Hermeneutical Philosophies for Interpreting Narrative Literature Part 8 - Conclusion

Conclusion

Luke had a very specific intent when composing his singular history, but did not have the good graces to write his own commentary, thus leaving the bewildered reader the arduous task of deciphering his design. All theologians recognize that Luke desired to provide religious instruction through his narrative. This problem lies in one's ability to create their own rules of interpretation in order to justify a theological preference. Yet if we treat Luke like any other author we can find his purpose with ease. The principle of repetition provides initially inductive reasoning by measuring how much Luke talks about one subject in relation to another. This enables us to see what subjects Luke wanted his audience to contemplate. Inductive reasoning of Luke shows Spirit inspired miracles to be a predominant theme. With this information we can deductively conclude that Luke intended his readers to be inspired by the miraculous work of the Spirit. If one believes Luke's intent to be different you must ask the question why practical miracles play a predominant role in the Lucan narrative. If Luke wanted his readers to think less on the subject, then persistent repetition was a flawed strategy. Thus, if anything from the narrative is normative, it is the numerous.

 Luke wrote this book for an audience, and like any adroit author, formed his writing in the most comprehensible form possible. Discovering how those to whom the text was intended interpreted the text helps us see through the fog created by the separation of language, geography, and culture. The objective facts gleaned from reading the church fathers shows how those by whom the Lucan narrative was received interpreted it. And these readers' interpretation corresponds with the pentecostal interpretation. If one interprets Luke-Acts differently from the initial audience is it possible that our contemporary theological culture has provided an element non-existent to the early church that Luke did not account for? Also, if we believe the early church perpetually interpreted Luke-Acts incorrectly, one must ask what cultural variable did Luke neglect to account for that caused his contemporary readership to err, but those separated by millennia to rectify their blunder? Author intent through the principles of repetition and early reader perception induce the objective information and deduce the normative intent of Luke.

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

Hermeneutical Philosophies for Interpreting Narrative Literature Part 7 - A Narrative from Silence

A Narrative from Silence

The Pentecostal Hermeneutic is criticized for forming a theology exclusively from the narratives, which mixes the unique with the programmatic. There are those that reject the entirety of the charismatic as having no contemporary relevance to ministry. Some theologians have surmised that the gifts of the Spirit were a temporary endowment granted for a special purpose. It was confined to the age of the apostles and is not present in the modern era (Eerdman 1919, 28). Those who reject the pentecostal hermeneutic may not be cessationists, but unable to find a satisfactory hermeneutical principle by which to interpret the miracle-laden text ,many abandon the practice of miracles altogether. Yet this approach has neither a didactic nor a narrative from which to base itself. The book of Acts is the singular post-pentecost history in scripture, and however one interprets that account, it cannot be denied that those whom Luke recorded performed copious amounts of miracles. Miracles constituted a significant portion of their ministry, with what regularity it is to be repeated is disputable. What is indisputable is that for decades miracles generally accompanied their outreaches, and the following generations of the church followed suit. Those today who neglect the miraculous forge a new ministry pattern that bears no resemblance to the early church. Thus, in rejecting the narrative due to the absence of the didactic, they are left with neither. The cessationist has no biblical justification of any kind; for this reason the number of cessationist scholars are rapidly declining and it is becoming an increasingly marginalized viewpoint

The cessationist position is found in a reaction against the pentecostal position, as opposed to scripture. Cessationist theologian John MacArthur believes if pentecostals were honest with themselves they would concede that personal experience, not scripture, forms the foundation for their belief system (MacArthur 1992, 26). This position comes at the beginning of a book that does not provide a single verse to support the cessation of spiritual gifts; but rather is polemic against abuses by those who misuse spiritual gifts. Cessationist thought finds its most complete and developed doctrinal expression in B.B. Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles (Bicket 2001, 82), who, like MacArthur, appeals nearly exclusively to what he perceives to be spiritual abuses from those touting miracles. The cessationist, in the absence of biblical support to malign a doctrine, must depend upon their negative experience with pentecostals, as opposed to solid biblical support to support their doctrine.

A miracless ministry is not one found in the scriptures, and to envision one is to create a new theology and ministry: a ministry without the apologetic resource of healing, exorcism, words of wisdom, and prophecy that defined the apostolic ministry. This form of outreach must base itself around alternative forms of evangelism that scripture neither endorses nor provides a narrative for example. Essentially, in doing so, this position is based on a narrative that doesn't exist. There are areas of valid criticism hurled at pentecostals, but that is an appeal to emotions, experience, and a narrative of silence. Thus their ministry may bear resemblances to the early church in charitable works and teaching, but in avoiding the miraculous set a precedent based on experience and tradition, rather than scripture.

