Introduction
What happened at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–21 ESV)? Even conservative Evangelical interpreters have come to different conclusions regarding the meaning of Luke’s narrative concerning Pentecost, despite their consensus on the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. This study will attempt to demonstrate that these opposing interpretations ensue from a failure to account for Luke’s intent. Scholars err when they employ statements from other New Testament (NT) writers to interpret Acts 2:1–21 without explaining the non-Lucan texts’ relationship to the Lucan corpus. This method of Bible interpretation essentially makes Luke-Acts redundant, causing the church to miss out on the dynamic implications of Lucan pneumatology.
This study will analyze F. F. Bruce’s exegesis of Acts 2:1–21 as an example of the traditional Evangelical interpretation of Pentecost. A comparison between Bruce’s conclusions and the conclusions reached by Pentecostal scholars such as Roger Stronstad, Robert Menzies, and William Menzies will follow. All of these scholars claim to follow the Evangelical interpretive maxim of uncovering authorial intent (Fee 1991, 39). This work will show that the Pentecostals exegeted Acts 2:1–21 validly, while Bruce, generally above reproach, invalidated his interpretation by ignoring Luke’s intent.
Presuppositions Regarding Pentecost
It is impossible to interpret the Scriptures without being influenced by our assumptions and presuppositions (Stronstad 2018, 43). According to J. P. Moreland, no one remains free of bias when approaching a topic that interests them. However, if they maintain “rational objectivity” toward the topic, they can still “discern the difference between genuinely good and bad reasons/evidence for a belief about that topic” (2005, 82). Thus, presuppositional bias does not invalidate biblical interpretation as long as the interpreters do not become so enamored with their presuppositions that they ignore the author.
Presuppositions regarding the baptism in the Holy Spirit influence the interpretation of Luke’s record of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–21). Although early Evangelicals such as R. A. Torrey and A. J. Gordon believed the baptism in the Spirit came after conversion, James D. G. Dunn’s interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit as the conversion experience has dominated mainstream Evangelicalism since the 1970s (Menzies and Menzies 2000, 69). Pentecostals have traditionally followed Torrey and Gordon in viewing the baptism in the Spirit as something distinct from conversion, specifically as an empowering for service in the kingdom of God (Menzies and Menzies 2000, 109). How does all of this relate to Pentecost? Although scholars on both sides of the debate hold to a “high view” of Scripture, they interpret the Pentecost passage differently largely due to their presuppositions. Their presuppositions do not necessarily invalidate their interpretation, but when you encounter two conflicting interpretations of the same passage, at least one side has to be wrong.
Interpretation of Pentecost
In the passage, Luke discussed the events surrounding Pentecost and Peter’s explanatory speech (Acts 2:1–21). Three miracles accompanied the disciples’ becoming “filled with the Holy Spirit,” (1) an auditory event that sounded like “mighty rushing wind,” (2) an ocular event that resembled “tongues of fire,” and (3) a verbal event that involved speaking “in other tongues” or glossolalia (Acts 2:2–4). A multicultural crowd witnessed some of the miracles (Acts 2:5–13). Peter explained the events to the astonished crowd as the fulfillment of an end times prophecy of Joel (Acts 2:14–21). Differences arise in the detailed analysis of the passage.
Bruce and the Pentecostal scholars agreed that the sound like wind and the tongues like fire signaled a theophany, or visitation from God (Bruce 1988, 183; Menzies and Menzies 2000, 98; Stronstad 2010, 50). They also agreed that tongues represented prophetic speech (Bruce 1988, 185; Stronstad 2010, 62). They disagreed, however, regarding the relationship between the subsequent filling with the Spirit and the glossolalia (Acts 2:4). Bruce claimed that the glossolalia at Pentecost symbolized the worldwide gospel mission (1988, 186). Then, Bruce cited 1 Corinthians 12:3 and 1 John 4:2 against the evidential value of the glossolalia (1988, 185–186). In Bruce’s view, tongues did not serve as any type of evidence of the baptism in the Spirit but rather as a literary device to foreshadow the future worldwide gospel mission. Notably, Bruce saved his discussion of the meaning of the phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit” for later.
Stronstad did not merely state the prophetic significance of the tongues, as Bruce did. He looked back through the Lucan corpus to analyze Luke’s usage of the phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit” and found that the term “always describes prophetic inspiration” (Stronstad 2012, 61). Luke used the term in his gospel as a precursor to prophetic speech (1:15, 41, 67). Luke deployed the phrase in the same manner as the writers of the Septuagint, who used it five times, each of which referred to prophetic inspiration (Stronstad 2010, 61). Therefore, since the glossolalia followed the filling with the Spirit, it was prophetic speech by definition (Stronstad 2010, 62). The Pentecostals concluded that to Luke, the glossolalia served as “a powerful reminder that the church is, by virtue of the Pentecostal gift, a prophetic community empowered for a missionary task” (Menzies and Menzies 2000, 129).
