The Pentecostal Doctrine of Initial Evidence: A Study in Hermeneutical Method

By Douglas C. Bozung

[Coordinator of Missionary Preparation, Greater Europe Mission, Monument, Colorado]

The defense of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence provides informative insights into the use and abuse of proper hermeneutical method.[1] This doctrine maintains that the experience of “speaking in tongues” represents the initial physical evidence of “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”[2] In other words, every Christian who experiences the Spirit’s baptism should necessarily demonstrate the reception of that baptism by the act of tongues speaking. Not all Pentecostals subscribe to this perspective today,[3] but the doctrine of Initial Evidence along with the doctrine of a subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit form the sine qua non of classical Pentecostalism.[4]

Pentecostal Gordon Fee observes that historically Pentecostals have not employed a rigorous “scientific” hermeneutic. Rather they have often utilized what he calls “pragmatic hermeneutics”: obeying what they understand should be taken literally and then spiritualizing or allegorizing the rest.[5] He also notes that “the Pentecostal tends to exegete his or her experience.”[6] That is, a person’s experience provides the framework for subsequent hermeneutical and exegetical treatment of the text. For example, Roger Stronstad states, “In particular, the Pentecostal interpreter, such as myself, brings his or her own experience of being filled with Spirit as a presupposition … and believes that he or she is justified in understanding the experience of the disciples in the light of his or her own similar experience.”[7]

In recent years, however, Pentecostal scholars have become more responsive to criticism leveled against their distinctive doctrines and the manner in which they are defended. They have sensed the need not only to be hermeneutically sound but also to “rearticulate our theology in a manner, which is relevant to the contemporary context and faithful to the Scriptures.”[8]

The purpose of this paper is to examine four primary hermeneutical arguments[9] used to substantiate the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence and to evaluate those arguments in light of generally accepted hermeneutical principles.[10]

The Argument of Historical Precedent in Acts

Description

The classic defense of the doctrine of Initial Evidence is based upon the hermeneutical argument of “historical precedent.” This argument views the experiences of the early church in the book of Acts as providing an historical precedent or normative pattern for the church for all time.[11] Specifically, the passages in Acts 2:1–4, 10:44–47, and 19:1–7, which explicitly associate tongues speaking with the reception of the Holy Spirit, are understood as providing a normative pattern for the church today. Acts 8:14–19 and 9:17–19 are also sometimes cited as further evidence for the doctrine of Initial Evidence, though they do not refer to tongues speaking. Corroboration of this belief is found in the disputed ending of the Gospel of Mark, which states that tongues would be one of the “signs” that would accompany those who believe (Mark 16:17).[12]

Evaluation

Those who disagree with this argument from historical precedent point out that a distinction is necessary between the proper use of the didactic and historical passages of Scripture.[13] Christian doctrine should be derived primarily from the didactic portions of the NT and only secondarily from the historical. A similar argument states that what is descriptive of the early church is not necessarily prescriptive for the church today.[14] Thus, even Pentecostal scholar Donald Johns acknowledges the inadequacy of the argument of historical precedent and the inconsistency with which Pentecostals have employed it since there are other “patterns” in Acts to which they do not subscribe.[15]

Fee points out, however, that many non-Pentecostal sectors of Christendom also employ the argument of historical precedent in the defense of their doctrinal views. For example, the mode of water baptism, the frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s Table, and even the gathering of the church on Sunday rely heavily upon arguments from historical precedent.[16] While this use does not justify the Pentecostal use of historical precedent, hermeneutical integrity demands that criticism of methodology be consistent.

In addition, some of the hermeneutical issues that confront the interpreter of narrative passages are also present in the didactic portions. For example, the epistles were not written as theological treatises but rather in response to particular needs and circumstances that presented themselves at the time of their composition.[17] Thus, proper hermeneutics demands they be interpreted in light of the historical context and occasion of the letter. These factors may limit the scope of the application of a didactic portion to the first century. Furthermore, discovering an author’s purpose in writing may help the interpreter discern the reason for the inclusion of a particular historical incident or epistolary teaching, but it does not necessarily answer the question as to whether such a passage provides normative instruction for the church today. Thus, a simple appeal to the didactic nature of a passage does not of itself resolve the issue of the normativeness of a teaching. Fee and Stuart adroitly observe, “Sometimes our theological problems with the Epistles derive from the fact that we are asking our questions of the texts that by their occasional nature are answering only their questions” (emphasis theirs).[18]

