinking that they had opinions instead of facts. That is an opinion. It might be so, but, on the other hand, it might not be so, because the indefinite use of the future was widely used and there is no way to tell whether that is an indefinite future or a future that is right away. In fact, the whole weight of the sermon is that this will happen in the future. … Jesus would say, ‘Seek and ye shall receive.’ That is an indefinite future. He doesn’t say when God would do it. And the indefinite in the promises of Jesus is very common. It was a very common way to talk … using the future tense. … Interesting thing is, if you go back and look at all the future tenses in Luke-Acts (especially the ones where the subject is to be acted upon) … you’ll find that the … majority … are exactly these kind of futures—they’re indefinite. God is going to do something, but they don’t say when. In every case … that the future is used that involves an action of God, which it is in this case, in Acts 2:38c, … it is indefinite. It’s never pinned down” (October 28, 1984).

² “Now, just as the disciples before them who have just experienced their first coming of the Lukan gift of the Spirit, Peter’s hearers, meeting the salvific condition set forth, are prepared for their own promise of this gift. The two imperatives are followed by a future indicative, ‘and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. …’ Grammatically, the general observation of Winer is apropos, “The future tense does not always indicate pure actual futurity, but sometimes possibility (as indeed the future and the possible are closely allied), and expresses what can or should or must take place.” This indefinite tense indicates a time relatively future to the preceding imperatives, which set the qualifying ideas for the expected future event, but do not set the time for it. The tenses themselves certainly allow for, and normatively require in a predictive and gnomic future, the possibility for a separation in time between the immediate qualifying conditions and the future events. The immediate context from Lk 11:13; 24:47, 49 to Acts 1:14; 2:4, (1:8; 2:38c) simply predicts the expected reception of the gift to take place at a time and in a form designed by the Lord, anticipating its evangelistic use within a future occasion as the Lord directs.

“Theophilus [to whom Luke and Acts were written], not being or needing to be a grammarian, would add two and two and get four. Luke does not intend to confront Theophilus with “weighty problems,” problems that afflict interpreters who want to force Luke to be Paul and allow for no development or diversity in NT pneumatology. Rather Luke’s case is clear and contains no hidden variables which Theophilus needs to detect before he can understand this narrative. Sensing that the whole story is Luke’s vehicle for his understanding, I suggest that he would recall the pointed conditional lesson on persistent prayer set out in the context Luke provided for disciples with the first mention of the gift of the Holy Spirit at Luke 11:13 and now apply that lesson to the condition set out here. … If he would repent, seek forgiveness, call upon the Lord’s name (become a convert via salvation which Jesus offers), and submit to baptism, then he too, through persistent prayer, would confidently expect the Lord to pour out upon him (2:33) the Lukan gift of the Holy Spirit.”  Paul Elbert, “Towards an Understanding of Luke’s Expectations for Theophilus Regarding the Lukan Gift of the Holy Spirit,” Pentecostal Mission at 2000: Issues Home and Abroad, Conference Papers of the 29^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Northwest College, Kirkland, WA (Lexington, Kentucky: Society for Pentecostal Studies, 2000), 16-17, cf. 10-11 and Paul Elbert, “Luke’s Fulfillment of Prophecy Theme: Introductory Exploration of Joel and the Last Days,” Society for Pentecostal Studies Conference, Marquette University (March 2004), 18-22. Elbert has also argued that all of the imperative-future middle/passive combinations (as at Acts 2:38) in Luke-Acts and the Septuagint are intended in Greek thought to represent two temporally non-simultaneous verbal ideas or events, cf. “The Syntax of Imperative-Future Combinations and Imperative-Present Participle Combinations in Luke-Acts and Elsewhere,” Society of Biblical Literature Conference, Gregorian University, Rome (July 2001).

³ Concerning the second part of Fee’s statement, I would ask, How can a reader get to Luke’s intentions before settling on the possibilities that the language allows? It is as though Fee has already decided what Luke is saying before he examines the Greek.

⁴ Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 57; cf. Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 68-70.

⁵ Eduard Schweizer, “Pneuma, pneumatikos, k.t.l.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 412.

⁶ “In Joel’s prophecy the Spirit comes as the source of prophetic inspiration, a point that again Luke highlights by altering the Greek text of Joel by inserting the phrase ‘and they will prophesy’ (Acts 2:18). Another alteration, Luke’s transformation of Joel’s “slaves” into ‘servants of God’—effected by his double insertion of ‘my’ in Acts 2:18 …—highlights what is implicit in the Joel text: The gift of the Spirit is given only to those who are members of the community of salvation. Thus Luke’s explicit definitions (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-8) and his use of the Joel citation indicate that “the promise” of the Spirit, initially fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:4), enables the disciples to take up their prophetic vocation to the world.