The events attracted a crowd, and “Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them” (Acts 2:14). Bruce and Stronstad agreed that the verb “addressed” signified the prophetic character of Peter’s speech (Bruce 1988, 193; Stronstad 2018, 108). Bruce suggested that Peter quoted Joel to indicate that the last days had begun. Bruce cited 1 Peter 1 as evidence for his position (1988, 194).
The Pentecostal scholars agreed that the citation of Joel indicated that the age of the Spirit had begun (Arrington 1998, 140). However, they noted another implication from the prophecy as well. Luke quoted Peter’s citation of Joel rather than one of the prophecies about inward renewal from the Spirit that Isaiah and Ezekiel associated with the last days for a reason (Stronstad 2012, 63). By recording Peter’s citation of Joel, Luke reinforced the relationship between the baptism in the Spirit and the gift of prophecy (Menzies 2004, 89).
Bruce believed that the application of the oracle to “all flesh” identified the target of the mission of the new church as all people (Acts 2:17; Bruce 1988, 194). Bruce stated, “Luke sees in these words an adumbration of the worldwide Gentile mission, even if Peter could not have realized their full import when he quoted them on the day of Pentecost” (1988, 194). However, the Pentecostal scholars believed that the term “all flesh” referred to the universality of the gift of prophecy among God’s people (Stronstad 2012, 94). In the Pentecostal view, Luke interpreted Joel’s prophecy as a reference to a gift God offered to His people, not necessarily all people.[1]
Joel described the “wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below” that would accompany the fulfillment of his prophecy (Acts 2:19–20). Bruce argued that those signs occurred on Good Friday, implying that Joel’s prophecy pertained to salvation (1988, 195). Stronstad believed that God manifested Joel’s signs and wonders on the day of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Spirit. Accordingly, Stronstad associated Joel’s prophecy with prophetic empowerment for the gospel mission (2018, 112). In summary, Bruce concluded that Pentecost primarily signified salvation and the birth of the Church, while the Pentecostals argued that Pentecost primarily signified the prophethood of all believers who would proceed to build the church. Who was correct?[2]
Evaluation of the Scholarship on Pentecost
It has become an axiom of Evangelical Bible interpretation that authorial intent governs the meaning of any passage (Fee 1991, 43). The interpreter must attempt to uncover the intent of the particular author. Hence, James Dunn condemned the fallacy of treating “the NT (and even the Bible) as a homogenous whole, from any part of which texts can be drawn on a chosen subject and fitted into a framework and system which is often basically extra-biblical” (2010, 261). This type of interpretation invalidates itself by ignoring authorial intent. Instead, the theologian should “take each author and book separately and…outline his or its particular theological emphases; only when he has set a text in the context of its author’s thought and intention…can the biblical-theologian feel free to let that text interact with other texts from other books” (Dunn 2010, 261).
Bruce demonstrated that he also valued authorial intent when he stated, “We may discern a difference of perspective between the Pauline letters and Acts” (1973, 221). Menzies and Menzies expressed the Pentecostal allegiance to authorial intent by observing “that Luke is a theologian in his own right and that his perspective on the Spirit is different from, although complementary to, that of Paul” (2000, 113). Although these scholars all agreed to pursue authorial intent, they came to different conclusions regarding Pentecost. What happened?
Bruce acknowledged the different intentions for Paul and Luke (1973, 221), but then he pulled statements from the Pauline letters, as well as the John’s books, to interpret Luke’s record of Pentecost, as noted in the Interpretation section above. Although Bruce acknowledged the primacy of authorial intent, it seems that he actually followed the direction of John R. W. Stott who believed that “the purpose of God in Scripture should be sought primarily in its didactic rather than its descriptive parts. More precisely, we should look for it in the teachings of Jesus, and in the sermons and writings of the apostles, rather than in the purely narrative portions of the Acts” (Stott 1975, 15, emphasis added).