Solution

What then is the means of properly assessing the normativeness or contemporary value of historical precedent in a narrative text? Fee and Stuart maintain that in order for historical precedent to have normative value for the church today there must be a demonstrable link to the author’s intent.[19] As Fee states, “What is incidental to the primary intent of the narrative may indeed reflect an author’s theology, or how he understood things, but it cannot have the same didactic value as what the narrative was intended to teach has” (emphasis his).[20]

While there is no unanimity on this matter, Luke’s overall intent appears to be to demonstrate the growth of the church from an exclusively Jewish constituency based in Jerusalem to a worldwide and largely Gentile entity through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit acting through the Apostles.[21] In this regard, Luke’s emphasis upon the account of the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10–11), the first Gentile convert, is wholly comprehensible. The issue at this point in the narrative of Acts is whether it is proper to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:15). The manifestation of tongues by the Gentiles served as a visible confirmation to the Jewish Christians that this was indeed the case (10:45–47; cf. 11:18). Thus, the phenomenon of tongues attested to the validity of Gentile conversion consistent with Luke’s primary purpose of describing the progressive growth of the church.

But, aside from Luke’s larger narrative purpose, one must ask whether he is also teaching in this passage and others like it a pattern of tongues speaking as an evidence of the Spirit’s baptism for future generations of Christians. Johns argues that Luke does assign “evidential value to speaking in tongues” through the statement of Peter in Acts 10:45–47.[22] But two significant observations would argue against this conclusion.

First, the fact that this account chronicles the initial conversion of Gentiles in the presence of an incredulous Jewish audience suggests a unique circumstance. Given the unprecedented nature of the event, additional accounts of Gentile conversion with tongues speaking would appear to be necessary to establish a normative pattern. Yet, in each instance in which tongues speaking is explicitly associated with the reception of the Spirit in Acts it has to do with a different group of people each time (i.e., Jews, Gentiles, proselytes of John the Baptist). While such variation demonstrates the progressive growth of the church (consistent with Luke’s overarching intent) and the organic unity of these groups to one universal church, it also argues against a normative pattern for future generations.

Second, a comparison of the various accounts of conversion and the reception of the Spirit in Acts demonstrates a great diversity in order and details that is inconsistent with an attempt to establish a pattern of normativeness.[23] As Robert P. Menzies observes, “If Luke intended to teach evidential tongues as normative, why does he not consistently present tongues as the immediate result of Spirit-baptism (e.g., Acts 8:17; 9:1–19)?”[24]

While tongues speaking is not incidental to an understanding of the significance of the Cornelius narrative in the argument of Luke, it is clearly incidental to the unmistakable emphasis throughout the narrative upon “what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15b). Thus, the argument from historical precedent for the doctrine of Initial Evidence fails not only because it is inconsistently represented in the text of Acts but also because it is quite incidental to the larger purposes of the author. What is needed is some other means of substantiation to show that Luke intended to establish precedent.[25]

In the same manner, the phenomena of visions and the visitation of angels as a form of guidance in Acts 10 should properly be considered as secondary features of the narrative, whose theological significance must be determined either from other texts or some explicit declaration of their significance in the narrative itself.

Accordingly, Pentecostal Robert Menzies concludes, “Traditional attempts to offer biblical support for our doctrine of subsequence [based upon the argument from historical precedent] are no longer viable.”[26]

The Argument of Narrative

Purpose in Luke-Acts

Description of Narrative Purpose

More recent arguments by Pentecostal scholars have sought to use the principles and findings of both redaction criticism as well as narrative theology to validate the doctrine of Initial Evidence.[27] In the former, an interpreter analyzes the manner in which an author selected, arranged, and even modified his materials to discern the unique theological perspective of the author. With such a perspective in hand, the writing can then be properly interpreted. For example, Stronstad insists that “Luke reports only those sayings and events which conform to, advance and illustrate his purposes.”[28] He then accuses some of practicing a “hermeneutic of denial” because they ignore Luke’s “clear multiplex historical-didactic-theological purpose.” Rather he advocates the practice of a “hermeneutic of affirmation” that recognizes in Luke’s purpose “that the disciples’ inaugural reception of the Spirit of prophecy is a paradigm for new converts.”[29]

