Gift & Giver by Craig S. Keener (Pt.10)

Why Discern the Spirit?

t age eighteen, after I had been learning to hear God's voice for about ‹one year, I shared my new insight with some friends, one of them a new believer I will call Rhoda (not her real name). A month

or  two later I  left for Bible  college,  and  others discipled  her. While I was

away, Rhoda grew beyond me in her ability to listen to God’s voice, and when I returned from Bible college, I found cout that she was having visions. I had never had a vision, and 1 jealously complained to God that it wasn't fair for him to give visions to her and not to me. I  was sure  this situation was unfair because I had been a Christian over three years and she had been one less than one year. As you may guess, I was not very spiritually mature, despite my zealous desire for God in some respects.

I believe that Rhoda was indeed walking clr›se to God. I now realize, however, that she was also in some spiritual danger, and had I spent less time being spiritually insecure, I might have proven more helpful to her. When I saw her, she quickly confronted  me on why I was becoming a  ster-

ile academic. There was a brief peri‹ d in my spiritual life when I did risk becoming  a sterile academlc,  but  this wasn't  the time. (Ironically, my ster-

187

Gift and Oiver

Why Discc rn the Spirit!

189

ile period was actually when I began pastoring.) Nevertheless, 1 prc›bab1y was too arrogant about the role of informatlon, priding myself c n having information that most of my friends didn’t have.

On the other hand, Rhoda risked becoming arrogant about her own spe- cial ability to hear God in prayer. She explained that the Bible was a help- ful record of other people’s revelations,  but she was getting her own now, so she did not feel badly that she could not spend as much time reading the Bible as she wanted. Less euphemistically, she wasn't reading the Bible much. I began to worry about her a little at that point.

One evening 1 was scheduled to meet with Rhoda, and before our meet- ing, I prayed and asked God  to speak  to me. My  motives really left much to be desired: I knew Rhoda would have heard something from God recently, so I figured that I had better hear something from him too, or she would accuse me again of being unspiritual. Because he is gracious, God forgave my motives and spoke to me in prayer, pointing out to me another argu- ment from Scripture 1 could use to defend the deity of Christ. While we were on the subject, I asked the Lord why he had said that he and the Father were one when in fact the Son is not the Father. He responded that he also prayed that his disciples would be one; that did not make them the same person. That connection had never occurred to me before, and I was quite happy to hear it.

When Rhoda showed up that evening, I eagerly shared with her my new insight about the deity of Christ. She waved her hand dismissively. “God showed me that months ago,” she announced. My pride collapsed, again deflated. She insisted on taking me over to the home of the friend who had been discipling her and on the way began sharing with me her new reve- lation: There wasn't just a Trinity. Eventually, Christians would become God, the fourth person of the Trinity.

Although certain that she would chide me f‹ r my lack of spiritual insight, I objected, pointing out that the Bible didn't teach thar. “Oh, I know,” she responded. “The Bible was written a long time ago, whereas this truth was only revealed a few weeks ago.”

“But the Bible teaches against it,” I countered. She retorted that she wasn't saying we are gods; she simply meant we would become  divine in the distant future. I pointed to Revelation 22, the final chapter in the Bible, where God's servants serve him before his face forever.

“1t's farther in the future than that,” she replied. By now we had arrived at the home of her friend, and she and her discipler were ganging up on me, nr›ting that 1 was holding on to dogma and needed t‹a get their new reve-

lation from the Holy Spirit. Their rebukes of my lack of spirituality made me feel somewhat stubborn, but I kept responding from Scripture. (They said that we would each become saviors of other planets, like Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia. They had gotten that “revelation” while reading

C. S. Lewis.)

Finally, 1 learned part of the basis for their revelation: The discipler believed that]esus and the Father were the same person because they were one, so being one with them would make us the same person as God too. Only later did 1 remember rhat in prayer earlier that night 1 had heard the Lord say something quite different on the same subject.

The point here is not that all insights we receive in prayer are wrong. The point is that if they are unscriptural, however, they are certainly wrong. Neither of us could persuade the other that evening; I clung tenaciously to my Bible, and they to their revelations.

Why Must We Discern the Spirit?

My dear friend Rhoda and her discipler both realized their error in time and returned to biblical views about the Trinity. Tragically, however, Rhoda fell away from the faith a year or two later, when she found much resistance in her charismatic church to some of her “prophecies.” To this day I mourn when I recall the zeal with which she started her relationship with Christ and my failure to provide better support and correction when she needed it. Yet Rhoda was hardly alone in mistaken “revelations.”

In earlier chapters we talked about hearing God's voice and about the Spirit's leading in evangelism and his empowerment for spiritual gifts. Now we must tackle the less pleasant issue of discernment. Discernment is impor- tant not only when distinguishing true prophets from false  ( 1 John  4:1-6) or true prophets' accurate from inaccurate prophecies (1 Cor. 14:29). Dis- cernment is also lmpc›rtant in hearing God for ourselves.

Mature Christians have witnessed many inaccuracies blamed on the Holy Spirit or, for that matter, on the Bible. Those who have been Chris- tians for several decades undoubtedly remember many unfulfilled claims about the Lord's return. One of the more notorious in my time was a book that calculated the year of Jesus’ return: 88 R£asonS Wh) the Rupture Could Be in 1988. The book sold cover three million copies—in 1988. The revised edltion, pre viding eighty-nine reas‹ ns why Jesus might return in 1989, did not sell as well. (Let it never be said that North American evangelicals

190

C ift and Crix•er

Why Discern the Spirit?

191

are easily deceived—at least not twice in tw‹a years by the same author

anyway. )

Charismatic Critiques of Charismatics

Revelations, whether based on spiritual insight in prayer or on study of the Bible, can be mistaken and must be tested by Scripture. Given my sup- port of spiritual gifts and my own exercise of some of those gifts, 1 trust that you will understand that I am not criticizing genuine spiritual gifts here. Instead, I am responding to excesses that have often occurred in circles not grounded in Scripture (what some charismatics playfully call “charismatic granola”—the nuts, fruits, and Blakes of the Spirit).

J. Lee Grady, editorial director of Charisma magazine, authored a book called Whnt Habbengd to the Fi’re? which needs to be read by many charis- matics.' While various readers may differ with some of his examples, Grady, as a charismatic, lovingly but thoroughly documents many examples of charismatic error. He shows that sraunder self-criticism is needed if charis- matics are to contribute to the larger body of Christ with the gifts God has glven them.

My criticisms, like Grady's, are made “in-house.” I'm attacking not spir- itual gifts but spiritual error propagated in the name of spiritual gifts. Many anticharismatic complaints about the “bad fruit” of charismatic doctrine pertain not to the Spirit or the gifts per se but to the legalism and the oppo- sition to serious Scripture study exhibited by some groups of charismatics. Sometimes these problems are borrowed from noncharismatic popular reli- gion, but whatever the source, since some Christians in error identify them- selves as charismatic, sounder charismatics must take special  responsibil- ity to lead ‹others away from such practices. This is what 1 am seeking to emphasize in this section.

Mature charismatics recognize that not everything that passes as the we rk of the Spirit amcang Christians today is in fact from the Spirit. A church's label will not tell you in advance whether the Spirit is present. Contrary to their own claims, for instance, some charismatic churches plaln1y follow a charismatic tradition by rote; by contrast, in some non- charismatic churches (such as the black Baptist church where 1 was ordained), only the mt›st spiritually insensitive person could fail to sense the t vcrwhelming presence of God's Spirit. Some charismatics who reject the “traditi‹ n” of colder churches are similarly bound to more recent tra-

ditions based on a “revelation” only a few years old, but it is tradition ntinetheless.

If we parrot others' teachings  without  having first checked  the context of the passages they quote, we are simply perpetuating tradition, not expounding God’s Word faithfully. (One could illustrate  how frequently this practice occurs simply by listing the commonly cited texts of many word-of-faith teachers, then examining each in context. Not many texts would remain.) And if we value our church's tradition more than God’s Word, it may be our church tradition rather than God we are serving (com- pare Mark 7:6—13).

Examples o{ Problewintic “Rerelotions”

Likewise, not every purported revelation comes from the Spirit. One questionable revelation occurred while early Pentecostals were deciding on the nature of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Under the Baptistic influ- ence of W. H. Durham, many Pentecostals decided that baptism in the Spirit was a second rather than a third work of grace. One of the advocates of three stages, however, then claimed to have had a vision revealing that the devil had instigated the two-stage doctrine to get unsanctified people involved in the Pentecostal movement.

Other “revelations” continued to create problems for early Pentecostal unity. Shortly after much of the Pentecostal movement had settled on the two-stage view, a major segment of the movement split away because one man claimed that one should baptize only in Jesus' name, rendering bap- tism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” illegitimate. This revelation led to the view among many that Jesus was the Father and Spirit as well as the Son—the ancient teaching of Sabellianism, which has little suppcart from the Bible.

Many Pentecostals followed the “Jesus only” doctrine, however, lest they dare ter questic n a personal revelation. J. R. Flower, one of the early Assem- blies of God leaders, publicly stood against the revelation, declaring it unbib- lical. Initially, he was virtually alone in his public declaration, but through his courageous stand, most of the Pentecostals who had accepted the rev- elation returned tea the Biblical, trinitarian position. Some, however, have continued to teach the Sabellian (“Jesus only”) positi‹ n to this day.

D. R. McCr›nnell has arguec4 that much ‹af contemporary “faith teach- ing” stems frriin an early founder of this mr vement, who› t‹ ok many ideas frt›m E. W. Kenyon. Although claiming to derive these ideas from direct

Gift and C.iver

reve1atit›n by the Hr 1y Spirit, thls fc under's we rds ‹me sometimes alin‹ st identical with Kenyon’s earlier  wc›rds,  sometimes fear sever‹il  paragraphs  at a t lme. Kenyon was not Pentecostal; in fact, he opposed tongues. McCcannell has shown rhat Kenyc›n was significantly influenced by hls read- ing of the New Thought systems that produced Christian Science.’ An African friend and I cowrote a biblical response to what we believe are sc›me serious errors in the prosperity and “faith” teaching, for use in his hcame country. Suffice it to say here, 1 believe that error slipped into many well- meaning charismatic circles, error that has discredited even legitimate charismatics in many wider evangelical and mainline circles.

lt is too easy to blame our bad sermons, bad ideas, and so forth on the Holy Spirit. Only when we are humble enough to truly learn the difference between the Spirit's wisdom and our own will we press on to spiritual maturity.’

The Bible’s Role in Discernment

As important as our own relationship with the Spirit is, we must main- tain a sense of proportion. Like many Christians, my friend Rhoda  and other Christians mentioned above did not have the Bible in its proper place. God's revelations to all his apostles and prophets in the Bible have already been tested; hence, the Bible serves as a canon, a reliable measuring stick for all claims to revelation today.

Many prophets spoke in Jeremiah's day, but the destruction of Jerusalem

revealed that only one of them—Jeremiah—was speaking for God. So guess whose book made it into the Bible! Jeremiah claimed that the earlier true prophets had prophesied judgment and that this left the burden of proof on any prophet who declared that all would go well with God’s people (Jet. 28:8-9; compare 23:16-32). History has testeci the blb1ical revelatlons, and we must use them to evaluate and guide  our  ‹own  sensitivity  t‹ the  Spirit. The se who learn to recc›gnize God's voice in the Bible will recognize the Spirit when he speaks in the lr he arts.