Bruce interpreted Pentecost through the statements of Paul and John. This method may sound acceptable, even helpful, on the surface, but let’s see how it actually played out in Bruce’s exposition. His first meaningful diversion from the text came when he interpreted Acts 2:4. Bruce did not attempt to discern Luke’s meaning for “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Instead, he punted that discussion to John and Paul. Ultimately, Bruce concluded that baptism in the Spirit, which happened to the disciples on Pentecost, signified conversion to Christianity (1988, 203). Rather than analyzing why Luke included the part about the disciples speaking “in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance,” he jumped immediately to 1 Corinthians 12:3 and 1 John 4:2 (1988, 185–186). Although neither of those verses includes the Lukan phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Bruce still used them as evidence for his conclusion that baptism in the Holy Spirit equals conversion to Christianity in Luke’s writings. To restate, Bruce did not look to Luke’s writings to determine the meaning of baptism in the Holy Spirit. He parsed the definition from other books. Why did he do that? I suggest that since Luke did not supply the evidence for Bruce’s presuppositions about the Holy Spirit, he pulled the supporting evidence out of context from the writings of John and Paul.
Bruce used 1 Peter 1 to support his conclusion that Peter’s citation of Joel indicated nothing more than Luke’s belief that the last days had begun (1988, 194). Bruce should have asked why Luke included the reference to the oracle of Joel, not what Peter himself thought about Old Testament prophecy. Luke, not Peter, wrote this account of Pentecost. Bruce concluded that Luke’s citation of Joel signified the universality of the gospel and an allusion to the Gentile mission. The problem was that Bruce’s conclusion here was not based on Luke’s intent but on invalid inferences from the writings of Peter, Paul, and John.
On the other hand, the Pentecostal scholars actually attempted to uncover Luke’s intent with his record of Pentecost. They evaluated antecedent influences for Luke’s usage of the phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit” from his Gospel and his references to the Septuagint, and they considered why Luke included Joel’s charismatic prophecy rather than one of the soteriological OT prophecies associated with the coming of the Spirit.
Conclusion
Although the scholarship reflects debate regarding the significance of Luke’s account of Pentecost, elucidation of Luke’s intent reveals the meaning of the passage (Acts 2:1–21). For Luke, baptism in the Holy Spirit empowered Christians for service in the kingdom of God. The baptism in the Spirit was something logically distinct from conversion to Christianity (Menzies and Menzies 2000, 115). When the church equates the baptism in the Spirit with initiation into Christianity, they miss this important significance. In his record of Pentecost, Luke explained the Lord’s desire to make all of His people prophets, mouthpieces for God. F. F. Bruce is an excellent exegete and respected scholar, but in this interpretation of Pentecost, he allowed his presuppositions to overtake his exegesis. This divergence led him to an incorrect conclusion. The Pentecostals got this one right, and the church should take notice.
Reference List
Arrington, French L. 1998. “The Church at Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–6:7): Chapters 2–5.” In Pneumatology in Lucan Literature: Reading and Resource Materials. 4th ed., edited by Global University. 129–180. Springfield, MO: Global University.
Bruce, F. F. 1973. “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles.” In Pneumatology in Lucan Literature: Reading and Resource Materials. 4th ed., edited by Global University. 209–228. Springfield, MO: Global University.
———. 1988. “Acts 2.” In Pneumatology in Lucan Literature: Reading and Resource Materials. 4th ed., edited by Global University. 181–208. Springfield, MO: Global University.
Dunn, James D. G. 2010. “The Miracle of Pentecost.” In Pneumatology in Lucan Literature: Reading and Resource Materials. 4th ed., edited by Global University. 259–276. Springfield, MO: Global University.
Fee, Gordon D. 1991. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Menzies, Robert P. 2004. “Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts.” In Pneumatology in Lucan Literature: Reading and Resource Materials. 4th ed., edited by Global University. 69–108. Springfield, MO: Global University.
Menzies, William W., and Robert P. Menzies. 2000. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Moreland, J. P. 2005. “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March): 77–88. https://web.b.ebscohost. com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=75faf54f-e55c-4458-84ab-57ebc286a2f5%40sessionmgr103.
Stott, John R. W. 1975. Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. https://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Fullness-Spirit-Today-Classics/dp/0830834028/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+baptism+ and+fullness+of+the+holy+spirit+stott&qid=1622473627&sr=8-1&asin=0877846480 &revisionId=&format=4&depth=2.
Stronstad, Roger. 2010. The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology. Cleveland, TN: CPT Press.
———. 2012. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
———. 2018. Spirit, Scripture, and Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective. 2nd ed. Baguio City, Philippines: Asia Pacific Theological Seminary Press.
Witherington, Ben, III. 1998. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
[1] Although Luke taught that all people could potentially become God’s people, that fact was not part of his discussion of Pentecost (Witherington 1998, 140)
[2] For the sake of argument, assume these are the only two possible interpretations of Pentecost.
[3] A treatment of the subset of Pentecostalism that has embraced postmodern hermeneutics falls outside the scope of this study.