I am working on a series of lectures on “Luke’s theology of the Holy Spirit”, that I am giving at my church. My primary sources are:
- The Bible NIV 2011
- The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, by Roger Stronstad
- Luke Historian & Theologian, by I. Howard Marshall
- Acts, by I. Howard Marshall
- New Testament Theology, by I. Howard Marshall
The premise of the lectures will revolve around Roger Stronstad’s book, which Brian LePort has already written a short review, and has had some dialog on this matter as well. Last night I did my first lecture and want to get some dialog going on some of Stronstad’s conclusions.
The first one is the separation of the Gospel of Luke, from the Book of Acts. Stronstad makes a good point that we should understand Luke’s usage of various terms and phrases as having the same meaning in both books. We don’t do that with Paul’s writings or any other bible author for that matter, so when Paul uses a particular phrase or term we consistently define it the same, so there is continuity between Paul’s terms and phrases. For example, Luke’s usage of the phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit”, this is a phrase that is used in both Luke’s Gospel and Acts, but yet there is a discontinuity in how one understands its meaning. J.H.E Hull writes:
Elizabeth and Zechariah were, in Luke’s view momentarily filled with the Spirit. In other words, they could be aware of His (seemly) fleeting presence and His (seemly) fitful and necessarily limited activity. The disciples, on the other hand, were permanently filled with the Spirit” CTHLuke p4
Stronstad rightly charges Hull with an “exegetically baseless affirmation that the phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit” has a different (and superior?) meaning in Acts than it does in Luke, he changes the Lukan metaphor…” CTHLuke p4
There is so much reading into the text by Hull going on here that I have to agree with Stronstad that Hull went to far in his explanation of the text. Is there any valid reason to think that Luke’s usage of the phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit” means something different to him than what he means in Acts? Why wouldn’t there be continuity between the sort of language that Luke uses in his writings? If Luke understood being “filled with the Holy Spirit” as being permanent in Acts, why would we think that he means otherwise in his Gospel?
What do you think about Stronstad’s conclusion?
the archives near Emmaus 
I think we need to understand Luke’s use of the term in a pre and post resurrection setting. Certainly within the resurrection setting there are times when it appears the Spirit moves momentarily in the same manner the HS did in the OT setting….therefore in Elizabeth’s case the term can be understood in the same manner the infilling was understood within the OT testimony as being a temporary infilling / empowering and is in the same context as the prophets would record… the Spirit of the Lord came upon him..
A problem arises if you equate Luke’s usage of being filled / baptised in the Spirit to mean salvation which I believe is a meaning he doesn’t intend.
I agree with Stronstad. I see no reason to divide Luke-Acts on this matter. It seems to me that Luke-Acts has a charismatic pneumatology that may be distinct from the Pauline or Johannine pneumatology in that it finds its primary grounding in charismatic activity. The Apostle Paul finds it based primarily in resurrecting life and empowerment seems secondary. Also, Paul emphasizes the New Covenant aspect, which I think Luke does as well, but from different angles which I tried to explain in my post. Luke seems more than happy to see people filled with the charismatic Spirit before Pentecost and that it is only democratized after Pentecost when the New Covenant is installed welcoming all to participate in the New Covenant Spirit.
you need to get bovon’s Luke the Theologian. there’s nothing better. and his chapter on the spirit in luke is NOT to be ignored.
@Craig, sorry for the slow response, just been very busy lately. As Brian was stating that Luke’s understanding or intended theological purpose is a Charismatic Pneumatology. Since I am working through Stronstad’s book let me explain it in his own terms. He defines it as such: “By “charismatic” I mean God’s gift of His Spirit to His servants, either individually or collectively, to anoint, empower, or inspire them for divine service. As it is recorded in Scripture, therefore, this charismatic activity is necessarily an experiential phenomenon.” CTHLuke p13
Stronstad makes the point that the Charismatic Spirit was in fact distributed for particular activities, though limited to various individual (i.e. not all of Israel had the Spirit upon them). He cites the following references which I think make a great point to what he is asserting: The priest who were filled with the Spirit for the purpose of building the Tabernacle Ex. 31:3; 35:31; Moses also had the Spirit upon him Num. 11:17; and this is also divided among the elders Num. 11:25-29; Joshua as well who was part of the elders, also gets subsequently filled with the Spirit Num 27:18; Deut 34:9
@Jim I have added that book to my Amazon wish list, and a few others as well. Thanks for the tip!
@Brian thanks for the insight, and the recommendation for this book finally getting around to reading it.
Thanks for that clarification Robert. It sounds like an interesting and worthwhile book to read.
While I know its dangerous to draw on experience; I would say even the charismatic experience of the Spirit is not a continual experience in the same way that salvation is a continual experience and I would suggest Luke would bear witness to this and therefore his terminology is the same in both books.
In fact I would be as bold to say that Luke showed the charismatic experience of the Spirit to be the same as it was in the OT; though perhaps the manifestation of tongues is different. Only Luke seems to make sure that the experience was for all who believed and not just some within the community of believers….eg Samaria / Paul’s encounter with the believers at Ephesus, etc. ..which would fit in with Paul’s exhortation to go on being continually filled with the Spirit and that it wasn’t just a one off experience.
Stronstad’s book, though short, is a very well-written and well-argued case for so many aspects of Luke’s pneumatology. I also wrote a review of the book here.