Yet hearing God’s voice in the Bible is n‹ t slmp1y ab‹ ut qu‹ating verses here and there; many people quote verses and use them tc argue oppc›site points against each other. God gave us the Bible not in isolated verses with blank space between them, but one b‹a‹ak at a time. This is the way Gc›d's Spirit inspired Scripture, and this is therefore the way we can best hear his voice in it. We must learn Scripture in context, p‹issage by p‹issage and book by book, mother than simply depcnci ing on our town (or someone e19c's) rev- elations. Neglecting the revclat lc›n God already gave us in Scripture in

\Vhv 1  isccrn rhe Spirit!

f‹w c›r ot a new revclat i‹ n  th  at  ›  iolates Sc r lpture  is a clanperous  practice.  It is like one prraphct wh‹i heeded another pre phet's (false) claim r›f a reve- lation, ncglcctlng  a  revelation  he  already  had;  lie  died  for  disobeying  God ( 1 Kings 13:16-22).

The situation regarding Bible  interpretation is more serious  than  many of us, either charismatic or n‹ ncharisinatic, realize. Most verses that are ran- domly quc›ted in churches are qu‹ated by rotc rather than by having hrst stud- ied them in context. Consequently, many f these verses do not  mean what we use therri tc› mean. (For instance, the “thief” in the context of]ohn 10:10 is not merely the devil, nor d‹ es “lifting Jesus up” in John 12:32—33 refer primarily to praise—as the interested reader may quickly confirm by check- ing those passages in context. In Ps. 118:22-24, “This is the day the  Lent has made” [miv] actually refers to a specific, mc›mentc›us day in history! )

Sincere, zealous brothers and sisters have toga often unc{uestioningly accepted what popular ministers have said, though some ‹ f thc›se ministers quote almost every verse they use out of context. Some contend  that God can speak through a Scripture verse taken out of context. Grante‹1, God is sc›vereign and can speak as he pleases—through a proof text, a poem, or Balaam’s donkey. But we do next regularly seek out donkeys to tell us how to live. In the same way, we cannr›t tench as authc›ritative for the rest of Christ's body any interpretati‹an of Scripture that is nr›t genuinely  in  the text and accessible to all. lf we humbly pray for these ministers and they have humble hearts before God, God can lead) them to a better under- stancJing. Yet h‹aw touch better it would have been tc› correct the error before they began to mislead s‹ many either people!

We who look the other way while God's servants in istreat his Word must share the blame. (If someone misrepresented) our lntentic›n by quoting us out c›f context, we might sue! ) Let us pray for a fresh revival of the  Spirit  t‹ da '—for the ‹aw‹ik en Int of G‹ c)'s church to the truth of his Work.

Unfair Noncharismatic Critiques of Charismatics

                                  Why Discern the Spirit!

Way International affirmed a pretribu1ati‹ na1 rapture; so do many Daptists in North America. Are Baptists therefore a cult / Some dc›c msday cults deny a pretribulati‹ nal  rapture;  are  most evangelical  Presbyterians  and Baptist

seminary professt rs who deny pretribulationalism therefore part of a cult / If tooth those who affirm and thcase who deny pretribulationalism must be cut- tic,  is it possible  to avoid  being in a cult / (Lest  you  think 1 am  therefore

advocating mid-tribulationalism—I am not—this was merely an example.) Second, most cults do accept new revelation, but most cults accept it only as late as the period of their own founding revelation, and they end up denying crucial biblical revelations in the process. This is not what main- streaicharismatics do; many are just trying to follow biblical injunctions about being “led by the Spirit” (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18) in their daily lives. In the same way, if some young charismatics' susceptibility to false teach- ing taints the entire charismatic movement, should tainted  charismatics then be thought to taint all their fellow evangelicals! In many parts of the world (such as most of Latin America), most evangelicals are charismatic

‹ar Pentecostal.

Further, mainstream charismatics do not accept new doctrinal revelation that they believe is not in the Bible. Finally, MacArthur himself is not above appealing to pr sthiblicHl Church tradition, so long as it is not charismatic

(that is, if it claims to be true wisdom rather than a true “revelation”).7

Fairer Critiques of Charismatic Excess

Nevertheless, MacArthur's book does provide useful and  accurate  exam- ples r I charismatic excesses, and unfortunately,  many  long-term  charis- matics  could  provide  many  more  examples.  In  the  1970s  I  heard  of some

fringe charlsmatics w'hti had peoFle cough attitude-demons into jars, which u’ould then be scalecJ and stored in a basement. Once 1 was going fc›rward for prayer at a church  I was vlsiting when the  minister started casting out    a demon from a broken wrist of the woman in front of me. I returned to my seat as ctuickly as possible! Many of us who afhrm and practice spiritual gifts

w tauld feel more comfortable am‹ang anticharismatics who are at  least guru ‹red in Scripture than amc›ng such (laky charlsmatlcs.

M‹›rc t‹  the  pc int  is  MacArthur's  critique  of  some  charlsmatics'  Bible in terpretati‹ n metht cJ. Many charismatics (especially in the “faith ie ve-  ment” 1 ut also› among some ncancharisinatic pictistic Christians) claim th‹*t the Spirit has revealed meanings of Scripture to them when the texts read

in context have mething whats‹iever n› do with their “revelati‹ n.” lf one is gc›ing ie get revelations that contradict rhe inspired meaning of Scripture, why nor just get revelations from watching a bird or reading a poem / Why even use the Bible if what God originally inspired it to say is irrelevant /

There is nothing more dangerous than someone acring with the assur- ance that the Spirit has spoken to him or her when in fact he has not. We dare not preach as if the authority of Scripture is behind us, when in facr Scripture in context does not support what we say. The charismatic early Christians recognized that all claims concerning revelations must be tesred (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20-22), and they continued in the apostles’ teach- ings (Acts 2:42). It is no wonder that some noncharismatics are afraid that charismatics will go off the deep end. Without careful grounding in Scrip- ture, even well-meaning charismatics, moved by various feelings and pre- dispositions they regard as the Spirit, have sometimes done just that.

The Purpose of Spiritual Gifts (1 Corinthians 12—14)

Spiritual giftedness does not guarantee that we hear from God rightly on every point. The Cc›rinthian church was like parts of the Western church today: socially stratihed, individualistic, and divisive. Although Paul com- mends them for their pursuit of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:5, 7), he reproves them for a deficiency far more serious: They lack love, the principle that should guide which gifts they seek (1 Corinthians 12—14; 1:10).

Spiritual gifts are for building up the body (1 Corinthians 12), and love must coc rdinate our expression of spiritual gifts ( 1 Corinthians 13). Thus, prophecy, a gift that builds up others, is more useful publicly than uninrer- prered tongues ( 1 Corinthians 14). Gifts, including prophecy, are no guar- antee of spiritual cc›mmitment, and one may prophesy falsely or evcn sub- mit to the Spirit's inspiration without being committed to Christ (Matt. 7:21-23; 1 Sam. 19:20—24).' Paul reminds his friends in Corinth that they experienced ecstatic inspiration in Greek religican before their conversion ant) points out that the message of Christ, rather than insFirati‹ n in gen- eral, is what is central ( 1 Cor. 12:1—3). Communicating the content of God's message, rather rhan how ecstatically one speaks it, is what is cen- tral. This principle applies not  only  to iongues-speakers and  prophets  but to well-meaning preachers who mistake enthusiasm for anointing while delivering empry religious speeches devoid of sc›und scriptural teaching.

\\’hy  Discc rn the Spirit?

i.inks the leading gifts (apo5 » *1 prc›phecy, and teaching) and then lists orher  g ifts  w ith‹a ut  explicitly   raming  their   importance   or  aut hority  ( } 2; 2)—30). Paul  urges the  church to be zealc us for the  “(best” gifts (that is,

th‹,s   that will best j«ilh up the ch«ohi 12.  1). »r«i"1l   prophecy( ) Thus, it is appropriate t‹i seek spiritual gifts, but  we choose  which  glfts  to seek  by Üetermining  which  gifts will help the  be dy  of Christ  most. That  is,

we let love guide our chc›ice ( 1 Gc rintRiatlS 13 ) .

Paul covcrs this point  in s‹ me detail. Althc›ugh  we sometlmes  relegate 1 C‹ rinthians 13 to use at weddinps, Paul wrote it in the c‹antext of a dis- cussion c›f spiritual gifts. Even if  we had  all S)iritual glfts  in  their  ultimate int nsity, we c ould be nothing without love ( 13:1—3). The gifts will ulti- mately  pass ou oy,  kut  love is erernal  ( 13:8—13).  While  noting  the priority

of love over spiritual gifts, Paul describes the characteristics of love ( 13:4-8). Many of the characteristics he lists (for instance, not being boastful) are precisely  the  opposite of characteristics he earlier attributed  to his  readers

in/orinth (set 5:Ï; 8:l)

Thus, while the Corinthian Christians were strong in Spirit-led glfts, they were weak in Spirit-led character. For this reason, Paul needed to empha- size the importance of the gift of prophecy, which edifies the entire church, over uninterpreted  tongues,  which edifies only the speaker  ( 1 Corinthians

14). Alth hugh Paul focused on what would serve the church as a whole, he w as careful not to portfd\ tc›ngues negatively ( Id:d, 14—19, 39). He exer- clsed  this cauti‹ n even though  he could  not  have  known  that some  later

Christians, contrary tta 1 Cr›rinthians 14:39, would despise the

Applying Paul’s Message Today

T e ’ 3 Ç     ' ÿ       g    tp) Ç  t ]J L 1  Ù   t   Ü n      Ü 1 e

quest on of whether Paul would have apçlied the came argument to all cÏirirches in hls day.  As many  Pentecostals  and  charismat lcs note, some of his specific restrlctions on gifts may have applied to the excesslve  sit-  uat il n in Ctirinth rather than tr› all cherches. II, CS iS lfÉ C(\, lTtOS t Corinthian housc-churclaes seated ‹an ly forty members,   SEISQCCt that the

clynriin ice ‹ f spiritual  gifts wc uld  apply differently  there  than  in a  con-

prcpatic›n of tw o the usand ineiubers, where more liinits wc ulcJ  be neces- cary,  or  in  a  prayer  meeting of  fi› e ineinbers,  w'here fewer  w‹ ulcl  be nec-

eS9‹irv. Li ke w'iSe, in churches tr›Üay in whiLh most spir lt na1 yi(tS ‹tre suspect, ( rophccy wr›uld edith the church no more  th‹in  t‹›ngiies  would,  because CVclä the [8'lfCS L )f£lphcCy, appfoVed by t3th(‘r tr(lSfW€JfËhy pFtOphe(S, wt Ufo) intr‹icluce only divisic›n.

Some charisinatics insist that the public functic›n r›f all the gifts, includ- ing tr ngues and prophecy, is so important that we should  pursue  them (1 C‹ r. 12:3 l ; 14:1) even if d‹iing so splits a church. Other charismatics, howcvcr, ( inclucling myself) suggest that this view mlsses Paul's point. The purpose of the gifts is to make the body of Christ stronger, and if public usc c f yifts would divisie a noncharismatic congregation, charismatic inem- bers shoulcJ h‹mc›r the unity ‹ f the body first and foremost. This is not to say that they should not w‹ rk through appropriate channels to bring the congregation to greater biblical maturity in the mat ter of spiritual gifts. Bus hide gifts dfe important anJ biblical, they are not  the  most iipor- tant issue in the body of Christ. The greatest sign of maturity iS love.