Narrative theology recognizes that biblical narratives contain both history and theology and seeks to understand how stories function in the argument of an author.[30] A primary purpose alleged for narrative in antiquity was to provide order, structure, and meaning for one’s own world. Accordingly, Johns argues that one of the purposes of the stories in Acts was to provide “a paradigm or pattern of how to live my life, what kind of experiences to expect with God, etc.”[31]

A similar approach is the argument of narrative imperative. For example, Douglas Oss argues that “the narratological equivalent of an imperative”[32] is inherent in the fulfillment of the instructions of Jesus to his disciples “to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power (dynamis) when the Holy Spirit comes upon them.” For Oss, the fulfillment of this promise “throughout the remainder of Acts” is an imperative that should be obeyed even today. Furthermore, “repeating themes, details, phrases, behaviors, etc.” serve to “control interpretation, adding emphasis and specifying communication of central meanings.”[33]

Evaluation of Narrative Purposes

Pentecostals should be commended for seeking to link their interpretation of Luke-Acts to authorial intent. They also are correct in seeking to discover the parenetic purpose of the text for present generations. Unfortunately, many of the same criticisms brought to bear against the older argument of historical precedent also apply to these newer, albeit more sophisticated, arguments.

One difficulty inherent in these approaches is the apparent assumption that a particular story or narrative was selected because of its normative value to succeeding generations. One must seriously question whether all narrated experiences are selected for the specific purpose of teaching a normative practice or “paradigm” for the church. For example, the sale of possessions and property by the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:45) is rarely, if ever, cited as a paradigm for the church today. As in the case of the argument from historical precedent, apart from an explicit statement as to the normativeness of an action or an event (e.g., “Do this in remembrance of me”), the interpreter must defer to other portions of Scripture that provide the theological framework for understanding and applying a particular narrative.

In response, Stronstad criticizes such a hermeneutical approach as inferring that “Luke-Acts has little to say to contemporary experience.”[34] Yet, this criticism ignores Luke’s clear statement of his historiographical and apologetic purposes in writing (Luke 1:1–4), purposes that continue to be of particular utility to this day. It also demeans the contemporary value of the great themes communicated in Acts such as world mission, the providence of God, the empowerment of the Spirit, and the triumph of the gospel.[35]

Another difficulty, previously mentioned, is the absence of consistency in the details between episodes cited as demonstrating an alleged normative pattern. To this Stronstad replies that in the interpretation of narrative one must separate the “historical particularity” of a narrative episode from its “programmatic/paradigmatic function.”[36] According to Stronstad, the diversity of circumstances presented by the various episodes involving the reception of the Spirit in Luke-Acts should not be used as an argument against the consistent pattern of “charismatic empowering of the Spirit for … Christian service.”[37]

Interestingly, Stronstad generalizes with the phrase “charismatic empowering,” presumably because Spirit baptism as evidenced by tongues speaking is not consistently presented in the various episodes cited in Acts by Pentecostals, a consistency that would be expected if indeed Luke’s purpose were to teach such a specific pattern. Indeed, it is not merely the circumstances of the narratives that vary, as Stronstad alleges, but the very paradigm that supposedly links tongues speaking and Spirit baptism has significant variations from episode to episode.[38] This is the fundamental weakness of his proposal.

Conclusion Concerning Narrative Purpose

As stated above, there is the need for explicit attestation of an historical event or practice in order to clearly establish its “paradigmatic” or normative value for the church today. Fortunately, Luke-Acts is not the sole basis upon which to adjudicate this matter. The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12–14 must also be considered in a manner that is able to demonstrate the consistency between the theologies of both authors. The following sections examine the exegetical arguments and underlying hermeneutics employed by Pentecostals to do this.

