I have been thinking over the relationship between Lukan and Pauline Pneumatology over the past few weeks. After several recommendations I decided to read Roger Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (reviewed here). One paragraph early in the book stood out to me which I will quote here:
“…since Luke is a theologian in his own right, interpreters ought to examine his writings with a mind open to the possibility that his perspective of the Holy Spirit may, in fact, differ from Paul’s. Consequently, just as the recognition that Luke is a theologian as well as a historian makes Luke-Acts a legitimate data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so the recognition that Luke is independent of Paul will broaden the New Testament data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To recognize these two facts is to rehabilitate Luke as a historian-theologian of the Holy Spirit and to allow him to make a significant, unique, and independent contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. (p. 11)
Stronstad makes two important points: (1) Lukan Pneumatology can stand alone. It is not dependent upon Pauline Pneumatology. I may add that it does not necessarily contradict Pauline Pneumatology (just like the phrase “justification by faith” is different in the Pauline epistles juxtaposed with the Epistle of James), but likewise it is not saying the same thing. (2) We cannot regulate Luke-Acts to pure narrative while saying epistles are didactic. This seems to avoid the tension by ignoring that Luke-Acts was not trying to convey raw objective historical data but rather it was inviting its reader (and later readers) to participate in those things which Jesus began both to do and teach.
At Pentecost we see a “democratization” of the charismatic Spirit. In the gospel people like Elizabeth, Zecharias, John the Baptist, and even Jesus himself are filled with the Spirit. In the sequel anyone and everyone can receive the promised charismatic Spirit no matter one’s age, class, gender, or race. What seems internally evident is that Lukan Pneumatology is concerned primarily with the charismatic Spirit. Therefore, whenever the author writes about people having the Spirit poured out upon them or being filled with the Spirit it is grounded in the specific context of empowerment that we saw scattered throughout random individuals going back to Moses (who prayed that all may be charismatic prophetic leaders like he), the elders of Israel, the judges, kings like David and Saul, and various prophets of Israel. The Lukan Pneumatological language even seems to echo Septuagint charismatic Spirit language.
The Apostle Paul was no stranger to this aspect of Pneumatology (see 1 Cor 12-14), but it was not his primary concern. It seems from passages like Rom. 8 and 1 Cor. 15 that he was primarily concerned with the life-giving, resurrecting Spirit that we see building from Gen. 3 and 6 to Ps. 104 to Ez. 37 amongst other passages. So the Apostle knew and addressed the charismatic aspect of the Spirit but his primary use of Spirit-language was in the context of life and the age to come (i.e. eschatology and soteriology).
In Luke-Acts we see the life-giving, resurrecting Spirit–for both volumes are tied together at the ascension of the resurrected Christ–but this is not the primary concern. Lukan Pneumatology focuses on the reality that all people can now be “filled with the Spirit” in a way that was once reserved for a few outstanding figures. In order to convey this idea I created a “Yin-Yang” of Lukan and Pauline Pneumatology:
If we allow both authors to have their major and minor Pneumatological categories than we avoid contradiction between the two. I don’t think this is arbitrary either. I think it seems internally evident from the contexts in which you find their Spirit language. When Paul writes it is most often in the context of the Spirit drawing, sanctifying, and being a “down-payment” for an eventual resurrection. When Luke writes it provides everyone from a peasant Galilean Jew to a Roman centurion access to the Spirit in a manner once reserved for only a few heroes in Israel’s history.
This may not be a perfect system, but I think it is a good start and worth considering as we try to let Luke and Paul have their own voices.
the archives near Emmaus 
In reading these posts I’ve been curious as to why you’ve framed things the way you have. I tend to think that you’ve made something out of nothing here. The repeated comparison to Paul and James’ use of justification language seems misplaced since there is an apparent contradiction between the two even if there is not an actual one. I’m struggling to find any semblance of even an apparent contradiction between Luke and Paul on the Spirit. Clearly they’re writing different kinds of literature and addressing different concerns so there will be different emphases, but I don’t think there’s anything drastically different about either writer’s depiction of the Spirit, or the believer’s relationship to the Spirit. It seems that you’d agree since you use phrases like “most often” which indicates that the things you see as emphasized in one you also see highlighted, even if not the main focus, in the other.
Nick,
I am concerned primarily with preserving Luke’s desire to say things like he does in Acts 8 where the Spirit comes after belief while acknowledging the Pauline emphasis that one cannot even believe without the work of the Spirit (e.g. 1 Cor. 12.3). I am sure there are several ways to approach this but thus far they all seem problematic. I am open to other ways of seeing this. Do you have any suggestions?