When 1 was Fart of a congregation that embraced prophecy, the Holy Spirit inoved inc nearly every week in the service to prophesy. Home weeks the prophecy ciealt with issues a number ‹ f people were struggling with;

s‹ame  weeks  it  w ould  call  t‹  attention  a  particular   theme, pertaining  to the w orc)s of a particular biblical text—the text the pastor  had  felt led  to preach on that very week, though  neither  of  us  knew  how  the  Lord  had been leading the other. After two  years  there,  I  returned  to a  noncharis- matic church, going on staff  with  a  Baptist  church,  The  senior pastor  told me that I was welcome to exercise whatever gifts the Lord had given me, including tongues and prophecy. At  this  church  I  hacl more opportuni- ties to  minister,  especially  through  weekly  teaching  from  the pulpit.  Yet the Spirit never ‹once moved me to priiphesy in this church. lnstead, the Spirit eind ‹›ivcred  rue w ith  rhe gift caf teaching,  which  was accepted there. (Ü 1 C3Ccasi€JlJ, With the fLlll Suppc3l‘t c4f the sCiJ iC8l’ paStC3r, ) t‹3u)h t ‹3bclFlt

the Spirit's gifts, but this te‹iching ne ver bee‹rn e ‹i ccllise ‹ f ‹) iv iS lon. Mest weeks I did not address spiritual gifts, h‹ wever, because inany other issues needcd to de addressed in the  congregation—(rod's demams for sexual h‹ lincss, proper treatment tof one's spousc, concern for the poor  in the ne ighborhood, and so on. Teachings on alc›rt ic›n, premarital sex, how husbands should treat their wives, and methode for outreach in the coi- munity proved far mc›re controversial than tongues or prophecy. The Spirit continued t‹ ineve in various ways in this congrcpation, but while s‹›iue other issues becamc mildly c) ivisive, spiritual gifts never did.

Gift and Giver

t,p qr inane a secret about my ow'n spir it ua1 cx  eriences,  and  with the actor's approval, I minlstereci ( rivate1y thru ugh prophecy when the Spirit  rnraved rue  to do so. But some of the  friends who ministered  to me

most deeply there did not share my particular experiences; ccur unity was rooted in our common fellowship in Christ. Eventually, after I had moved away tc› a teaching position in another part of the state, some members began to pre phesy in the congregation occasionally, and the church has embraced the prc›phecies without a single complaint. Not every situation works the same way, but 1 Corinthians 12-14 does prc›vide a biblical prin- ciple: God gives us the gifts to serve the church, not to div lde it.

John MacArthur and other critics of charismatic excess are correct in saying that congregations have often divided over spiritual gifts. 1 have personally witnessed far metre cases, however, in which mainline churches have been rejuvenated and revived by charismatic evangelical ministers or crammitted members of the congregation. As long as a congregation acknowledges that spiritual gifts may continue today and does not despise those who exercise or fail to exercise particular gifts, spiritual gifts need never be a divisive issue.

The fact that gifts have often been a divisive issue is not an argument against their appropriate use. Often those opposed to the gifts have actu-  ally created the division, refusing to live at peace with charismatic mem- bers. At other times division bras arisen when charismatics have empha- sized sp iritual gifts or experiences (or sea me less biblical ideas) while neglecting other aspects of the Spirit’s work (such as  spiritual  fruit  or sound understanding of the Bible) . The division can come from overzeal- c›usness or c verreaction on either side. But all believers—from the most fervent Pentecostal to the most  cc  mmitted  cessationist—can  walk  in unity if we dare to love one another as Christ leaved us. Unity, after all, comes frc›m the ‹one Spirit among us ( 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:)). Many of us believe, however, that one It ng-term fruit of this unity will not be the diminution of spiritual gifts but their restoration tra the entire body  of Christ, to whom they rightfully belong ( 1 Cor. 12:12—26).

Charismatic Separatism

As we have affirmed  thru  ughout this book, the gifts are good, but most r f us also recognize that they are n‹at everythlng  by themselves.  Not only is st›me of what passes fr›r the Spirit n‹at genuine, but some of what is gen-

Why  Disccrn the Spirit? 199

uinely of the Spirit may go unrccognizcd because ot our biases and tradi- titans. Although spir ltual gifts and fruits rightfully belong ro the entire body of Chrisr, some charismatics of the seFaratist  variety insist thar anyone who

believes that spiritual gifts are for  today must  join  their kind of church.

There ls mething wrong with joining a church that provides for the free exercise of spiritual gifts, but this does not mean that God requires all believ- ers to join charismatic churches.

Many other Christians who affirm and practice spiritual gifts believe God's Spirit has led them into, or led them to remain in, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, African Methodist Episcopal, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Mennonite, or other churches. Many charismatics also serve as biblically faithful voices in circles in which such voices are needed.

Nor are charismatic churches always more Spirit-led than othet churches. Charismatic churches can be dominated by ideologies and personalities that conflict with the gospel just as noncharismatic churches can be. Some churches are indeed unfriendly to any word from the Spirit, but this includes some charismatic and Pentecostal churches. Some charismatic churches have distorted the gr spel through legalism or cult figures. One charismatic friend rold me of a charismatic community to which he belonged years ago that practiced a severe form of“shepherding.” When he disagreed with some leaders, he was excommunicated; the leadership became so arrogant and cultic that eventually the church split, the gospel came into great dishonor, and some of the believers left church altogether or took years to recover.

God often has a godly remnant even in congregations rhat other people call “dead churches” (Rev. 3:d). I have friends who became ministers in such churches, evangelizing not only on rhe streer bur during the church services. In many cases, getting long-time church members converted was like pulling teeth, and it would have been easier n start with a much smaller but zealous church and evangelize the community. But G‹ d can work eirher way, and he does call serine to bring life to “dead” churches; he never calls any of us only re tasks that are easy.

The way the Bible defines a “dead” church, however, is not what every- one means by the term. Some of the more extremist charismatics have claimed that dead churches are any churches that do not speak ln tc ngues, but this is simply false. Biblically deac4 churches are the se that disobey Christ's call (Rev. 3:1—2) and in which most of the members are next truly Christians (Rev. 3:4-5). The percentage of members who are committed, witncssing,  Bible-reading, and Bible-obeying  Christians  is a far better test

‹ f spiritual  life in a church  than tongues. Nor to  tongues necessarl1y iden-

t t{$  ¿)’bly  “(     ‹lï 1glTl it t 1C” CTU l‘C))CS: HOU\\' lTl ‹UU C)9 klï lS lTl F4 t 1c C)ä Al ICT CS i Fl y'[y t [y tt lj¿LlU ü (3Ï a)S Ï1t UW UW UU t3F t 11a UW )°€1Ü UC CTU ICT SCfV ICC .

While the ‹ perati‹ n of charisiuatic  gifts ln thc church  is biblical and

c]esirab1e, r›rher circuinstances be lng equa1, the  separatist mentality has  seri-

‹›us vL‹ knesses.

First, there are a variety of gifts ln Christ's body, s‹ me c›f which are more important for public worship than othcrs. Rare is the church  in which  all the gifts are in full «r eration, and that includes most charismatic churches. Teaching ls an important gift, yet as we mentioned above and as most sc›und claarisinatics recc›gnize, inany unsound charismatics exist. Whether or not

one is charismatic, if one regularly studies the Bible in context, c›ne will buffer agony while sitting through a sermon in which the minister takes vcrses out of context.

.Althouph inany inadvertenrly take Scriprtire uur of c‹›ntext und hiimbly desire God's truth, others arrogantly refuse to admit the need to change, attrlbuting their out-c f-context inrerpretations  te  the  Holy  Spirit.  One time l heard a minister preach about “let the weak say 1 am strong“ in Joel 3:10, declaring that we need to confess ourselves strong. Of course, G‹ d’s strength ls made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9-10), but the ptaint c›f Joel 3:10 ln er ntext is soincthing different. Gr›cJ is calling the wicked  nations  to waar against Jerusalem and inocking them: “Yr›u are weak, but pretend you are strong against me! I wll1 destrr y y‹au” (joel 3:2—16). We all make inistakes, and I and the minister both made one that day. Mine was that I tried to talk with him about it; I suggested after the service that  there was  an interestinp nugget  in the context ‹af that passage.  He resp‹ nded curtly, “1 km w what the context says. But this is what the Spirit gavc inc to prcach.” Unfortrmatcly, what the Spirit dave him was not what the Spirit gave Joel! HiS lTl iSt‹)ke, llke lninc, \v‹4S [°r He. He ptlbllcly prctenÜc) U3 Speak €Jn the

‹l Al L)ä t 41‘1 f\'    t l    P))C   31      1C i3)    ÊC X f  XC   H'‹3 ü  CX)t  LI EU)113     \¥')lCFl  1 Al   ‹3C Ë  Ü  fü  [°t 11l2 f  ÜiJ)

iu›th ink t‹  cm with the   oint ‹ i  that  text. Hls p‹ int is as actually  a  lcpiti-

14J ‹J LC     1 )   l C it   t )FIC ,     Al L 1    )4C \\'‹3 U f Cc)  t t 7 C  ‹1HH   f))  C  0 Al t))   Ch‘1 t     UW     C f 1   t LI1‘C St lf

U lS lncssfl c, HC Sl3ofll) h‹lVe (t3LllAc) ‹1 text that Üt his lTlcSS‹J c pr‹3 er1)’ (ft0r ex.iinp1e, 2 (for. 12:9—1 0) ‹ r a mcssngc thrat fi t la is text pro pcrly (for cx un-

R'h\   Discern the Spirit? 20{

the biblical text accuratcly th‹in in a charismatic church  in which  the  min- ister blames unsound preaching on the Spirit's guidance. Until those charis- matic churches who have poor teaching can supply bc th spirltual einp‹aw- erment and sounder teaching, many of them will continue to de only a way station fr r Christians who›  need  a  fresh  spiritual  experience  but  who  end up taking it elsewhere c nce they have  lt.  Worse,  some  churches  will  nur- ture believers in a defective spiritualité  that  falls short  of  the  “whole  coun- sel of God,” leaving their llock susceptible to future crises in tlmes of pers secution, false teaching, or national judgment (Acts 20:26—31 ).

Second, all the gifts rightly belong to the entire body of Christ. If every- cane who privately prays in tongues withdraws into cherches that are defined primarily by their public use of particular spiritual gifts, who will remain in noncharismatic churches te introduce others to thèse gifts in nondivisive

ways? Does God call everyone who prays in tongues te› worshiF only in charismatic churches /

Third, all the gifts should build up the body of Christ rather than divide it. Some ministers in the Baptist association in which I was ordained were concerned about charismatic ministère because a number hacl pulled their churches out of the Baptist association or had deliberately pulled members away from Baptisé churches. ! think few of our minlsters believed that super- natural gifts had ceased; certainly few would have objected to members who personally prayed in tongues or talked ajout it in a nondivisive way. The fear, however, was division, which does not come fra m God's Spirit (Rom. 16:17; Jude 19).

Fourth, different churches have different strengths and callings. Ideally, we should be united enc ugh that the strengths of various churches can com- blement one another. We should be able to learn from and grraw in cane another's gifts, whether they be teaching,  evangelism,  ‹ r  more faith  to pray fr›r aillnp membcrs ln ‹nir churches. I  went  on  staff with  a  Baptisé  church for the First time partly because I saw the pastor's  heart  to  reacli  the unreached people obc›ur cominunity in a way few other cherches there were doing. The Spirit had given me a passion for evangelism that easily ton k precedence c ver attending a  church  in  which  people  were  invited  te›  pray in tongues out l‹ ud.

