Early
Readers Perception
Another objective standard by
which we can interpret the Lucan narrative is by reading how the
initial readers understood his message. This is called early readers
perception. While this does not provide an objective standard, if we
can show that the readers of antiquity universally adopted a certain
principle of hermeneutics, it makes any variation extremely unlikely.
These witnesses were closer to the original recipients of the
letters and thus more able to distinguish nuances, customs, and
culture more readily than modern readers. This does not necessarily
indicate a proper understanding of tongues, but a more relevant
understanding of the cultural phenomenon (Kraeger 2010, 46). Many
of the apostolic fathers were mere decades removed from those who
wrote the scriptures, and established the paradigms we are trying to
verify. The church fathers were also the result of the paradigms the gospel writers were establishing; hence their doctrine is likely
the result of normative behavior on the part of the first generation
church. A brief review of the early church's doctrine shows that
they believed the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit to be normative
and the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be a post-conversion
experience. If the first Christians experienced the miraculous as
methodological and normative it strongly suggests the Gospel writers
intended it as such.
Miracles
The miracles discussed by the
early church were not symbolic or representative but used as a sign
to establish divine approval. Some theologians view the miracles as
ceremonial, and rather marking dispensation in God's approach. F.F.
Bruce suggests that the speaking of tongues on Pentecost was
ceremonial rather than practical. Tongues were not designed as a
method of bridging the language gaps between Christians and
foreigners, but as a one-time declaration in preparation for the
worldwide proclamation of the gospel (Bruce 1955, 53). This
conflicts sharply with scant
references to the miraculous amongst the
early church. Irenaeus says “many brethren
in the church” speak in tongues. Irenaeus does not use the term
speaking in tongues, but rather “through the Spirit speak
all kinds of languages” (Schaff 2001, 892). These gifts are not
equated with evangelism, gentile or otherwise, but the edification of
the church. For Ireneaus, the gifts had a purpose that extended past
the apostolic age. Other authors, such as Hippolytus, explicitly
state that miracles should follow, such as: exorcisms, tongues,
serpent handling, and healings. The fathers indicate that the
tongues-gift also served an important evangelistic purpose (Busenitz
2006, 66). So fundamental was this practice, that Tertullian speaks
of groups who mimic the Christian practice of using miracles to
evangelize for their heresy (Reid 1987, 385). In relation to
miracles, the early church firmly believed that the gifts of the
Spirit were used to practically accomplish the work of evangelism.
This is a result of a normative understanding of the Lucan narrative,
which many directly quote.
Signs
As shown above, the original
readers of the Lucan texts interpreted the miraculous as normative,
and used these miracles as a practical tool of evangelism. Yet this
view is not shared by all; Bruce believes events, such as Pentecost,
were not practical, but rather God showing His pleasure with the
gentile introduction into God's fold (Bruce 24, 1990), whereas
Menzies concludes Luke and Acts consistently portray the gift of the
Spirit as a prophetic endowment which enables its recipient to
fulfill a divinely ordained task (Menzies 1994, 273). The latter is
the view that dominated in earliest Christianity and is best
preserved in Luke-Acts (Turner 148, 2003). Miracles are multipurpose
in nature but the advantage that elucidates our area of interest is
to display the approval of God. Miracles are a violation of the
natural laws. When a task that only God can undertake is completed
in unison with a human it testifies that the human enjoys divine
approval. Miracles were used to prove the Gospel as the ultimate
apologetic (Ruthven 2008, 18). The early church recognized and
utilized this form of apologetics so successfully heretical groups
mimicked it.
Miracles hold that same capacity
for a testimony of divine approval today as they held then. On this
point Dunn disagrees; Dunn claims Jesus never used miracles to prove
the uniqueness of His identity. Dunn believes that the apologist is
faced with the dilemma of differentiating the miraculous claims of
Christ with that of the pagan (Dunn 1975, 74). It is apparent that
Dunn misses the apologetic nature of miracles and their contemporary
use. Firstly because Jesus does, in fact, use miracles to prove His
unique identity. When John the Baptist appealed for Christ to
emphatically confirm His unique identity as Messiah Jesus did not use
self-affirming claims but depended entirely on a testimony of
miracles (Matt 11:4-5). Jesus and His followers repeatedly appealed
to the use of miracles to confirm divine approval (John 10:25, 38,
14:11-12, 1 Cor 15:2-8). The Book of Acts constantly speaks of
miracles in conjunction with evangelism (Acts 5:12-16, 13:9-12,
16:25-34). By the principle of repetition we can easily establish
that miracles can and were used as a method of apologetics by several
biblical authors and that Jesus used miracles to establish His
uniqueness.
The early church adopted the
approach of using miracles as a form of evangelism. Dunn rejects the
normative use of miracles, thus would also doubt their apologetical
advantage. Where Dunn fails in equating the miraculous claimants of
Christians versus the pagan claimants is that generally the pagan is
just that, a claimant. In Dunn's view the miraculous is not a
persistent theme of the Christian experience, so all we have is what
the pagan has, ancient stories of supernatural, and our apologetic
abilities remain the same. But this hypothesis is only valid if
miracles have ended. Yet there is nothing within scriptures to
suggest that is the case. In fact using the interpreting principles
of the principle of repetition and early reader perception
we can safely say that Luke intended holy phenomena to follow the
Christian experience. Thus miracles can still be used with the
apologetic flair adopted by Jesus, the apostles, and the early
church.
Part 6 - Baptism in the Holy Spirit
Bibliography
Kraeger, Shane M., Toward a Mediating Understanding of Tongues: A Historical and Exegetical Examination of Early Literature, Eleutheria: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 5., 2010.
Bruce, F.F., Luke's Presentation of the Spirit in Acts, Criswell Theological Review, Buxton, Derbyshire, 1990.
Schaff, Philip, Ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 2001.
Busenitz, Nathan, The Gift of Tongues: Comparing the Church Fathers with Contemporary Pentecostalism, TMSJ, 17/1, Spring, 2006.
Reid, Patrick, Readings in Western Religious Thought: The ancient world, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1987.
Bruce, F.F., Luke's Presentation of the Spirit in Acts, Criswell Theological Review, Buxton, Derbyshire, 1990.
Menzies, Robert Paul, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Acts, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK, 1994.
Turner, Max, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, Word & World, Volume 23, Number 2, Spring 2003.
Ruthven, Jon Mark, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Post-Biblical Miracles, Word & Spirit Press, Tulsa, OK, 2011.
Dunn, James D. G., Jesus and the Spirit, A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment