Interpreting Biblical Narrative to Uncover Luke's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Part One of the Lucan Pneumatology Series
Introduction
The majority of the Bible was written in a historical narrative type of genre; however, interpretation of biblical historical narrative is one of the most hotly contested areas of contemporary biblical interpretation. Can faithful students of the Bible derive doctrine directly from biblical historical narrative? That question may sound like pointless theological rumination, but it has a direct impact upon such important topics as the continued relevance of Luke and the definition of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This analysis will attempt to prove that Bible students should seek to understand Luke’s distinct theology of the Holy Spirit, or pneumatology, as expressed primarily in the narrative portions of his two-volume work, Luke-Acts. This study must necessarily begin with a discussion of presuppositions.
Some Comments on Presuppositions
All interpreters of the Bible operate under certain presuppositions and biases (Stronstad 2018, 43). For example, Evangelicals (me included) approach the Bible under the presupposition that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers. This preunderstanding affects our interpretation of the Bible. Bias affects interpretation differently depending on whether the bias is psychological or rational. According to J. P. Moreland, “Psychological objectivity is detachment, the absence of bias, a lack of commitment either way on a topic” (2005, 81). Moreland continued, “A lack of psychological objectivity does not imply a lack of rational objectivity, and it is the latter that matters most, not the former” because “rational objectivity is the state of having accurate epistemic access to the thing itself…If one has rational objectivity regarding some topic, then one can discern the difference between genuinely good and bad reasons/evidence for a belief about that topic” (2005, 82). In other words, you do not have to be totally objective to be able to understand a topic accurately. You just have to be willing to look rationally at the evidence.
Rational objectivity entails willingness to accept the truth regardless of personal biases, not necessarily removal of biases. In theory, interpreters should approach the Bible with rational objectivity; however, in practice, occasionally, interpreters allow their presuppositions to distract them from the intent of the inspired author. Theologians call this practice eisegesis, or reading meaning into a passage that the author did not intend.
Gordon Fee and other scholars from inside and outside Pentecostalism have accused Pentecostals of engaging in eisegesis regarding pneumatology. They claim that Pentecostals had a supernatural experience then read their own experience into the biblical text (Fee 1991, 86). In Moreland’s terminology, although Pentecostals do not possess psychological objectivity regarding pneumatology, they should practice rational objectivity in their pursuit of the biblical authors’ intended meaning. On the other hand, Pentecostal scholars such as Roger Stronstad have suggested that Spirit-baptized Pentecostals understand Luke-Acts better than most because of their experiences (2018, 43). Who is correct?
Some Comments on Hermeneutics
Before we can begin to referee between the Pentecostals and their detractors, we need to discuss hermeneutics. This might be a new term for some of you, but bear with me. Hermeneutics refers to the method of understanding “the meaning and application of biblical truth that should be the same and obligatory for all people at all times and in all circumstances” (Fee 1991, 38). Some hermeneutical maxims exist, which represent the general consensus of modern theologians. Understanding the Bible in its original context is the first step of hermeneutics. This process requires exegesis to determine the author’s intention (Fee 1991, 42). Furthermore, since the biblical authors wrote within the confines of the literary genres of their cultures, “the interpreter must take into account the literary genre of the passage being interpreted” (Fee 1991, 89).
Most Bible scholars and theologians agree on everything I wrote in that first paragraph. However, scholars have not reached agreement regarding interpretation of biblical historical narrative, especially interpretation of the narrative portions of Luke-Acts. The scholarship describes a divide between two conflicting methodologies of interpreting historical narrative. On the one hand, some scholars have approached Luke-Acts with a hermeneutical system that negates the doctrinal value of the narrative portions, while other scholars have affirmed the doctrinal value of the narratives. Henceforth, the former system will be called the negative hermeneutic, and the latter will be called the positive hermeneutic.