Finally, the common mission that unites us as Christians puts any ‹Other particular agenda in second place. Sc›me current issues in evangelicalism unclraubtec3ly are worth dis icling over—f‹›r instance, whether ]ceux is the only way r›f salvation, an affirmation that I believe is at the heart c f the

)ospe1 esu$' trst fC3llt3wers preached. I fe‹lr that this issuC m‹1y bCcomc a

inajr›r ponit of dl› isi‹ n in the next c)ecade, as the world's climate of rela- tivism continues tea invade the church. But most issues we debate among c›urselves should not prevent us from working tragether in our common mis- sion for Christ.

Thus, for instance, I have wrltten elsewhere on issues currently debated among Christians. But while I may disagree with scholars such as Wayne Gru- Mem on women's ministry and William Heth on divorce, they are two of my esteemed friends. I may disagree with J. I. Packer on women’s ministry but heartily appreciate his great contributions to the br›dy of Christ. If we broke fellowship with other believers every time we dlsagreed on some  matter, most cif us would be left with little Christian fellowship! Charismatic tongues, other spiritual gifts, and beliefs about and experiences in the Spirit may be impor- tant, but they do not represent all  the  issues  the  Spirit  wants  us  to teach on or the ultimate basis for unity. Even most charismatic churches clo not teach these subjects all the time. The Spirit can make a difference in how people look at other issues, but leading people into a deeper relationship with Christ does not mean just teaching them about tongues. It must include  teaching people how to understand Scripture, how to carry out Scripture’s mandates for evangelism, and how to be sensitive and obedient to God's voice.

Thus, I would urge those who are zealous for spiritual gifts not to aban-

don noncharismatic churches without good reason; your emphases  can  bring renewal to other parts of the body of Christ in areas where they need it. And in the same way those zealous for particular gifts need other true Chrlstians' different glfts, even when st›me of those gifts appear less spec- tacular at the moment. As Christians, each of us must humble ourselves before ‹our brothers and sisters in Christ's body ( 1 Peter 5:5), recognizing the diversity of gifts Gc d has given (Rom. 12:4—8; 1 Cor. 12:14—26; 1 Peter 4:10). The spirltual discipline of humility, in fact, while cone of the least spectacular signs of all, is a true sign of the Lord's presence in us (2 Cor. 10:1; Tal. 6:1; Eph. 4:2-3).

The Ideal, of course, is for all churches to act biblically regarding spir i- tual gifts—as well  as  act  biblically  regarding  every  other  matter.  But  only if we pursue the fruit of the  Spir it  now—including  love,  peace,  kindness, hand longsuffering—can we hope tc› achieve that gc›al. If one had to choose between an emphasis on gifts or  on  fruit,  l  Corinthians  13  makes  clear where that  emphasis  should  lie. Scripture  dc›cs  not  force  us  to  choose,  of c rs*, but it invites us t‹ lay the emphasis where God does.

ay the Splrit produce  in  us  hls fruits,  the  image  ‹ f Christ's  charactcr, sr› thcit the wtnr IN are und us iriay begin to know what God's 1‹ ve for them

Why Discc rn the Spirit.

looks like. After washing the disciples' tcet, as Jesus was getting ready t‹ p‹ t‹ rhe cross, he cominandcd them (and us):

I am giving yr›u a new crxninandment—that y‹ u love cone another. You inust love one anc ther in the very same way that I have loved you. ThiS iS hoW everyr›ne will know that yuan are my disciples: if you love ‹one an‹ather.

]‹ hn l3:34—35

Conclusion

1 close by returning to the beginning of the boc›k. God gave us the Spirit so we would have God inside us, so we would have an intimate relati‹ n- ship with him. Instead of living life in our strength, we depend on Christ who lives in us (Gal. 2:20). We who yearn tc› know Grad more intimately must listen t‹a the voice of the Spirit, who reveals Jesus Christ, the Lord who died to make his body one (Eph. 2:13—15). We must also evaluate the fruit of the Spirit, which reveals God's character in us. We must depend on the Spirit's power for evangelism and for edifying our fellow Christians. God gave us the Spirit so that in all we do in our lives, we can do it depend- ing on him rather than on ourselves. May we seek him in prayer for deeper empowerment and trust that he will not turn us away (Luke 11:11-13).

Conclusion

ife in the Spirit includes God's power in ccur lives: empr›werment for evangelism, fear overcoming testing, and for building up brothers and sisters in Christ by means of select spiritual gifts. But this power ilows

from an intimate and personal relationship with the Creator of the  uni- verse, who has come to live in us by the Holy Spirit. Being led by the Spirit may include some details in ccur daily lives, but it involves far metre know- ing, leaving, and therefore obeying God.

Although we are complete in Christ, many of us have yet tc› begin to unlock the treasures ‹ f that completeness in our daily experience. In that sense, 1 can c nlv commend the heart of the state university undergraduate wh(i eagerly announced to me, “I can't get enough of Jesus!” Some writers accurately summarize Paul’s teaching on our pt›siti‹ n in Christ as, “Be who you are." God's Spirit enables us to becr›me in practice what he has already formed us to be in Christ.

We ex‹3n1inCd knCJwinJ thC Spirit's \'tJice (c1J‹1ps. 1—2). We ‹41So Cx‹4lTt- ined evangelism by the Spirit's ower,  including  G‹ cl's ‹answers  to  prayer often confirming our witness (chap. 3). We discussed recognlzing  and  bear- ing the Spirit's fruit (chap. 4); as we learn God's character in the Bible, especially in Jesus' cross, we learn to recognize what the Spirit's ways sound like when we hear him and lo‹ik like when we ‹obey him.

Then w'e turned t‹ some mrare cc›ntrtaversla1 questions. I argued that the Bible affirms as valicl for today all biblical spiritual gifts, ance then I examined

‹i number of specific gifts. We discussed the Spirit's  rifle  in our conversion, and how this relates to the briptism in the  Hr›1y S ririt; we alst› dlscussed htiw

205

C‹›nc1usion

207

the ›lanise can toe appliCC3 to the cxpcricnccs cJcscrlbed ln Acts ann probed t[ie mitch-del atcd relationship between baptism in the Spirit and tongues.  (1 er ncluded that br3ptisiu in the Holy Spirit pre bably applies to the entire

› •1 ere c›f the Holy Spirit's wr›rk; hence, different New Testament writers used the phrase to cmphasize different aspects of the Spirit's work in our lives.) Finally, I adflressecl discerninent of the Spirit; affirming that the gifts are for t‹ da dcmands that we be all the more vigilant against counterfeit gifts and against spiritual elitism among those who exercise (Particular gifts.

Spiritual Gifts and the Life of the Church

One of the more controversial areas of the Spirit's work in today's church has been the practice of gifts, which the Bible says the Spirit supplies to the church; this issue thus invited extended discussion.

In the broadest use of the term charislTiatic (literally, “grace-gifted”), Christ's entire body qualifies, because every member has a gift or gifts to exerclse ( 1 Cor. 12:7-30). To be sure, in most churches many or most mem- bers Zo not exercise their gifts, even in small groups. A Lew people in the church do all the work, and as a result, most of the wrark of the kingdom that the church could accomplish never gets done. We need to seek to mobllize all members to do the tasks God has given them, in connection with others (Eph. 4: ll-13).

When we examine some of the Bible’s tearhing on the Spirit's work, we realize that even most Pentecostals and charismatics are less “charismatic” than the Bible invites us to be. Most c f us need to experience deeper inti- macy with God, fuller power in evangelism, strength in rhe face of testing, and so on. The Spirit also helps the church through ap‹ logetics, teaching, cr›nfirininp sipns such as hcalinp, wise strategies t‹ effectively reach our cul- ture and other culturen, and more.

ThLlS, it is possible to affirm that all the gifts are for tciday yet still be a cessationist in practice by neglecting rhe gifts, or tr› allow one or two but neglect the others. (To illustrate, some Pentec‹ stal churches practice only t‹anyues and interpretation; some Presbyterian churches practice only teach- g; soinc charismatic churches practice only prophecy; some Baptist churches practice ‹only evangelisin; and so forth.) It is even possible to prac-

(ICT  Stlme ‹ f  the   gifts  yet  deny  in  practice  what  even cessationists would

**‹** deny: that God einpr›wers us for d‹iily r‹ayer, evangelisiu, and holy liv-

iLlJ   Eur    lives  of  sac rificial  love,  n‹ t  simply  spirltual  exper icnces, dem-

onstratc h‹ w much thc Spirit has of our hearts (John 13:34-35; Eph.

5:1S-21; 1 John 2:3-6).

In our discussions concerning the frult of the Spirit and  discerning  the Spirit, I pointed to the contexts in which the Bible discusses spiritual gifts, especially love ( 1 Cr›rinthians 13). If we love our brothers and  sisters  in Christ, we will seek gifts for building  up each other. Thus,  using  the gifts to support pride or separation from fellow Christians is an abuse of the  pur- pose for which God gave us the gifts. The gifts should help the church, not divide it. Conversely, neglecting the gifts means neglecting a resource God gave us to build up each other. In situations in which the operation of par- ticular gifts cause division, the gifts are no more  a worthy  cause of division than most of our other excuses. Our goal must be to lead the church gently toward a greater biblical openness to the gifts but in a way that honors the unity of the church and also godly leadership.

Some churches may be so closed to spiritual gifts and those who affirm them that dialogue proves impossible. If, as I have argued, the Bible teaches the use of gifts, then churches that oppose the gifts and oppose or disfel- lowship those who practice them even privately are divisive, even if they call those they oppose divisive. But most churches are more open to non- divisive members and leaders than in times past. And in many churches, spiritual gifts constitute merely one issue among a large number on which churches need to mature spiritually.

Faith makes us all members of Christ’s body. Scripture invites us to seek

gifts for building up Christ's body ( 1 Cor. 12:31; l4: 1). But those who are mature in the ways of the Spirit are those whti have depended on him through hardship and learned to honor Christ's entire body. Those who look down on other Christians because they lack a particular gift or expe- rience, or those who despise a particular gift and look down on Christians who have it, are not demo nstrating spiritual maturity. God's goal is ‹our maturity in Christ (Col. 1:2b), and that cannot be achleved wrthe ut us lov- ing and strengthening each other. The deepest lesson tc which the gifts point us is to look to the Giver himself—the one who calls us to do his work and supplies us with all that we need for the task.

Conclusion

The Bible summons all Christians to accept the  Splrit's empowermen t for the various tasks God has assigned us and for evangeliz ing the world

;,¿r‹›SS cultural b‹r ric re. I ncleecl, u oc to us in a worIN like tocl‹iy’S if w e try' to

do lais wr rk \vithritlt him!

The ‹one Spirit whti makes us cone body summons us tr› serve the  cone holly and to evanpelize the wc›r1d t‹ gether hand  wc›rship the  Le rd together. IN we cann‹at dc› that, then in practice b‹ th ccur “charismatic” and “nt›n- charismatic” charms tc› having the Spirit are worthless. We must not only ctlebratc  the Spirit; wC must remcmber  \Vhy hc  has cC3me  tCl tls. May all of

us live like the per ple of the  Spirit that Chrlst has summoned us to be—

the  many gifted, fruitful  body of Christ. Appendix

What Can Bible Stories Teach Us?

lthc›ugh few of our conc1usic›ns have rested on narrative alone, some read- ers may feel uncomfortable with the way we have used narratives from Acts and elsewhere as models for today, even when thc›se narratives por-

trayed the perfect activity of God rather than the fallible behavior of his follow- ers. Because others have already written so much on Paul's treatment of the  Spirit,' in this book I often emphasized the  narrative  portic›ns of  the  New Testament— that is, the New Testament sts  ries. Stories can  be true stories (like biblical history or biography) ‹ r fictitic us stories (like parables), and we read history and parables sc›mewhat differently. But both kinds c›f ste ries share some common narrative devices, such as a plot and characterization, and  in some  respects  we  approach their in the same way. When we read any kind r›f biblical stc›ry, we look for its m‹ma1 ( l Cor. 10:11).