The Argument of the Distinctiveness of the Gift of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14

Description of the Distinctiveness

Almost since its inception Pentecostalism has maintained that the gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is a phenomenon distinct from the “initial evidence” of the Spirit’s baptism as described in Acts.[39] By this means Paul’s potentially devastating rhetorical question, “Do all speak with tongues?” (12:30), becomes irrelevant to the issue of whether or not all persons baptized in the Spirit should manifest tongues. As will be demonstrated below, the arguments employed touch upon fundamental hermeneutical issues of word usage and context.

Evaluation of the Distinctiveness

Is there hermeneutical justification for a distinction in the nature of tongues between Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14? For example, does Luke employ the term γλωσσα in a manner distinct from Paul’s usage? Clearly, the “tongues” of Acts 2 are known human languages (2:6, 11). Indeed, a survey of the use of γλωσσα reveals two primary meanings throughout the NT: the human organ or a human language. Without any explanation, one major Greek lexicon classifies the use of γλωσσα in 1 Corinthians 14 as “the broken speech of a person in religious ecstasy.”[40] Yet, Carson asserts that “careful word studies have shown” that γλωσσα never denotes “noncognitive utterance.”[41] Thus, Paul’s meaning must be intelligible in the light of Luke’s attested meaning.

That the tongues of 1 Corinthians are not human languages could be suggested by Paul’s hypothetical statement, “If I speak with the tongues … of angels” (1 Cor 13:1). Fee suggests that the Corinthians “and probably Paul” thought they could.[42] In this manner, the unintelligible nature of modern tongues is seemingly justified.[43] Yet, this solitary text is presented as a hypothetical protasis in a hyperbolic context (vv. 2–3). This hardly seems a conclusive basis for the supposition that the biblical gift of tongues is largely unintelligible speech. Also, in light of Acts 2, is it reasonable to maintain that all expressions of tongues today are tongues of angels?

Thus, the basic, hermeneutical principle of discovering word meaning through a study of usage in context does not support this particular argument.[44]

Is there any indication in the context of Luke and 1 Corinthians that the phenomenon being described is inherently different? One Pentecostal apologist argues that in Acts the phenomenon of tongues is “controlled entirely by the Spirit” whereas in 1 Corinthians it is “under the control of the anointed human mind.”[45] Yet, while Acts seems to emphasize the sovereignty of the Spirit in bestowing tongues (Acts 2:2–4; 10:44–46), there is no indication that the human recipients were unable to control their minds or their mouths (cf. 2:14). Likewise, in Corinthians, while there is an emphasis upon decorum and human control (14:27–28), there is also an emphasis upon the divine bestowal of the gift (12:3, 7–11, 18, 28). Thus, this argument proceeds on the basis of what is not clearly attested in the text to establish what is in fact a false dichotomy.

A second argument for a distinction between tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians is that in Acts there is no evident obedience to the Pauline requirement that there be both an interpreter and an orderly means of expressing the gift.[46] But such an argument fails to adequately consider the context of each usage and the implication of differing purposes or functions. For example, Paul’s instructions clearly apply to the gathering of the church (1 Cor 14:19, 26), but this was never the case in Acts. Also, the primary purpose of the gift in 1 Corinthians is the edification of the church (12:7; 14:5, 12), a fact that Paul teaches demands an interpreter (12:6, 13). In Acts, on the other hand, the purpose is evidently one of a sign (cf. 1 Cor 14:21–22),[47] a phenomenon that does not necessarily demand immediate interpretation.[48] Furthermore, it can be clearly observed that at least in its initial manifestation there was no need of an interpreter (Acts 2:6, 8, 11). Finally, such an argument presumes without warrant that any manifestation of the “initial evidence” of tongues in the church is exempt from obedience to Paul’s instructions.

A third argument maintains that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are in fact designed for private, devotional use. Hurtado even suggests that the private devotional use of tongues “was probably the major use of tongues speaking in the early church” (emphasis mine).[49] The point is made that the content of tongues speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 has special reference to prayer (vv. 14–15), singing praise to God (v. 15), and giving of thanks to God (vv. 16–17). Thus, a devotional use is adduced. Yet clearly the apostles were also praising God on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). That there may be value in the private, devotional use of tongues, even Paul appears to concede (e.g., 14:4, 28).[50] Yet to maintain that the purpose of the gift is for private, devotional use clearly contradicts Paul’s repeated emphasis upon the need to exercise all spiritual gifts for the mutual edification of the church (14:3–6, 12).