“Although the Lukan ‘promise’ of the Spirit must be interpreted in light of Joel’s promise concerning the restoration of the Spirit of prophecy, Acts 2:39 does include an additional element, insofar as Luke extends the range of the promise envisioned to include the promise of salvation offered in Joel 2:32 (as well as the promise of the Spirit of prophecy in Joel 2:28). As Dunn notes, Acts 2:39 echoes the language of Joel 2:32/Acts 2:21: ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ In Acts 2:39 Luke extends the range of ‘the promise’ to include this salvific dimension because the audience addressed is not disciples.

“Yet we must not miss the fact that ‘the promise’ of Acts 2:39 embraces more than the experience of conversion. Consistent with Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33, the promised gift of the Spirit in Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of Joel 2:28, and thus it is a promise of prophetic enabling granted to the repentant. The promise of Acts 2:39, like the promise of Jesus in 1:8, points beyond “the restoration of the preserved of Israel”: Salvation is offered (Joel 2:32), but the promise includes the renewal of Israel’s prophetic vocation to be a light to the nations (Joel 2:28). …

“Acts 2:39 does not indicate that the Spirit comes as the source of new covenant existence. Rather, it simply reminds us that the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 includes two elements: the gift of the Spirit of prophecy (v. 28) and the offer of salvation to those who call on the name of the Lord (v. 32). Acts 2:39 refers to both, but it does not suggest the two are identical. Indeed, this sort of equation runs counter to Luke’s explicit statements (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-8), his use and redaction of the Joel citation … and the broader context of his two-volume work. …

“There is simply no evidence to support the notion that by referring to Joel 2:28-29, Luke intended his readers to think of some commonly expected, all-embracing soteriological bestowal of the Spirit, the details of which were pieced together from a variety of Old Testament texts. … [T]he most that can be gleaned from the text [of Acts 2:38] is that repentance and water baptism are the normal prerequisites for reception of the Spirit, which is promised to every believer.” William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 77-80; cf. Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 171, 182, 203-204.

⁷ Having explored the interpretation of lēmpsesthe as dilatory, I recognize that the Pentecostal interpretation that the three thousand were baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues is also feasible. How this could happen without Luke’s recording it is covered later.

⁸ Douglas A. Oss, “A Pentecostal/Charismatic View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 239-283; Donald A. Johns, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 145-167. Interestingly, Fee sides with Stronstad and against Walston’s view, writing, “I strongly agree with … Stronstad, on the ‘charismatic nature’ of Lukan theology. . .” (Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991] 101).

⁹ William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 89; Robert P. Menzies, “Spirit-Baptism and Spiritual Gifts,” in Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, eds. Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 52-56.

¹⁰ James B. Shelton summarizes the Lukan data succinctly and accurately: “Although Luke is not averse to associating the Holy Spirit with conversion, this is not his major pneumatological thrust. Some misunderstanding has arisen when the role of the Holy Spirit in empowering for witness is confused with conversion. … Luke associates the Holy Spirit with conversion to some degree, but he does not clearly describe that role since his attention is centered on another major role of the Spirit: inspired witness” (Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 127, 148.)

¹¹ For critiques of Dunn’s work see Howard M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Critique of James D. G. Dunn’s Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984); Menzies, Empowered for Witness; E. A. Russell, “‘They believed Philip preaching,’ (Acts 8.12),” Irish Biblical Studies 1 (1979), 169-176; J. Giblet, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles,” One in Christ 10 (1974), 162-171; William Atkinson, “Pentecostal Responses to Dunn’s Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Luke-Acts,” JPT 6 (1995): 87-131; and Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. Interestingly, even Dunn concedes that “Luke intended to portray ‘speaking in tongues’ as ‘the initial physical evidence’ of the outpouring of the Spirit,” Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 189-190 (italics his).

¹² For an assessment of Fee’s outdated ideas see William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power 109-118 and Menzies, Empowered 237-239.

¹³ Cf. Menzies, Empowered 204-213; Anthony Palma, The Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 2001), 119; and J. L. Hall, “A Oneness Pentecostal Looks at Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence 178.

¹⁴ Cf. Menzies, Empowered 215-218 and Johns 163.

¹⁵ Cf. Elbert, “Towards,” 19-25; Paul Elbert, “An Observation on Luke’s Composition of Questions,” CBQ 66/1 (January 2004): 107-108; Palma 128; and Menzies, Empowered 218-225.

¹⁶ However, as Pentecostals, we would do well to remember these words from Oss: “… Pentecostals historically have emphasized that this experience is available from the moment the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, and their testimonies often speak of being both saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit all at once, while responding to an invitation for salvation,” 242.