ThiS dpprr›acla becruleS especi‹a fly L lear when we c‹vnpare the cl iffcrcnccs between the G‹ spels ‹ r the over1‹apping inateri‹i1 in Kings and €?hr‹ nicles. Because Je8uS kliCl 0nC) taught S€l lTttlch, nt0 t3l4c Gt3s}°c1 writcr ck4£ll) h‹lvc trllCl HS cVcr)’th ltte about him (as John 21:25 explicitly points ‹but). Rather, each Gc›spe1 writer empha- 8iZCd paFtiC tl18I pt4iFltS a)t3t1t JeSUS, thC W*ly We CUT today \VheFl W€ FC‹1d €1F p£eaCh frs tn a text in thc Bible. This means th‹at when we read Bible ste ries, we next  only le‹irn the histr›rical fact aha ut what happened, but we listen tc› the inspired writer’s perspective ‹on what happened—that is, the lcssr ns t‹a be ‹drawn  from  the  stc›ry. When t[ie writer  “preaches”  tt  his frcim  the  sttiries  he  tells  us, ftc often g ives  us clues for  reef  gniz ing the  lessr›ns.  For example, ‹a  Gospel  writer ‹often selected  a number

‹›f stories with the s‹inic basic theme r›r themes that repe‹itec41y eiiiphiisized partie-

II Of OSSt 3f1S.

209

210

Different Approaches Today

Appendix

Appendix

ply write a “neutral” G‹ spe1 th‹it addressed all situations un ivcrsally, it w‹ uld uneven bteclly  have  been includcd  in the  Bible.  Instead,  the  Bible of(ers us f‹ ur

Many evangelical restoration movements (for example, German P ietists, Morav ians, Wesley's first followers) looked tc› Acts for appropriate patterns fr›r church lite. Sinn ilar ly, Baptists base the ir case for believers' baptism by immers icon on historical precedent in the New Testament, arguing from what baptism meant in first-century Palestine. (AT mittedly, even  the  most  rigor- ous Baptists do not practice baptism exac tly the way first-century Jews did. Formal Jewish baptism rituals were performed nude, and the se being baptized pr‹ bably immersed themselves face fc rward. Undoubtedly, John's public bap- tisms in the J ord an were done a litt le differently. ) Many churches even base practices on precedents  in church  history after  the  completion  of  the Bible. In other words, we have a great deal of historical precedent for finding his- torical precedents in Bible stories!

Desp ite such historical precedent, many conservative North American Christians today seem nervous about getting theology from narrative ( Bible stories). Although few would dismiss the doctrina I value c›f narrative alto- gether, many suggest that one should find in narrative only what is pla in ly taught in “clearer,” more “didactic” portions of Scripture.

Although some of these sc holars are among  the  ablest  exegetes  regarding c› ther portic›ns of Scripture, I must protest that  their approach  to Bible s to- ries v iolates the most basic rules for biblical interpretation and in practice jeopardizes the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Did Paul not say that all Sc rip- ture was i nspired and therefore useful for “doctrine,” or  teaching  ( 2  Tim. 3:16) / I free ly adm it that I myself do not understand some portions of Scrip- ture—for example, hc›w to provide reproof from the genealogies  in Chroni- cles. But other obscure parts began to make sense  to  me  after  I  understood  the cultural context they addressed (for  instance,  the des ign of  the taberna- cle in Ext dus).

Tra  be sure, specific examples of how God  worked  in narrative often pre - v inc only princ iples rather than prom iscs: For ir+st ance, the fact that J esus hea lecl a Ie per shc›ws G‹ d's power and Christ's c‹ mpass ion but need not guar- antee the he ating of all lepers under all c ircurnstances. Scene texts are more uSCfrll ftar addressing situations today than others, but all biblical texts, includ- ing narratives, have some purpose.

What Was the Point?

Inc  taf the mr st basic principles ‹ f Bible interpretatic›n is t‹  ask wh‹it the writer

\vaf1tecl tta convey t‹a his contemporary audience. This principle applies to narra- tives such as the Gr spels as much as tr› epistles suLh as Rr mans. If one cc›uld sim-

Gospels, each one selecting different elements of Jesus' li(e and teachings to preach Jesus to the needs of various readers in relevant ways. The Gospels' selectivity also provides us with a model for how to preach Jesus in relevant ways to our hearers. The way God cheese to give us the Bible is more  important  than the way we wish he we uld have given it to us.

Further, we must learn to read each book first of all as a self-contained unit, because that was how God originally inspired these books. Books such as Mark or Ephesians were written independently by inspired authors addressing specific sit- uations. The first readers of Mark could not refer to Ephesians or John to figure out an obscure point in Mark; they had to read and reread Mark as a whole until they grasped the meaning of each passage. When we read a book of the Bible, we need to read each passage in light of the total message and argument of the book as well as read the book in light of the passages that constitute it.

This is not to say that we cannot compare the results from our study of Ephesians with the results from our study of Mark and show how they fit together. But we miss the complete character of Mark when we resort to Ephesians before we have fin- ished our examination of Mark. This approach is not a bias adopted from secular scholarship; I learned it as a young Christian when 1 was reading the Bible forty chapters a day and noticed that this was how the Bible demanded  we approach it. An example from Mark may suffice. The c›pposition Jesus faces for healing a paralytic provides a lesson for the hostility we can expect from the world for doing God's will. The opposition to Jesus that builds in early chapters of Mark and cli- maxes in the cross parallels the suffering believers themsels es are told to expect (8:31-38; 10:33—45; 13:9-13; 14:21-51). Mark summons Christians to endure and provides negative examples of this principle (for example, 14:27-52) as well as positive ones to reinforce his point. Such  examples  also show Christians'  inabil- ity to fulfill this call in their own strength. That Jesus is popular in Mark 2:2, how- ever, is next a general model for Christian ministry; the rest of Mark itself she we that eventually crowds denounced Jesus ( 15:13—14). From these narratives we might learn tc› use any popularity for g‹aod at the moment but not tc› cr unt on it endur ing. Reading the part in light of the whole thus allows us to learn theo1c›gy from narrative by discerning whether patterns and examples are intended as pos-

itive or negative.

Cultures and Consistency

Most cultures in the wt r1d teach lessons through ste ries. Westerners are often the ones who are unable t‹a fo11r›w the point elf narratives in the Bible. But not even all Western Christians find Bible str›ries inaccessible. Black churches in the

Qu i tell S ta tes h‹ive for pcner‹iti‹u4s Apec url i zecl in narriitivc ) rerach ing. I ta in‹›st churc lacs, clii ldren grc›w u[a lov ind Bible stories, until  the y (^ec‹fine  alu  1 ts and are  tnught  that  they  must  n‹  w  think  abstractly   rather   than  1e‹arn  frotn  c‹ancrete i 11 net r‹iti‹ans.

The Fact th‹it tour traditional meth‹ Û of extracting d‹ ctrine fra rn Scripture dc›es n‹ t w'r›rk well on narrative does nr t mean that Bible stc›rics do not se nd clear mes- sages. Instead, it suggests that the way we apply our  traditic nal method  of  inter- pre ratio n is inadequate because we are ignoring tc›o much of God's Word.

When Jesus' followers were writing the New Testament, evcryone understc c›d that narratif e conveyed moral principles. Ancient biographers and historiens expected readers tr draw Cessons from their examples, whether positive or nega- tive. Stuclents regular ly recited such stories in eletnentary school exercises, and in intare advanced levels of education they learned how to apply thèse exemples t‹ drtve home moral pc›inrs.

Using only nr nnarrative portions of the Bible to interpret narrative is not only disrespectful to the narrative portions  but  also suggests  a misguided  approach  to n‹ nnarrative parts of the Bible. Everyone acknowledges, for instance, that Paul’s letters are “occasional” d‹acuments—that is, rhey address specific occasic ns or sit- uations. Thus, had the Lord’s Supper not been a matter of cc›ntroversy  in Corinth, we would know little about it except from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. If we  then were t‹ interpret the narrative portic ns of Scripture only by other portions,  we lTlight ‹3ssume that we do nt0t necd to observe the Lt3rd's SLlppCr tOd‹4)'. Cf cottrse, Jesus teaches his disciples about the Lord's Supper within the narrative.  But since the teaching is within the narrative, we can always protest that tte addressed this teaching c›nly to a select gré up of disciples. A lew hundred years ago Pro testants explained away the Grear Commission in just such a manner. Tt day, many simi- larly cxplain away teachings found in the Ge spels and Acts about the usefulness

‹ f signe and wc›nders for evangelism.

Not only is the trac4itional “doctrinal” approach inadec{uate for interpreting the G‹ spels, hut it is inappropriate fr›r interpreting the Epistles as well. The  “narra- tive” \vay of interpreting Bible stories, in fact, shows us how to read the Epistles pr‹›per1y. Paul never wrote J net t‹ say hello ; tte wrc›te tv› acldress specific needs ‹of

»1 ur»hcs. While the principles Pau1 empli ys are eternel and apply ttc a variety  of Slttlilt trans, Paul expresses th‹›sc principles concretely to prapple w ith specific siru- atitnns. Befcre wc can  understand  his principles,  we often  tnust  first  understand  the sit u‹iti‹ans with which tte is prappling. Paul's concrète words that deal with real sit- uations rare case étudies that shc›w us h‹›w to address ana1ogc›us situati‹ans t‹acJay. Paul’s  letters  presupp‹  se  a  sort  of  backgrc›und   story—ttc  is  responding  te› events

‹4Llc) bitti‹itit›ns that arc›se ainr›tag his original audience. In esther w‹ nts, wc must rc‹'cl cvcn  Puant's letters as exemples. This is hc›w Paul read  the  Ud Testamcnt—

*lr‹*88'inÈ thet3lt3 y (especlally lllt3ral tc‹4chlnÇ) frç3lTt its ex‹i1T1plcS ( l Star. 10:11 ).

>* *›  A  ‹ r8* !<, '+!^8 Grlr Inn Fee hr1i’c rlJhtly p‹anatecJ i but when address- ing the t‹›nirtes issue But students of the Bible thrust ex ninine the n‹irrntives in  the Bible as thorciupl4ly as tiny rather part of the Bible, for the teaching God ch‹ase tr Jarov'icle there is no less imps rtant  than  what  he  ‹offered  elsewhere  in  Scripture. The f‹ict that many of the  examples  in Acts show  patterns of  God's  action suggests that these m‹ c4els rerna in valid for understanding how God has chtasen to work (in contrast tra examples more bouncl ter the cultures taf their day).

I suspect that many scholars—including myself in  earlier  years—feel  uncom- for table finding theology in narrative largely  because  of  their academic  training. In the theological academy, one can feel content  addressing  important  issues such as Christology while ignoring equally necessary personal issues such as d‹ mestic abuse and how to witness at work. But pastors, d‹ or-to-door witnessers, anal other ministers cannot ignore issues that exceed the Gc›unds of traditional doctrinal cat- egories. We should not forget that those general doctrinal categories were estab- lishecl by medieval theologians who were not always involved with the daily issues with which most of their contemporaries struggled. The issues they addressed were important, but they were hardly exhaustive. I  believe  that  the more  we are forced to grapple with the same kinds  of situations  the  writers of Scripture  had  to face, the more sensitively we will interpret  the  texts  they  wrote.  When  that  happens, we will need to reappropriate all of Scripture—including  its stories—for  the  life and faith of the church.