A final argument seeks to distinguish the tongues referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:30 from those referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:5. This argument sees Paul’s reference in the former passage to congregational worship and his later reference to the private devotional use of tongues. Thus, while not all will speak with tongues in the gathering of the local church, all can and should speak in tongues privately.[51] In this way, Pentecostals may conclude that “while Luke tells us nothing about tongues in congregational worship, and Paul provides no hint of glossolalia as ‘initial evidence,’ we may harmonize their evidence with little fear of distortion.”[52]

The contextual oversights in this argument are legion. First, following the same reasoning, the exercise of the apostolic, prophetic, and healing gifts would also be restricted to the gathering of the church since they occur in the same list of rhetorical questions (1 Cor 12:29–30). That this is patently false is seen in a simple reading of Acts (e.g., 8:36–41; 21:4, 11). Second, Paul is clearly referring to the universal church in verse 28 when he states, “God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets…”. To see a reference here to the local gathering of the church would be absurd in the extreme, implying as it would a plurality of apostles in the local Corinthian assembly.[53] Third, while Paul evidently distinguishes two possible spheres for the use of tongues, he uses the same terminology to refer to all manifestations of the gift.

Conclusion Concerning the Distinctiveness

In summary, the Pentecostal attempt to distinguish between kinds of tongues, whether between Luke and Paul or within Paul himself, is fraught with hermeneutical difficulties, chief of which is a frequent disregard for context. While the purposes of tongues may have been several, the fundamental nature of the gift as a known language does not appear to vary in the text of Scripture. Carson concludes, “Certainly tongues in Acts exercise some different functions from those in 1 Corinthians; but there is no substantial evidence that suggests Paul thought the two were essentially different” (emphasis his).[54]

The Argument of the Distinctiveness of Paul’s Doctrine of the Baptism of the Spirit

Description of the Doctrine

Ultimately, the doctrine of Initial Evidence rises or falls on the Pentecostal definition of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent work of the Spirit following conversion. The primary text around which most debate swirls is 1 Corinthians 12:13, though other passages, interpreted correctly, present an equal challenge to the Pentecostal doctrine.[55]

Many Pentecostals chafe at what they describe as the non-Pentecostal’s reading of Luke through a Pauline grid. As Oss states, “To put an epistolary language test to a narrative is hermeneutically unsound.”[56] Thus, in response to what they perceive as a fundamental error in hermeneutical method, Pentecostals insist that the Pauline description of the baptism of the Spirit is in no way a detriment to either the Pentecostal doctrine of Subsequence or Initial Evidence as derived from Acts.

Evaluation of the Doctrine

One interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is that the baptism of the Spirit described by Paul is a post-conversion experience consistent with the Pentecostal understanding of various episodes in Acts.

Yet the universal nature of verses 12–13 (“all the members,” “we all,” “Jews and Greeks”) argues strongly against the limitation of the “we” to only those who have experienced a post-conversion baptism. The hermeneutical fallacy here, as Carson correctly notes, is “insensitivity to the context.”[57]

A more subtle interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:13 seeks to distinguish the “we” who have been “baptized into one body” as a reference to the converted and the “we” who have been “made to drink of one Spirit” as a reference to those who have experienced a second work of the Spirit.[58] Yet, the obvious parallel construction of the two metaphorical phrases cannot possibly support such a theological distinction.[59] This is classic case of eisegesis. As Packard notes, “Reference to a second blessing has to be read into the text; it cannot be read out of it.”[60]

A third argument distinguishes the baptism in the Holy Spirit described in the Gospels and Acts (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16) from a baptism by the Holy Spirit described here by Paul. This argument depends upon translating the preposition εν with two distinct meanings in the same prepositional construction: εν πνευματι. One alleged basis for this distinction in the English translation is “the fact that making the Spirit the element in which the believer is baptized leaves the rite without an administrator. In the Lucan contexts, Jesus is always the baptizer.”[61] But against this Carson observes, “Whenever the verb baptize is used in the New Testament, it is the medium of the baptism—water, fire, cloud, and so forth—that is expressed using this preposition εν (en), not the agent.”[62] Thus, the hermeneutical fallacy is what Silva describes as overemphasis of “subtle points of grammar and vocabulary” in order to establish a doctrinal position.[63]