I think Paul speaks of the external working of the Holy Spirit who brings one to belief through conviction… this same external working is what brings judgement to the devil…
Luke on the other hand is speaking of the experiential encounter of the Spirit, which Paul also speaks of elsewhere… So I also tend to think that Paul speaks of two encounters of the Spirit… and in this second area is in agreement with Luke.
Craig,
It does seem that Luke emphasizes the experiential/empowering/charismatic aspect of the Spirit. Paul deals with this but I think his Pneumatology is a bit broader.
I think the reason why it seems there is a discrepancy between Paul and Luke is because Luke is writing narrative, where by Paul is writing within a situationist point in time.
Yet; I think Luke shows Paul’s method of operandi through the narrative in how he works. He also shows through the narrative the way the other Apostles did also. Perhaps Paul did have a broader sense then Luke, though I would argue that because Luke was a travelling companion of Paul… Paul would have bounced a bit of Luke and vice versa.
What we don’t know is how Luke ministered within his travels. Did Luke preach, lay hands on people, or was he just tagging along as a scribe or moral supporter?
Craig,
What role in soteriology do you see being described by Pauline and Lukan approaches to Pneumatology? One concern is that if the Lukan aspect is equated with the Pauline then we have an interesting scenario is Acts 8 where the Spirit comes after belief (I think J.D.G. Dunn calls this a contradiction and then sides with Paul).
As for salvation and the role of the Spirit I believe that both Paul and Luke believe what John says 16:8 that the Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness and judgement, and indeed no one can be saved till they are convicted of sin.. (external working of the spirit)
Acts 19:6 highlights the narrative story of Paul, who expects an experiential confrontation / experience of the Spirit after believing.
Paul himself received the Spirit after he believed through the laying on of hands from Ananias acts 9:17 Yet Paul also had an encounter of the Holy Spirit which caused him to believe….before he received the Spirit.
This same experience of Paul was also experienced through the believers at Samaria. Therefore I would argue that Paul doesn’t lay out a different theology to Luke. Rather Paul also argues for an experiential encounter of the Spirit which he points to in his own writings.
Paul does go deeper in that he shows how the Spirit works in sanctification (Romans) which would be hard to do in a narrative writing (luke) … yet Paul also talks of the experiential of the Spirit in 1 Cor 2:4 which is in keeping with Luke’s narrative story.
I think perhaps your coming trying to decipher Luke and Paul using the same hermeneutic which I would be wary of doing. Rather to use what you wrote about N T Wright… Luke is a window in which one can see more deeply the narrative story of Paul as a basis for what Paul writes.
P.S also in light of your post. In Paul’s dialogue with the Corinthians and other sects I would argue that he had already ensured they had received the charismata of the Spirit (Luken) and this was not a primary concern for him to address.
Rather his addresses were more functional in the way of correcting excess’s and he was concerned with the present day to day functioning of the body as believers continuing into the future.
So through Luke we see Paul the evangelist working… through the epistles we see the ongoing discipleship happening.
Let me see if I am understanding correctly: Luke addresses the work of the Spirit in the same way as Paul but he has a narrower focus than Paul. Paul’s focus on the work of the Spirit is broader.
Did I interpret you correctly?
Yes. I wish I had your way of putting things so succinctly.
I see Luke writing what he sees happening without trying to explain it. Whereas Paul is explaining the Christian life.
Brian –
I know you are aware of my review of Stronstad’s book, but I also recently wrote an article on the use of Luke-Acts for understanding our pneumatology, where I quoted Stronstad a couple of times as well. This is all to allow for Luke to be Luke, and not see Luke fit precisely into Paul. I believe some more traditional understandings and teaching on pneumatology approach Luke-Acts from a ‘post-Pauline perspective’ (instead of a new Pauline perspective :)). What I mean is that, many times, people try and understand Luke’s emphases on the Spirit through the lens of Paul. We want to harmonise Scripture. But we don’t want to force the purpose of one writer into the purpose of another. Hence why I believe Stronstad has some good things to offer here.
Scott,
I agree. When I seek to harmonize I don’t seek to blend (e.g. like a choir, I want each voice to contribute to the greater theological song). What I do concern myself with is that we don’t settle for drastic contradiction between the two like J.D.G. Dunn seems to have done. Tension is fine.