Notes

Chapter 1

• For more detailed suggestions on hearing God’s voice, see  Jack  Deere,  8ttr- Q'fis8d by the Voice o/ God (Grand Rapids: Zc ndervan, 1996), not available to cite when I wry te 3 Crticiai Qttestions about the Holy SQf'fit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996).
• Dallas Willard, In Senrch o/ Guidnnce: Dereioping a Conrr»ational Relntion- s#iQ witfi God (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 26.
• See my more detailed comments in Craig Keener, Revelation, NIV Applica- tion Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 196—97; cf. ibid., l 79-81.

Chapter 2

1. For documentation on comments about friendship here, see my article on “Friendship” in Dictionary o/ NT BOckgrottnds, ed. Craig Evans and Stanley Porter (Downers GrCive, 111.: InterVarsity, 2000), 380-58; or try forthcoming commen- tary on John.

Chapter 3

• Craig Kcener, “Spirit at Wtork,” DtScipleSblÇ Journal (]anuary/Febrtiary 1996):

]3,- see full article 43-47.

• Full drac umentatic›n fr›r the Neu Testament  exegctical  pc›rtions of thÍs Chap- teF appeafs ÍF1 T$P )1'f1t Ífl He GOS CfS dll) ACtS: DtWiRe PuTl(j OM PO(U6T (PCc1)Uidy, Mass.: Hendricks‹an, 1996), 190—213 (on Acts 2) and 49-90 (on Mark 1:8-11) . That Book's title is something of a misnomer (I do mot  usually  get  to  name  my books); I siinply nr ted two basic  themes  abr  ut  the  Holy Spirit  and  provided  sam- ple studies  in  s‹›One  Gc spels and  Acte  passages  that  might  reflect  or develop these

.3. Ln the connection between Lukc's portrayals of] esus and the Srif it- baptized c‹ rninunity of Acts, see Rc›ger Strc›nstac4, The Chniismntic Theology o mint Luke

N‹›tcs

N‹›ic•

il7

( r„,1 i , k4:‹ : Hcndrick› », l9s4), i4—4ti, indd i l ((t li i»‹ All crt ); R L

}\r,iwlcy,  Luke-Acte ami the Jeu's, Society of Flibliciil  Litcriiture  Monoiirapli Series

l l (Atl:inta: Scholars Press, l9b7), 24-25; R. E Zclinle, Peter's Pentccc›st Discoutse,

?‹›ciery ‹›f biblical Literature Mon‹›graph Series 15 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 1 25. On Luke’s cniphasis on the pr‹›phetic einpow'crment dimension of the Spirit, sec espcci‹illy R. P. Mcnzies, Tire Dc*c'eIriJ›rtienr o/ Earl; Christine Pncumat‹›ù› «ité Sp‹•cial kefcrence io Luke-Acts, Journal f‹if the Study ‹›f rhe New Test.ainenr Sop- pleinent 54 (Sheffield, England: Sheftield Acadeinic Press, 1991 ).

• Bat›tism “in)esus’ name" in Acte always occurs only with the passive voice— rccciving baptism in Jesus’ name. That is, conttary to the antitrinitarian interpre- tatie n, baptism “in ]esus' name” concerné one’s own profession of faith in Christ, not a fc›rmula someone else pronounces c›ver one during baptism (see Acts 2:2 l ;

• On the parallels among £gutes in Luke-Acts, see especially M. D. boulder, Tjpe ond History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964); Charles H. Talbert, Literary kat- tertis, Theologicol Thrones, ond the Genre o/ Ltike-Acts, Society ‹af Biblical Litera- ture Monograph Series 20 (Missc›ula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974); and Rc›bert C. Tannehill, The Narracive Unit y of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); veal. 1, The Acts o{the Apos- tles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).
• See Anil Stephen, “The Church c›n the TQp of the World,” Christianii y T‹idoy

(3 April 2000): 56—59, esp. 56, 58.

• free the discussion in my Rcvelnrion, 2b9—303. Sce also G. K. Beale, The Book

o/ Ret'elotion, NlGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 572—55.

• In many patts of the world, the church, less shaped by Western rationalism, already x iews Christian apologetics especially in terms of power encounter; see, ti›r example, the African perspcctives summarized in William A. Dyrness, ed., Eine•rging Voices in Globol Christian Tiieotogy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 11—12. In the Bible see Exod. 7:b—13; 12:12; 1 Kings 18:2W0.
• Jn more detail, see my Spirit in the Gospels and Acts, 49—90. Matthew adds

that those who› revile the Spirit’s testimony to )esus (l 2:24, 31—12) thereby reject

)csus’ Messianic identity (see Matt. 1 2:1S, 28). I.Other writers also emphasize hOw tl v S{›irit empowered )csus b‹›th tc› perf‹arm signs (e.g., Acre 10: Jb) iin‹) to suffer (Hal›. 9:14). The Spirit is alsc› central in the act of resurrection (Rom. 8:11; 1 Petet 3: 18: ct. Re . 11.11 ).

• “The Need ‹›t the H‹›iir,” DisciJlrslii) Joornnl 7 (January 1982): 24—16; see

a1s‹› dcci ileship Journal 61 (January 1991): )1 —33.

Chapter 4

1. That the particular forms ‹if Glancing are c›ften culturally expressecl may be illtiStr‹1ted lay some tratJitional African American churches, in which specific fc›tins

‹›f c)ance (like the “shout,” with toc›ts in emotionally ft›rceful African worship) 1*cct›tuc:i vehicle f‹›r expressing exuberance .ib‹›ut Noel’s presence, ot by many Mcs- siiinic Jew'ish c‹›ngregations, in which the hor•ih and ‹›thet J:inces are inc‹›rporatcd int'› the often charismatic w‹›rship.

). In keeping with triic)itionalJewish usage, “in the Spirit” prt›bably suggests the Ü{vrir’s inspiration, ci1tli‹›uçli this c‹›ultl include worbhip in ‹›ne's own language (1 Chr‹›n. 25:1-7) as well as in t‹ingues.

4. 1 expressed my views elsewhere (Pnul, down, and Wires (Peal›ody, Mass.: Henvlricksc›n, 1992], 139—124), which resemble those of charismatic scholars such as Gordon Fce, Peter f)avids, Ben Witherington, or Rebecca lvlctrill Gr‹›othuis. Other charismaric scholars, however, incltiding my friend Wajne Grudein, have

ess:irily dctcrmine ‹one's views in these matters.

Chapter 5

• Ft›r a rciisonablc ant) biilanccd modern cessatic›nist position that docs not testrict (3cid\s activity as inany cessatitonist positic›ns havc, see Daniel B. Wallace, Who's Afr‹iid of the Hv›ly Spirit›” Clirisríanity Tcdày (12 September 1994): 35—3ò. For m‹›re arguments in favor of ccssationism, see Richard B. Gaflin Jr., Perspectit•es

‹›u Pentecost (Phillipsburg, N.).: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979); Jc›hn F. 1'vlacArtluir )r., CharismatiC C.Laos (Griincl Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). The ccssa- tionist position is difficult ftir me to identify with, but 1 have deeply committed Christian friends w'ho hold it (including twti auth‹ rs in this note), and my dis- agreeients imply nc› lack c›f respect for them.

• Willurci, ltd Search of Gui‹lance, I 10—11,

.3. For a balanced view of charismatic gifts in history, see D. A. Cars‹›n, She '- ing the Spitit. A TheoloJc‹il Ex)osition oJ J Coiinthians 12—J4 (Grand Rapids, Bnker, J 987), 165—68. Sec further James D. G. Dunn, Jesiis and the Spirit. A Siu‹1y of the R«lí(Joio and CJío ismntic Ex)ierience o{Jestis ond tJíc First Cliristians us Re)ecie) in the Neu Testome tii (L‹›ndun: SCM, 1975), 192; from a charismatic historian’s per- specriVe, Eddie L Hyatt, 2L!20 Years of Chaiismatic CJiristi‹inity (Chicota, Tex.: Hyatt lntern‹iti‹›naI Ministries, l99ó).

4. Occ Gary Shoyren, “Cihrisrian Prophccy and) Canon in the Scc‹›nd Ccnruty:

I   ’‹  • ‹ \’. .'^s: Hen‹lriCk*‹ n› 1984) i the   ›t›urces in S“ieg(rical Scliat:rmran, .W

(’till  Hid        ’I i(l i      fit       $flft.UTI(lti2 (    p¡j }at l£{)’, ]\,{,3s•,i,        t•tq9] r j i ((gtitq , { ()$   7 ),     ,7  tj.   §(9, ,  j-tt {

Jt›lui Wiillbcr w'itla Kevin ?fipringcr, l’uu'‹•i Evuti(elism (Satu Fruncisc‹›: Harprr R R‹›u’, l•)8(›), appvnclix .4, 1 57—74.

5 ?*r«nlcy Li Burkes*, “E 'itlencc of the Spirit: The Ancient anal E‹i›tcn

€ilun chews,” I— l'7, anal “Evidence ‹›t the .Spirit: The 84eclicval :irtv) )l‹›c1ern West- ernC?hurchcs,” 20—40 (csp. 2l_*—2fi), in ltiiti‹il F.t'idcncc: Historir‹tl out l)ibli«iI l•e›--

»9cctircs on the Pcntccr›stnl D‹›ctritic t›{S)trit lI‹iptisin. eel. C),uj' D. pict.,cc ( F‹ , il,‹›,}y,

Jvl:iss.: I-len‹lrickson, 1'991 ).

ft.  .4iati -sti{›crn‹attiril1 isna   u'as  piitt  t›( Tlj‹iln;is  P:a inc’s  l)eisljj  (see  51,iy§   j‹jjJ, I Distt›rfi i›) t?hrisri‹initv in tic Unitcil fit‹it‹'s uncl (?‹ttuuki  ((.ir;il  ‹) It.i}m‹ts:  Ecrv]nl,irls,  I '9‘ 21. 1 Inf°), ace criti‹]ties ‹it sect jar .uati-stipcrniittitalistu, e g., in Wi lliiun A. 13ein-

Notes 219

)ü 1, tt fr'))fQC fl t tS f : TTC Cf )C PC UIC R C1Rnt6 ffHU dC) ft t7)f9@' Côté W Il OIS Et VC,

111.: 1tite rVarsity, 1999), 49-69; cssays in R. Dc›up1as Gcivett and Gary R. Haber- tjj;IS, cds., Ht DC CCS6 O$ Mi'fdCfeS: A COm)(ehCnsiWe Cd6C Or GOd'S ACtiolt iIl HistO'f) (Dc›wners Grt ve, III.: I nterVarsity, 1997 ) (the essayists wr ulcl not all agree with iny anticessati‹anism).

• Fc›r thc›se who doubt that Pentecostals are irainstream evangelicals, the Asscinblies caf God, a Pentecc stal denomination, is at the time of writing the largest denom ination in the Natic›na1 Association of Evangelicals in the United States.
• See Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power c›{ the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zonder-

› an, 1993 ), 219-27, for a brr›ader list of arguments. Himself a former cessati‹ nist pro fess‹ar, he also supplies responses to many particular c›bjectic›ns te› which we can- mat devote space here.