For Oss the above arguments are quite beside the point since “Paul is not specifically addressing here one’s enduement with power … but he is using the language [of Luke] to make a point concerning unity in the body of Christ.”[64] Thus, Oss argues that similar language does not mandate similar meaning. In defense of his argument, one might point to the different use of the term justification by Paul and James or, more appropriate to this debate, the different use of the concept of being “filled with the Spirit” in Luke-Acts and Paul (Eph 5:18). Yet, even as Oss observes, the context of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is one replete with a discussion of the Spirit’s empowering ministry through the various spiritual gifts.[65] For this reason, how can Oss be sure that Paul is using the “language” of Spirit baptism in a sense different from Luke’s use? Obviously, such a supposition facilitates the means of reconciling the teaching of the two writers in a manner consistent with Pentecostal distinctives. But this is an evident imposition of theological preunderstanding upon the text. Paul’s point concerning unity in the context immediately preceding and following this passage is precisely that it is the one and the same Holy Spirit that empowers each member of the body for service (vv. 4–11) such that all are necessary and all are dependent upon one another (vv. 14–27). Thus, the very diversity of the gifts provides an essential unity of the body of Christ through the Spirit.[66]

Conclusion Concerning the Doctrine

In summary, as Dunn concluded more than thirty years ago in a thorough critique of the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism, “Unless recourse is had to semantic sleight of hand ... there is no alternative to the conclusion that the baptism in the Spirit is what made the Corinthians members of the Body of Christ, that is, Christians.”[67] For this reason the Pentecostal doctrine of Subsequence and its corresponding teaching of Initial Evidence through tongues speaking cannot be sustained biblically.[68]

Final Conclusions

An examination of various hermeneutical devices employed in defense of the Pentecostal doctrine of Initial Evidence reveals significant difficulties. Attempts to justify the doctrine on the basis of historical precedent or the principles of narrative theology are either overstated or inconsistently applied. Likewise, attempts to harmonize a Pentecostal understanding of Luke-Acts with Pauline teaching results in the need to violate basic principles of synchronic word study and contextual control in interpretation.

Meanwhile, important lessons have been learned regarding the use and abuse of the same hermeneutical principles in non-Pentecostal circles. These lessons include the dangers of reading Scripture through the lens of experience, forcing the text to answer the reader’s questions, drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from historical events, divorcing word meaning from attested usage, ignoring context, and overemphasizing subtle points of grammar.

May the Lord guide his people into the right understanding of his Word through the proper use of hermeneutical principles and methods.