Fee, an advocate of the negative hermeneutic, argued, “For the formulation of Christian doctrine and experience one must go primarily to the didactic portions, and only secondarily to the historical” (1991, 85). By “didactic,” Fee meant the propositional statements, whether from the recorded words of Jesus and the apostles or from the pen of writers such as Paul. Fee followed the methodology of scholars such as John Stott, who stated, “What is descriptive is valuable only in so far as it is interpreted by what is didactic” (1975, 15). By “descriptive,” Stott meant essentially the same thing as Fee meant by the term “historical.” Proponents of the negative hermeneutic employed didactic portions of Scripture to interpret the narrative portions.
On the other hand, proponents of the positive hermeneutic utilized literary analysis to uncover the theology underlying narrative portions of the Bible (Menzies and Menzies 2000, 41). They sought the distinctive theology of the author of historical narrative, rather than reading his narrative through the lens of another biblical author (Stronstad 2012, 13). According to Stronstad, biblical historical “narratives fall into one or more of the following four categories: (1) episodic, (2) typological, (3) programmatic, and (4) paradigmatic” (2012, 9). The paradigmatic episodes establish Christian doctrine. Regardless, both camps agree that biblical interpretation must begin with authorial intent, and they tend to agree on Luke’s intent.
Uncovering Lucan Pneumatology
According to Fee, Luke intended “to show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, worldwide phenomenon from its origins as a Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers, and how the Holy Spirit was ultimately responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone” (1991, 91). This description seems accurate. As a writer of Greco-Roman historiography, Luke recorded factually accurate history for a substantive purpose (Quintilian 1892, 106). Luke commenced his two-volume work by informing his readers that he had “undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1 ESV). He concluded with Paul in Rome “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:31). Moreover, Luke mentioned the Holy Spirit approximately seventy-four times, which was more than any other biblical writer except Paul.
The controversy emerges in attempting to comprehend Lucan pneumatology (Stronstad 2012, 2). Does Luke have distinct contributions to make to Christians’ doctrine of the Holy Spirit, or should we interpret Luke’s narratives by looking to other parts of the Bible? Allusions to the Spirit abound in Luke-Acts. Luke discussed the Spirit’s role in events such as the births of John the Baptist and Jesus (Luke 1:5–2:52), Jesus’ inauguration for ministry (3:20–4:19), Pentecost (Acts 2), and the inception of Paul’s apostolic ministry (9:17). Each of these events contributed to the spread of Christianity, which Luke described in detail, but Luke recorded each of these events in descriptive historical terms, hence the controversy. Conclusions regarding Lucan pneumatology depend on whether one employs the positive hermeneutic or the negative hermeneutic.
Proponents of the negative hermeneutic looked to the writings of John and Paul to understand Lucan pneumatology (Fee 1991, 109–115). Following this method, Stott concluded that for Luke, “to have been ‘baptized’ by the Spirit is a vivid figure of speech for to have ‘received’ the Spirit,” which defines a converted Christian (1975, 21). Fee concurred, concluding, “That all believers in Christ are Spirit-filled is the presupposition of the New Testament writers,” including Luke (1991, 115).
Proponents of the positive hermeneutic predictably reached a different conclusion. Stronstad suggested, “Luke’s characteristic phrase ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’…has a different meaning in Luke-Acts than it has in” Paul’s corpus (Stronstad 2012, 14). Stronstad observed that, in Luke’s writings, everyone who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequently engaged in prophetic ministry of some sort (Stronstad 2018, 73). For example, immediately preceding Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ public ministry, Luke reported Jesus’ empowerment by the Holy Spirit when “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form” (3:22). Subsequently, Jesus began His ministry “in the power of the Spirit;” Jesus even quoted Isaiah regarding the source of His charismatic ministry (4:14, 18). Jesus instructed His disciples to continue the prophetic ministry He had begun only after the Spirit had empowered them (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8).
The disciples followed Jesus’ instructions, and immediately after being “filled with the Holy Spirit,” Peter preached a sermon that resulted in “about three thousand” converts (Acts 2:4, 41). Luke’s record of Paul’s encounter with the Spirit followed the same pattern. Three days after his encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus, Paul was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (9:17). Then, “immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues” (9:20).