• Likewise, cane who would argue that the “other” tongues merely represent the c4isciples’ own languages (Greek and Aramaic) likewise unreasonably stretches the sense of the text to support one's c›wn thesis. Aramaic and Greek were hardly “esther” tongues—both Greek-speaking and some Aramaic-speaking foreign Jews (who are Luke's primary focus in the text) and all the more so local Jews were con- versant with thèse languages. No ancient texts suggest that local languages in Pales- tine could have been viewed as “other” tongues; this suggestion also makes inex- plicable the nature of the tongues in Acts 10 and 19. Explaining away the supernatural empowerment to speak in languages the disciples had not learned requires ignoring both details of the text and features of the culture, no matter how well one may argue st me individual points that contribute to this thesis.
• Although the Bible is certainly  not against inedicine ‹ r d‹ ctors (Ce 1. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:23), John MacArthur’s presentation où Acts 28:9 is tendcntious: He thinks this verse represents Luke healing as a physician because the Greek word is dif- ferent from the term in 28:8 (MacArthur, Cfirismatic  Chaos,  219). The  difference is undoubtedly due to literary variation, a typical part c›f Luke’s style, however; far from being nonmiraculous, Luke frequently uses the term for Jesus' healings!
• Schatzmann, Pauline Tbeology oJ Cltnrisrnnta, 101 (see also Dunn, Jesus and tfie Spirit, 263, 297). Note the delînition of cfinslTtfitiC from clinrismn in Schatzinann, 1—7. Such Pauline cfirismntn rightly bell ng to Christ’s entire body. Schatzmann, 18, alsta riphtly observer that Paul sometimes applies the terrn charisme to the gift of eter- ri.al life (see Rr›m. 16:23), makinp oil Christians charisrriatic in the sense ‹ f havinp receiVcC) God's raciC4us )1(t.
• Fr›r traditiranal dispensatitanal cess‹itir›nist rirguments ‹an tr›ngues, see a nun- fler of articles in l3ibliothecn Sncra, e.g., C. L. Rr›gers, “The Gift ‹ f Tongues in the f‹›st Apostolic Church ( 100-400),” Dibiiott‹ca sacr 122 ( 1965): 134-4 ;

Z. C. Hr›dges, “The Purp‹ se of Tongues,” Bi6liot#eco Sncia 120 ( 1963): 2 26—33; S.

L. johnstin, “The Gift t f Tt ngues and  the Boc›k o( Acts,” Bibliotheca  Sacru  1 20  ( 1963 ). 309-11; and ‹an 1 C‹arinthians 12, S. D. Toussaint, “First Corinthians Thir- teen and the T‹angues uesti‹an,” Hibliothecn Socra 120 ( 1963): 311—16. Cessa- tir›n isrn  is not, however, a mandate  ry element ‹af modern dispens‹itiona1ism (see

* ^t L ‹i u cy,   The    Cose   or Prr›yessice DiS)Cli5a tie lin fi5in  (G r ‹ind   R‹ip ids: Zo n -

*’‹ 8, 1993], 1 )6). We a)drcsS One t3f the tr‹1ditit3na1 Re(t1rlnc€) ‹I {Art aches be IO\\'

ii4 there clet‹ii1, viii G‹affin; the interested rcac4er will also hnd mr›rc material in Ben-

jainin E›. W‹irlield, Uraunte /Lii Mime k1 ( 191S; reprint, Carlisle, P‹i.: B‹annCr of Truth, 1972) anc4 srvne articles in Westminster Thcr›fogical Journal.

• See especially Paul Elbert, “Face to Face: Then ‹ar Now /” (paper presented tc the seventh annual rrteeting of the Society (car Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, Mo., December 1—3, 1977). Elbert takes int‹ account hundreds of Koine Greek examples to show that this passage refers to the second coming. See also G. D. Fee, The first Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); and Gospel and Spiitt: Issues ill New Testament Hermeneutics (Peab‹ady, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 7-8; also G. D. Fee and Dc›uglas Stuart, How to Rend the Bible {or Alf Its \Vorth (Grand Rapids: Zon- dervan, 1982), 60.
• Gaffin, Pers)ectiees on Pentecost, 109. See further Harold Ellis Dollar, “A Cross-Cultural Theology of Healing” (D.Miss. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary Schc›o1 of World Missican, 1981), 48; Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift o/ Prophecy in Corinthians (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1982), 210—19. For the related view that tongues, prophecy, and knowledge passed away in the church's infancy (faith, hope, and love existing for the present and only love for the future), see R. L. Thomas, “'Tongues . . Will Cease,”' Jownal of the Eeangelicnl Theological Society 17 ( 1974): 81-89. But the passing of the imperfect and the arriving of matu- rity corresponds in 1 Corinthians l3:12 to seeing Christ (ace to face,  and  Paul's “now abides” refers to the time of Christ's return, since “greatest” in 13:13 is not temporal. D. A. Carson has shown that the Greek middle form of “cease” (1 Cor. 13:8) does not here mean “cease of themselves” and  that New Testament  usage does not support such a distinctic›n (Exege(ical Fallacies, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996], 76-77; see also Showing the Spirit, 66-67).

I document additionally here because it will be some time before my academic

work on Paul, in contrast to my work on the Gospels, is in print. Later Jewish teach- ers understood Jeremiah 31:3l-34 as promising the fullness of  knowledge  in  the  age to come (W. D. Davies, Pont end Rabbinic Judaism, 4th ed. [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980], 224; compare the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 63b, in Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age arid/o the Age to Come , Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 7 [Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952], 82). The idea that rune can have perfect knowledge in this age Irenaeus attributes to Gnos- ticisin (Against Heresies, 2.28).

1 5. L0eere, S wpiised b the Power, 134—4 3.

• See Ga(fin, Perspectives on Pentecost. Apart from the cessation ist argumer+ts, most of the exegesis in the hot k is useful.
• Fee, Go.suet and Spirit, 77.

Chapter 6

• For perhaps the most thorough schc larly study of healing in biblical thec›l- ogy to date, see Michael L. Brown, Jsrnel's Divine Henley, Sruclies in OU Testament Biblical Theo1c›gy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995 ).
• Crusran, .8howtng the Spirtt, 40.

). On this point I differ from my friend Wayne Grudem, although I am in syi- pathy with his basic direction on prophecy and greatly appreciate his important

Notes

›«,rk ‹›n the sul>jcct; see liTy I“niit.  \\lumen,  and W'itcs  (Pc›ibr›d›,  Mans.:  Hev4ick- st jtj, 9C) 2 ), 295. Gruc]eljj's priln‹ ry ct ance i n secme tit ldc tit keep ca non irit l re ve l:i - tip a on a higher level than any current  prc›J  hecies, w h icli must tae tested  by what  has already loeen proven and now cc›nstitutes Scripture. I fully ctsncur with  this cc›ncern and iv'ith the absr›1ute  priority  r f  canonical  revelation;  sec  belc›w  under the Pitt t›f “discernment of spirits.”

• Acts 19:é exhibits a special constructic›n, distinguishing “speak ing in t‹ ngues”

from “prophesying”; the Greek wc›rdirig of Acts 10:46 technically a1lr›s's tr›ngues and pra isc to be identified.

• thee the variraus responses, pre› and con, to William Graham McDonald's “Bib-

lical Glossolalia—Thesis 7,” Pnrnclete (spring 1994) and Paraclete (winter 1995), including articles by (David Bundrick and Benny Aker. Btindrick cites others within the Assemblies of God who hold that the primary function of public tongues is prayer (Antht›ny Palma and Gr›rclc n Fee) and notes that it does not vic›late the clenoinination's doctrinal parameters ( Bundrick himself finds some nnplicit sc rip- tural suppt›rt for the posltlon).

G. Paul's view o(self-edification in 1 Corinthians 14:4 cannot be negative, since he encourages private uninterpreted tongues in 14:5 ((Parson, String th Saint, 102 n. b9).

• Carson, Showing the SQirtt, 84-86.
• Sometimes biblical writers use “first, second, third” merely  to surr+marine chrr nol‹ gically without ranking (Gen. 32:19; Matt. 22:25—26). But in 1 Corinthi- ans 12:2b Paul enumerates specific items where chronology is irrelevant and num- bering was unnecessary. In contrast to many scholars,  I  believe  that  the listing of at least the first three offices, with apr›stles at the top, d‹aes suggest rank.
• Compare Michael Green, I Believe in th Holy Spirit, 2d rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 252-53; Carson, Showing the Spttit, 41—42. For the use of the imperative in 1 Corinthians 12:3l and 14:1, 39, see also Carson, Showtng the S9irtt, 57-58.

Chapter 7

1. l have provided ful)er documentation for Jc hn’s treatment ‹ I the Spirit and purificatic›n in The Spirit in the Gospels end Act.s, 135-89; for proselyte baptism, ibid., 63-64; or A Commentary on the Gospel o{Matthew (G rand Rapic4s: Eerdmans, 1999), 1?0-2i.

Chapter 8

1 . For Wesle\-an,  Anglican,  and Catholic views of  the  second  experience, sec

W. J. H‹ llenweger,  The° Pentccr›stafs  (Peab‹ dy, Mass.:  Hendricksr  n,  1908), 21,  26

n. 2; see at greater  length  H.  I. Ledcrle,  Treasures  Old  rind  Ne w:  Inter  etntions o{ “. firm-Baptism” in tfie Chnri mntic Renewal Movement (Peabody, Mass.: Hcndrick-

‹›n, 1988), w ho provides a full survey of views; Vinson Sy nan, The HOliitess-Pen- tecostal Mr›vement in the United States (€ rand Rapids:  Eerdirans,  1971), 18-21; and fear t[ic m‹›st  thor‹augh  treatment ‹ I the  terminology's  Wesleyan and H‹  lincss ror›ts,

*ec I t*n‹i lt) W. ldayt‹4n, T eC*logtcal R£JOts o$ PcntLcOsta)Ism (Metuchtl3, N.J.: care- crc›wi re print: Peab‹›cly, Mass.:  Hendrickson,  199d).  l3ccause  the  usual sacramen- tal  uses ‹›i the  phr.use  ( in  Caths  lie  and  Angle  -Catht  lic  circ les)  c4iffer  fr‹xr the

cxperienLcs we ‹irc misc nosing here, but dr› not rri1e ‹but rhesc cx(›eriences, we do  nr›t treat the in as part ‹at this p‹articu1;ir debate.

• F‹ r Finney, see e.g., Jc›hn L. Gresharri Jr., Cannes G . Finne 's Ooctiine r›/ the lJa9tisin o(the Holy S)›irit (Peabcar4y, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987); f‹ r Torrey and Gear- hon, see Gary B. McGee, “Early  Pentec‹ stal Hermeneutics: Trangues  as Evidence in the Book c›f Acts,” 96-11S, in Initial Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991 ), 101; on Puritan ‹ind Reformed Sealers, see Lecler le, Treostires, 5; Dayton, Theological boots, 37. See a1st› Fredcrick Dale Bruner, A Theology o the Holy pirir: The Pentecostal Experience and th New Testament fitness (Grant Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1970), 76, 32) 1, who clisagrees with subsequcnce but documents the sub- sec{uence positions of Wesley, Finney, Torrey, Andrew  Murray, A. J. Gordon, and E B. Meyer.