Notes

1. Gordon Fee notes that while Pentecostals “are frequently praised for recapturing for the church its joyful radiance … they are at the same time noted for bad hermeneutics” (Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 83).
2. Ibid., 84.
3. Several Pentecostals cited in this paper, including Fee and Max Turner, fall into this category.
4. Thus, Article 8 of the “Statement of Fundamental Truths” of the General Council of theAssemblies of God states, “The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physicalsign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance (Acts 2:4)” (quoted in Fee,84). The other historic Pentecostal distinctive, now shared by many charismatics and Third-waveadherents, is the doctrine of subsequence or the belief in a baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to anddistinct from the moment of conversion. See R. Dennis Heard, “Let’s Look at the Record,” Pentecostal Messenger 77, no. 6 (June 2003): 4-8.
5. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 86. Of course, this kind of approach is not unique to Pentecostals!
6. Ibid. Indeed, one early Pentecostal stated that “the Baptism in the Spirit is not a doctrine, but an experience” (quoted in Gary B. McGee, “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Tongues as Evidence in the Book of Acts,” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspective on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary B. McGee [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 106). Thus, Fee notes, rather than seeking the origination of their theology in the text, they use theology for the biblical and theological verification of their experience.
7. Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study of Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1999), 19.
8. Robert P. Menzies, “Introduction,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998); available from; Internet; accessed 16 June 2003.
9. Hermeneutics defines the premises or principles by which the meaning of a text is revealed, while exegesis is the task of uncovering the single, intended meaning of a passage of Scripture through the implementation of hermeneutical principles. While the focus of this paper is upon the underlying hermeneutics employed by Pentecostals, the discussion necessarily carries over into the arena of exegesis.
10. An area of investigation beyond the scope of this paper is the relationship of Lucan theology and Pauline theology. Contemporary Pentecostal scholars argue that Luke should not be read through the lens of Paul nor should Paul be given primacy over Luke. Rather “a biblical theological approach lets each NT author be himself and say what he wants to say, even if it differs in perspective from another writer, and whether or not one wrote a letter and the other told a story” (Donald A. Johns, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, 149). This may be true, though ultimately there must be a harmonious synthesis that respects the doctrine of inspiration. But the question before us in this paper is the correct means to arrive at a particular author’s theology.
11. Not so coincidently, some Pentecostals apply this same methodology to justify their belief in a baptism in “Jesus’ name only” based upon precedent in Acts.
12. Contemporary Pentecostal Donald A. Johns (“Some New Directions,” 165) rejects the use of Mark 16:17 on the basis of both its questionable textual support as well as a clear lack of connection between tongues and the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
13. For example, John R. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964), 8.
14. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 106.
15. Johns, “Some New Directions,” 147. Indeed, the rushing wind and fire in Acts 2:2–3 is ignored by Pentecostals.
16. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 87. Indeed, as McGee (“Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 100) points out, many independent and baptistic groups employ Acts in their defense of concepts of faith, repentance, and church polity as well as their desire to return to the “purity of the early church.” Catholicism is defined by its exaltation of historical precedent (tradition) to a level commensurate with Scripture. Our concern here, however, is with biblical historical precedent.
17. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 48. Fee and Stuart (49) speak of the “task theology” found in the Epistles “or theology at the service of a particular need.”
18. Ibid., 77.
19. Ibid., 108. Authorial intent may be defined as the meaning expressed by an author through what he has written. See Norman L. Geisler, “The Relation of Purpose and Meaning,” Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 230. According to Geisler, a correct hermeneutical and exegetical approach seeks to reveal the argument of an author through the discovery of his intention as expressed by what he has written (245). Thus, John Polhill states with regard to Acts, “Beyond Luke’s express statement, it is probably impossible to probe into his mind and further determine his ‘purposes.’ To speak of the themes of Luke-Acts is another matter; they are property of the objective text and not of the author’s subjective mind” (“Interpreting the Book of Acts,” in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 403).
20. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 92.
21. Ibid., 91. See also D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 150. I. H. Marshall argues that one must speak of the unified purpose of Luke-Acts, since Luke introduces Acts as a continuation of his gospel (Acts 1:1). In this regard he states that the particular purpose of Acts is “to show how the salvation which was manifested by Jesus during his earthly life in a limited area of country and for a brief period of time became a reality for increasing numbers of people over a wide geographical area and during an extended period of time” (The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 20).
22. Johns, “Some New Directions,” 152.
23. For example, in Acts 8 the Samaritans waited for the apostles to lay hands upon them in order to receive the Holy Spirit, whereas in Acts 10 the Gentiles received the Spirit immediately.