An advocate of the negative hermeneutic would probably retort that all Christians enjoy such empowerment as a result of their Spirit-led initiation into Christianity. However, at least two events in the Acts serve as counter-examples to that conclusion. First, regarding the selection of the Seven, the apostles instructed the church to “pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (Acts 6:3). Hence, some believers were either fuller of the Spirit than others, or some were full of the Spirit, while others were not (6:3, italics added).
Second, William and Robert Menzies observed, “Acts 8:4–24 provides a real problem for those who argue that for Luke, as for Paul, reception of the Spirit is a necessary element in Christian initiation” (2000, 52). The Samaritans believed Philip’s message about Jesus and received water baptism (8:12). However, they did not receive the Spirit until days later when Peter and John arrived (8:17). Ben Witherington suggested that prior to the arrival of Peter and John, the Samaritans “were simply not fully equipped to be full-fledged Christians” (1998, 289). Following Witherington’s logic, did Luke then teach that had any of those Samaritans died before the arrival of Peter and John that they would have gone to hell? That interpretation seems unlikely. Stronstad concluded, “For Luke, ‘baptized in the Spirit,’ is the anointing or consecration of the disciples for (a prophetic) mission” (2018, 77). Therefore, according to advocates of the positive hermeneutic, Lucan pneumatology primarily revolves around empowerment for service, not conversion or sanctification.
The Case for the Positive Hermeneutic
Which method should the Bible student adopt? Does the negative hermeneutic not make historical narrative somewhat redundant? If historical narrative is only normative when it is repeated in a propositional statement by another author, then why was historical narrative included in the biblical canon? Was it just for entertainment purposes? Actually, arguing for the primacy of the didactic statements in Scripture is self-refuting. In three different places, Paul stated didactically the importance of biblical historical narrative in Christian instruction (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16–17; Rom. 15:4). In those places, Paul was discussing historical narrative from the Old Testament, but the principle applies to all biblical historical narrative, including Luke-Acts (Stronstad 2012, 7).
Why then do some scholars advocate the negative hermeneutic? Fee asked rhetorically, “Since there seems to be a considerable diversity of patterns within Acts itself, how therefore does one distinguish among them as to the ‘normative’ ones?” (1991, 103) In asking this question, Fee betrayed the rationale behind the negative hermeneutic, which amounts to fear of invalid interpretation. Scholars like Fee stick to the propositional portions of Scripture because they are afraid of misinterpreting the narrative portions. One relates to Fee’s tentativeness. James warned that teachers would be judged for incorrect teaching (3:1); however, Paul instructed Timothy and other church leaders not to operate under “a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim. 1:7).
Despite the difficulties, biblical scholars should strive to understand the theological foundation of the narrative portions of Luke-Acts. Moreland explained, “A claim is made true or false in some way or another by reality itself, totally independently of whether the claim is accepted by anyone” (2005, 80). Lucan pneumatology exists, irrespective of the trepidation of biblical scholars, and it is the job of the Christian to find it. Stronstad warned, “Where Acts remains shut out of contemporary relevance by a hermeneutic which is either hostile or antipathetic to the contemporary applicability of historical narrative, spiritual impoverishment will remain” (2010, 27).
Conclusion
Faithful students of the Bible will seek to understand Luke’s distinct pneumatology, rather than reading Pauline or Johannine theology into Lucan pneuma narratives. Once the students have determined Luke’s doctrine of the Spirit, they can compare his theology to the distinct theologies of the other biblical writers. Only then will the theologian comprehend the full scope of biblical pneumatology. This type of study requires diligent work, but the fruit is worth the effort.
Reference List
Fee, Gordon D. 1991. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
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.
Quintilian. 1892. Institutes of Oratory. Translated by John Selby Watson. London: George Bell and Sons. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556032509283&view=1up&seq=3.
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.