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

Part 8 - Conclusion

Bibliography

Eerdman, Charles R., The Acts, An Exposition, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1919

MacArthur, John, Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992

Bicket, Zenas J., Introduction to Pentecostal Doctrine, Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri, 2001.

Hermeneutical Philosophies for Interpreting Narrative Literature Part 6 - Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

      Another area of differentiation is the baptism in the Holy Spirit; between those who deem it as a necessity of salvation and those who believe it to be a post-conversion adventure. The latter being the pentecostal view, and the former being the cessationist view. James Dunn adroitly explains the Pentecostal understanding of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit in the following points:

1. Pentecostals relate baptism in the Holy Spirit to the experience of the disciples on Pentecost.

2. Those who experienced the event were already saved.

3. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was subsequent to Christian conversion.

4. All Christians should be baptized in the Holy Spirit post-conversion (Dunn 1970, 38).


It is the position of the Pentecostal that these dogmas are consistent with the biblical narratives. Their modern-day parallel would have Christians experiencing a post-conversion experience with the Holy Spirit. Dunn supposes the bases of the Pentecostal theology are found in John 13:10, 15:3, 20:22 and Luke 10:20 (Dunn 1970, 38). But by Dunn's own description, Pentecostals associate themselves with the day of Pentecost. Thus forming a theology around an event using solely scripture before the event took place was ludicrous. If one wants to relate the day of Pentecost to the modern Christian experience one would depend almost entirely on the post-pentecostal narrative. Since only one post-pentecostal narrative exists in the scriptures, it stands to reason that Pentecostals would depend primarily on this account. This is the case and to establish a post-conversion, post-pentecostal theology we must look to depend primarily on the Lucan narrative. With this in mind, let us examine Dunn's characteristics of the pentecostal understanding of baptism of the Holy Spirit using the principles of repetition and early reader perception.

Principle of Repetition of Spirit Baptism

Seeking the principle of repetition for a post-conversion Spirit baptism is simple in that the process occurs throughout the text but problematic as it is under peculiar circumstances. There are several famous occasions when believers experience a subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8, 19), and the fact that Luke is so purposeful in repeating it gives cause for attention. Some have suggested that those within the narrative were not Christians at all, and these chapters are tales of salvation. One must wonder why if these unfortunates were damned the apostles merely laid hands upon them, an action generally reserved for anointing for gifts and office (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14), instead of sharing the Gospel. The obvious answer is that they were believers who did not know of the Holy Spirit and their error was an insufficient presentation of God's designs. One single reference would be insufficient to establish such a case, but a repeated incident implies a case for normative. This is compounded when we realize that the disciples were saved before Pentecost. Jesus' soteriology is based entirely around His person and work on the Cross, and gives no hint that baptism of the Holy Sprit equates to salvation. The Lucan references to Jesus discussing the Holy Spirit speak in terms of empowerment for the Great Commission. The disciples themselves, therefore, had a salvific experience prior to Pentecost, and Acts 2 could easily be added to the list of post-conversion Spirit baptisms. By the principle of repetition we can conclude that Luke intended post-conversion Spirit baptisms to be normative.

Early Readers Perception of Spirit Baptism

The early church does not provide us with a wealth of material on the subject, but scant references establish a practice of post-conversion baptism in the Holy Spirit. The church fathers rarely use the term "Spirit baptism" but sporadic inferences establish post-conversion theology. A few theologians analogized the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ and concluded the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the convert's baptism. Ambrose believed salvation occurred at water baptism, and baptism of the Spirit was synonymous with baptism (Schaff 1896, 99). But this theology did not arise from biblical grounds and is largely because of the early church's belief that a water baptism and Spirit baptism should be initiated by a Bishop, and owing to their scarcity, combined the sacraments for the sake of the Bishop's schedule (Ratzinger 1994, 326-327) The preponderance of references to a post-conversion baptism of the Holy Spirit is that it is induced by the laying on of hands (Roberts 2007, 415) (Roberts 1886, 669). The basic premise of the Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism, that one may receive later effusions of the Spirit post-conversion, can be clearly traced in Christian history to what later became the sacrament of confirmation in the Western churches (Synan 1997, x).


God Love You -- Rev. Sheen



Part 7 - A Narrative from Silence


Bibliography


Dunn, James D. G., Baptism in the Holy Spirit, An Examination of the New Testament Teach on the Gift of the Spirit in relation to Pentecostalism today, SCM Press LTD, London, UK, 1970.


Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume X, The Christian Literature Company, New York, NY, 1896.


Imprimi Potest, Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994.


Roberts, Rev. Alexander, and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Christian Literature Company, Buffalo, 1886.


Synan, Vinson. The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1997.

Hermeneutical Philosophies for Interpreting Narrative Literature Part 5 - Early Readers Perception

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.  

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen


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.