24. Robert P. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998): 115.
25. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 108.
26. Menzies, “Evidential Tongues,” 113. Menzies argues instead that the nature of the gift of the Holy Spirit as a means of enabling powerful witness is an implicit theological argument for its universality as well as its normativeness (119–20).
27. See Johns, “Some New Directions,” 152–56.
28. Stronstad, Prophethood, 21.
29. Ibid., 29.
30. According to Johns, “Narrative theology … asserts that the story-form itself has significance for theology” (“Some New Directions,” 130).
31. Ibid., 154.
32. Douglas A. Oss, “A Pentecostal/Charismatic Response to C. Samuel Storms” and “A Pentecostal/Charismatic View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 262.
33. Ibid., 235.
34. Stronstad, Prophethood, 28.
35. See Polhill, “Book of Acts,” 403–7.
36. Stronstad, Prophethood, 30.
37. Ibid., 31.
38. There is no mention of Spirit baptism or tongues speaking in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch nor of many of the converts of Paul in his various missionary journeys.
39. Larry W. Hurtado, “Normal, but not a Norm: ‘Initial Evidence’ and the New Testament,” in Initial Evidence, 196.
40. BAGD, 4th rev. ed., s.v. “γλωσσα.”
41. Carson, Showing, 80–81.
42. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 630. That the Corinthians believed they could speak with “tongues of angels” should perhaps come as no surprise, given the carnal state of their thinking and behavior (1 Cor 3:1–3).
43. Turner notes, “The great majority of taped examples of tongues prove to have no genuine linguistic structure” (Max Turner, “Tongues: An Experience for all in the Pauline Churches?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 [1998]: 249). Likewise, exhaustive studies have concluded that “modern tongues are lexically uncommunicative and the few instances of reported modern xenoglossia are so poorly attested that no weight can be laid on them” (Carson, Showing, 84). Thus, modern tongues would appear to bear no resemblance to the biblical description of the phenomenon.
44. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 199; Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 63–64.
45. Quoted in Gary B. McGee, “Popular Expositions of Initial Evidence in Pentecostalism,” in Initial Evidence, 128.
46. Ibid.
47. Merrill F. Unger, The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 74, 92. More specifically, Hurtado notes that the “Lucan use of tongues in certain episodes of Acts (is) part of the author’s intention to show the genuineness of the spread of the gospel to new people and groups … a sign of the gospel’s advance” (“Not a Norm,” 199–200).
48. God did not always immediately provide the interpretation of divine acts in history. Only later was the significance of an event revealed (e.g., Matt 12:39–41; Mark 6:52; 11:14, 20–24; John 13:7).
49. Hurtado, “Not a Norm,” 199; cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 657. Yet, even Fee acknowledges that in this passage “Paul’s present concern is not with private devotion but with public worship” (First Corinthians, 657).
50. Fee alludes to “psychological benefits” of the devotional use of tongues, though “such discussion lie quite beyond what one can say exegetically” (First Corinthians, 657, n. 25). Lowery suggests that uninterpreted tongues provided edification through the knowledge that “the user of the gift experienced the confirmation that he was the individual object of God’s grace” (David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament Edition, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 538.
51. See Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1994), 203–4.
52. Observation of Max Turner in “Tongues: An Experience for all in the Pauline Churches?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2 (1998): 231. Turner argues convincingly that even 1 Corinthians 14:5 implies that not all spoke in tongues in the Corinthian assembly (Ibid., 243-47).
53. Ibid., 239.
54. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 83.
55. Unger refers to six passages in the epistles (1 Cor 12:12–13; Rom 6:3–4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:10–12; Eph 4:5; and 1 Pet 3:21), which bear upon the doctrine of Spirit baptism. The passage in 1 Corinthians, however, “is the most important, both because it clearly refers to Spirit baptism and it treats the subject comprehensively” (Baptism and Gifts, 95).
56. Oss, “A Pentecostal/Charismatic Response,” 236. He further argues, “The interpreter should not flatten out legitimate biblical diversities in the interest of traditional systematic-theological categories” (Ibid., 252). To this all would agree. The question, however, is whether the Pentecostal synthesis of Luke and Paul is hermeneutically and exegetically defensible.
57. Carson, Showing, 45.
58. For example, Howard M. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 100–101.
59. Carson, Showing, 45–46.
60. J.I. Packard, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 203.
61. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 99.
62. Carson, Showing, 47. See also, James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970), 127–29.
63. Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 60–63. Silva explains, “If a proposed meaning cannot be established apart from an appeal to a grammatical subtlety, chances are that the argument is worthless” (Ibid., 63).
64. Oss, “Pentecostal/Charismatic View,” 258.
65. Ibid., 259.
66. Robert L. Saucy, “An Open but Cautious Response to Douglas A. Oss,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 301.
67. Dunn, Baptism, 129.
68. As Saucy observes, “... The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost involves more than empowerment …”. Rather it has everything to do with “the superiority of the salvation that would come through the Messiah.” In the case of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–17), Cornelius (Acts 10:45–47), and the Ephesians (Acts 19:1–7) the issue was the reception of the Spirit “related to the new covenant salvation that comes through faith in Jesus” (“Open but Cautious Response,” 300).