• For a much more detailed treatment of early Jewish understandings ‹ f the Spirit (and p‹ ints below such as the antic{uity of Jewish proselyte baptism), see the extensive first chapter ancl relevant points  in subsequent  chapters ‹ I  my Spirit in the Gospels and Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997). See a1s‹a the excellent wt rks by R. P Menzies, The Deeelo9ment o} Earth Christian Pneumatology with 3pe- ciol Reference to Lake-Act.s (Sheffield, Englanc4: Sheffield Academic Press, 199 i ), emphasizing the prophetic aspect of the  Spirit,  and Max Turner,  The Holy Spirit and Spiritttal Gifts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), helpfully ernphaSiIing a broader range r›f activities of the Spirit than either my or Menzies's works.
• Although I struggled to these views on my ‹own, c›thers  have articulated  sim-  ilar rositions. See, Y‹ r example, David Watson's  views  (as summarized  in Lederle, Tran ure.›, 151): All Christians have the Spirit, but nr›t all are filled with the Spirit—

the phrase “baptism in the Spirit” including either one—and the power and real- ity matter more than the termino1‹agy anyway.

• See Gr non D. Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy pipit in the Let- ters OJ Patil (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994)  and  his lexical  arguments on this passage. His case is not likely the result of mere presuppositions; Fee rightly

c) isav‹ w's mr st proposed “second wr rk” read ings of  Paul.  He  believes  that  both Paul and Luke show  “that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  not  some  sort  of  adjunct  tr› the Christian  experience,  nt›r  was  it  s‹  me  kind  of  second  and  more  significant part of Christian experience. It was rather  the  chief  element  ‹  f  the  Christian  life from 6eginn ing to cull” (C? os9cf sun Spirit: issues in New Testament Hermeneutics [PCa1*t4)y, MaSS.' Hcl3dFiC StlFt, 19a I], ).

fa. For an argument th‹it these “clisciples"  were a1re‹ad\' Christi ins, insect  in ) art on the grammar o(Pau1's c}rtestic›n, see Stanley M. Hortr›n,  that the Bible  bets about t# Holy Spirit (Springfield, Me›.: Gospel Publishing  14cuse, 1976),  1 59-62. A1thr›ugh Horton's bo‹ak offers rnany g‹ oc) ‹ ints thr‹›ughr›ut,  n+any exceptic›iis  to the grammatical rule he cites  make  an  argument  front  grammar  tenuous  here  either in support of ‹ r against his position.

• Bruner, Theology o/ Holy Spirit, 177-78, carefully surveys Pentec‹ stal w riters (a1th‹augh many Pentecc›stals today wtaulc) ‹I iffer fr‹rr many of the roller p‹›siti‹ans 9uiuinarizccJ) ‹uad prc›v ides a serious analysis r›f New Test‹iinent texts fr‹un a char- itable noncharismatic perspective. He argues that the clelay in Samaria was abi‹ r- rural and that the Spirit here c‹amp1etes the expc rience ‹af(Christian baptism. lf the

Notes

tuft i1Cp1t‹iS theft thC tiXpeFieFlCc W‹4S abFlt4FlTl‹)l1y dlilayed, We Still lTtLlSt ‹4Sk Whether the sort ‹›f event  Sepia tel  liei‘e  is Jaossible  without  Btu  experiential  dimension;  if nr t, then conversic›n should normally include a dramatic experience of the Spirit,

‹one that is s‹ metimes delayed (probably more ‹often today than then). This wr uld fit the view of some charismatics who view Spirit baptism as a c‹ mpletion of sal- vation (in cr›ntrast to my own view abrave, that it represents a different kind) of empr›wer ment of the Spirit).

• James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination o{ the Netr Testament Teaching on the Gift o{ the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Todny (Philadelphia: Westminster; London: SCM, 1970), addresses Acts 8 on  pages 55-72. Acts 8 is certainly not a normative pattern—God may have allowed  the delay ro heal the Jewish-Samaritan schism (so Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 2d rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 167—68; D. A. Carson, Show- ing the $ pipit: A Theological Exposition o[ 1 Corinthians I 2—I 4 [Grant Rapids: Baker, 198?], 144-45). But it does illustrate that God could  allow delay; and  if he allowed it then, he could also allow it (for different reasons and under other  circumstances) today.
• Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 55.
• Clark Pinnock, foreword to Roger Stronstad, The ChOTiSTtiatic Theology o/ paint Ltike (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984), vii.
• Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 55-72.
• On  many of  these points,  see Howard  M. ErVin, COfleeisiOil-InitidttOtl OHS  th Baptism in th Holy Spirit (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984), 28—32. Although I wr›uld more often agree with Dunn against Er vin, I believe that Ervin has the exegetical upper hand in Acts 8.

l3. Fee, Gospel arid the Spirit, 96-99, 117—19.

14. Carson, Showing the SQtrit, 160. Some of us have lost count!

Chapter 9

• Carson, Showing the Spirit, 50 (compare also 186).
• One reason I enjoy being a Baptist is that we are supposed to have no “creed” but Scripture alone; my commitment is to what 1 find in Scripture (whatever denc›minati‹ans that evidence m ight support can some issues), and r n that count I happily continue praying in t‹ ngues. Perhaps the other side ‹ f being a Baptist who priiys in tongues might be described by my fellow Baptist Tony Campolca, who has a book, How to Be Pentecostal without Speaking in Tongues (Dallas: Word, 1994).

I James D. G. Fiunn, je5lt5 dtld the Spirit: A Study o{the Religious and ClmrisiTtttttC Experience o{Jesu5 dnd tfie First ChristianS O5 Reacted in the Netr Testament  (Lori-  clv n: SCM, 1975), 189-91.

1. In “Eviclence and Movement,” in Initial Evidence: HiStOrical and Biblical Per- spectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine o Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 136, Henry Lederle claims that only 35 percent of all Pcntec‹ stals have prayed in t‹ ngues.

• McGee, “Hermeneutics,” 108—10. For dissent amt ng early Pentecostals, see McGee, “Hermeneutics,” 1 07, and H. 1. Lederle, “Initial Evidence and the Charis- tn‹itic Movement: An Ecumenical Appraisal,” in Initial Evidence , 131—3 2. Lederle,

fT(‹iS itTC’S, —) 1, 01Sr4 Surriinarizcs early Pentecostal theologians who held other views, n‹›ting that doctrinal freeclc›in c›n major issues secondary to the gospel chart acterized early Pentecostalisin (see esp. 29; see also Hollenweger, Pentecostals , 52,

) 31—36). For a well-crafted exegetical de(ense of the classical Pentecostal position, see D‹ riald A. Johns, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pen- tecr›sta1ism’s Dc›ctrine of Initial Evidence,” in fnttinl Evidence, 145-67. Historically the nineteenth-century Catholic Apostolic Church, whc›se last apostle died the year the modern Pentecr stal movement was born ( 1901 ), viewed tc ngues as a prc›minent sign of Spirit baptism (see David W. Dorries, “Edward Irving and the 'Standing Sign' of Spirit Baptism,” in Initial Evidence, 41—56; compare Gordon Strachan, The Pentecostal Theology o{Edirnrd faring [Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksc n, 1973]; Larry Christenson, A Message to the Clmrismatic Movement [Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1972]).

• See Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “William J. Seymour and ‘the Bible Evidence,”' in Initial Evidence, 81-89; Sytian, Holiness-Pentecostal Movement, 180.  Some  ‹af Parham's  original  ideas  concerning  tongues,  such  as  that  it  was  xenoglossa  or  that c n1y tongues-speakers would experience  a  pretribulational  rapture  (see  James  R. Golf Jr., “Initial Tongues in the Theology of Charles Fox Parham,” in Initial Evi- dence, 64-65, 67), were quickly rejected by ‹other Pentec‹astals, as was his advo- cacy of British Israelitism. For the usual breaking down of racial barriers in early Pentecostal circles, c‹anf1icting with broader societal prejudice, see Synan, Holm ness-Pentecostal Movement, 80, l09—l 1, 165-69, 172, 178-79, 182-83, 221; Syrian, "Seymour, William Joseph," in Dictionary o PenteCOSiol dnd CfiriSiTif2tTC OHOT ORCS , ed. Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick H. Alexander (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 7 78-81; Leonard Lovett, “Black Holiness-Pentecostalism,” in Dictionary o Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 76-84,  esp.  83;  Burgess, McGee, and Alexander, “The Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements,”  Dictio- nOr) op Pentecostal and C TlSmatic Movements, .
• Stanley M. Burgess, “Evidence of the Spirit: The Medieval and Modem West-

ern Churches,” in Initial Evidence, 33—34; McGee, “Hermeneutics,” 107-8.

Chapter 10

• Ft9f d lTtofe Ct3lTlplCte lÌStiFlg O(StiCh fillse p£edÌCtÌt0FlS Of the eFld, See lTly ReW- Intnan, NIV Applicatir n C‹ mmentary (GrancJ Rapids: Zranders an, 2000), 61—6 5. C3ther exainplcs could be multipliec4, e.g., George Bell predictec4 the end ‹ f the age ftlr February 2 , l7Ó /, ‹In) thtlu h WC8ley hal) exclucled hilR, it brt4tt)ht r(° rt9ach

‹against the early Methodists; see Christian Histr›ry 2, no. 1 ( 1983): 11.

• J. Lee Grady, Plt HaQpened to t# Fire / Rekindling the Blnye o/ Chorismatic Renewaf (Grand Rapids: Chc›sen, 1994).
• See D. R. McConnell, A DiJerent Gospel: A HiStorica) OK i))tCdl Aildf ste O/

the Modem Fnith Moeement (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksc›n, 1985), 1 37—40.

d. Examples c›f “self-promoting” reve1atic›ns c‹ uld likewise le  inultipliec4.  In 1965, Homer T‹ mlinst  n, son r f ‹a  (or rrler r›verseer  c›f a Pentecc›sta1 denc›inination,

‹innounced that he was king of thc w orld. Like r›thcr “end titne prr›phets” before him sucli as J rahn A lexander D‹›w’ie r›r Wil1i‹rr Branlaarn, h‹›ivevcr, his revelation failecJ to coinmcnd  itself  u  rnr›st c›f  his sudjccts. He died in 1969 (Vinson  Synan,

197 1 ],  1'96-97; tier l3‹›w'ic ,ink  Dranliain, ›ue Da viii Edwin  Harrell J r., A#  Thin(.s

.   TC     11  S I   !E :  /)t CO/ HU    dlv    //)ft1/.SmdtIC  DC t't1*ét(i  li2   k)11)t UI .   tIlCT/ CO  [Alt It  'Ill t3 -

ton, lnd.: lndiana University, 1975], 13—14, 2 7—4 1, 1 59-65).

5. J‹›1m F. MacArthur Jr., C?hnrismotic Chans (CS r‹uad Ra{oids: Zondcrvan, 19'92), thrr›uphc ut.

6. lbid., 50-81.

7. lbid., 75, Yr r excim( le.

S. The latter example  is the  more  reiuark‹ible considering Saul's inspirati‹  n trr›m an “cv i1 s) irit” in 1 S‹airue1 1S:10. A1thc›ugh the nature r›f this spirit is clcbatecl ‹ind s‹vnc ‹ I my k nr›w1edgeab1e co11e‹apues in Old Testament cJoubt that 1 Samuel 18:10 refers to a Remc›n, I air inclinecl  tc› think  that  it pre bably c)c›es (especially  in fish t of some wr›rk by try (runner stucJent Emmanuel I tapsc›n).

Appendix

• Fee's God's Empowering Presence is the mc st extensive in this rep‹ird. Carsc›n's Shcming the Spirit is also excellent ancl is probably the best w‹ rk r4ev‹ated specifi- cally t‹ spiritual gifts.

(Note By Blogger: Due to the length of the book which this content is from I have broken it up into a short series of blog posts.)