Inter-Varsity Press

CONTENTS

Preface

1. Introducing the issues
Scope and aims
Hermeneutical issues and methodology
A new generation of PCR scholars
Third Wave hermeneutical ambivalence
The so-called ‘intentional fallacy’
Setting the hermeneutical agenda

2. Riding the Third Wave, or just Azusa Street revisited?
Enthusiastic beginnings
Challenges to orthodoxy
The charismatic movement
Enter the Third Wave
The Great Commission and healing
Conclusions

3. Kingdom theology and the Third Wave
Power and presence
Present and future
Realized eschatology
A paradigm for contemporary ministry
Kingdom and kerygma
Conclusions

Part One: The Great Commission According to Matthew: A Contemporary Paradigm for Signs and Wonders?
Introducing the issues
Key Matthean themes

4. Matthew, Jesus and Discipleship
Historicizing
Transparency
The essence of discipleship according to Matthew
Beware of self-deception (Matt. 7:21–23)
Conclusions

5. Matthew’s readers and the Great Commission
Introduction
The importance of Gattung
Quest for the Gattung of Matthew 28:16–20
Conclusions

6. The disciples’ mission to Israel
Introduction
Commissioning the disciples
Matthew’s use of exousia
Then and now?
The theme of forgiveness

7. Peter and the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18–20)
Introduction
Isaiah 22:22
The influence of Jewish sources
Binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19b, 19c)
Conclusions

8. Conclusions to Part One

Part Two: Commissioning and Discipleship According to Mark
Introducing the issues
Mark as narrative

9. Jesus calls and commissions his disciples
Called by Jesus for a mission
The role of the Twelve in Mark
Commissioning and sending out the Twelve
The mission of the Twelve
Conclusions

10. Mark’s central section and teaching on discipleship
Teaching on authentic discipleship
Suffering and self-denial
A reversal of earthly values
Slavery as the price of pre-eminence
Exorcism in context
The boy with the spirit (Mark 9:14–29)
Another exorcist (Mark 9:38–41)
Conclusions

11. The original ending to Mark’s Gospel?
The longer ending to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9–20)
The appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9–11)
The appearance to the two travellers (Mark 16:12–13)
The commissioning of the Eleven (Mark 16:14–18)
The ascension and the heavenly court (Mark 16:19–20)
Conclusions to discussion of Mark 16:9–20
The original ending to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:1–8)
Conclusions

12. Conclusions to Part Two

Part Three: Signs and Wonders, Commissioning and Discipleship According to Luke-Acts
Introducing the issues

13. Overview of discipleship in Luke
Luke’s use of his sources
Jesus and his followers
The journey theme
Material possessions

14. The commissioning of Jesus
The baptism – a paradigm?
The importance of prayer
Conclusions

15. Luke and the Twelve (Luke 6:12–16)
Jesus – a man under authority
Called to be fishers of men
Prayer and discipleship
The Twelve as apostles
Conclusions

16. The mission of the Twelve (Luke 9:1–6)
Luke’s sources
Luke’s purpose
Conclusions

17. The sending of the Seventy(-Two)
Introduction
Seventy or Seventy-Two?
The Twelve as part of the mission of the Seventy(-Two)
Luke 22:35–36
The mission
Conclusions

18. Resurrection and commissioning in Luke-Acts
Introduction
The walk to Emmaus
Preparing the way for the final commissioning scene
The final commissioning scene in Luke’s Gospel
The commission according to Acts1:8
Conclusions

19. Signs and wonders in Acts
Introduction
Commissioning with power and authority in Acts
Luke’s perspective on signs and wonders
Luke’s perspective on the miracles of Jesus
The miracles of Jesus in retrospect (Acts 2:22; 19?:37–38?)
Conclusions

20. Signs and wonders and Luke’s heroes of the Spirit
The purpose of signs and wonders in Acts
Laying on of hands
Laying on of hands as a sign of commissioning
Laying on of hands and conveying the Holy Spirit
Laying on of hands and healing
Use of Jesus’ name
Conclusions

21. Conclusions to Part Three

22. Final reflections

Extract from ... 1. Introducing the issues

Signs and wonders or ‘doing the stuff’ holds an appeal for many in the church today. The quest for religious experience and the recovery of an experiential sense of the supernatural meets a particular need felt by many twenty-first-century Christians whose lives are besieged by contrary values associated with an all-pervading postmodern world view. John Stott has written:

I confess to being frightened by the contemporary evangelical hunger for power, even the quest for the power of the Holy Spirit. Why do we want to receive power? Is it honestly power for witness (as in Acts 1:8), or power for holiness, or power for humble service? Or is it in reality a mask for personal ambition, a craving to boost our own ego, to minister to our self-importance, to impress, to dominate or to manipulate?

These are important questions all Christians seeking to deepen their experiential relationship with God should ask themselves, but I believe the problem, where it exists, arises out of more than just human weakness. In my view, it often derives from a sincere but overly simplistic understanding of the nature and authority of Scripture where the pursuit of homogeneity at all costs is allowed to set the hermeneutical agenda. For some Christians, seeking to reproduce a New Testament world view, with its apparently uncritical acceptance of the miraculous, is one way of combating the anti-supernaturalism they see in society and within the church. Indeed, for them such miraculous activity is to be considered as normative for the contemporary church and regarded as a tangible demonstration of God’s continuing activity amongst his people in much the same way, it is argued, that healings, exorcisms, signs and wonders appear within the pages of the New Testament itself.

The contemporary phenomenon of charismatic renewal has, from its inception with the Pentecostal revivals at the beginning of the twentieth century, been characterized by its claim to reproduce the earliest Christians’ experience of the Holy Spirit as evidenced within the pages of the NT. The current charismatic emphasis on a theology of ‘signs and wonders’, associated with the so-called Third Wave of contemporary Pentecostal-charismatic renewal is no exception. Exponents of this theological emphasis claim to mirror in their contemporary experience, theology and praxis a biblical model or paradigm5 based upon their understanding of the proclamation of the kingdom of God and the demonstration of its presence with signs and wonders, in the ministry of Jesus and the early church, as it is described especially in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.

There is a sense in which the phenomenon of the Third Wave, together with its particular theological emphases, have been contextualized and absorbed into the traditions of the church. This is especially true of the in both the mainstream denominations and New Church movements. In light of this, I am not setting out simply to reiterate what others have already done with regard to the Third Wave and their theology of signs and wonders, nor am I making any particular prior judgments about the outcome.

Scope and aims

As a Neutestamentler with an interest in biblical theology and a firm belief in the need for scholarship to serve the community of faith, it is my hope that the results which emerge from my examination of the NT evidence will both further our understanding of the NT texts themselves, and establish a case for a more critically sensitive approach within the church to the biblical texts and to their contemporary application to faith and praxis. In other words, my purpose is twofold: academic, in both an exegetical and theological sense; and pastoral, inasmuch as any insights gained from this study will benefit the community of faith on all sides.

I understand that, in common with other evangelical Christians, the Third Wave regard the canonical books of the NT as Scripture and, therefore, as having a particular authority within the church, not least, when it comes to informing Christian faith and praxis. Therefore, ad hominem, with the Third Wave, I shall also regard the NT canon as my primary source, although this will not preclude using extra-canonical sources in order to enhance our understanding of the NT texts. Whilst I am aware of the questions posed by others to this working assumption,I write, nevertheless, as an evangelical addressing what is primarily an intra-evangelical issue. With this in mind, it should be noted from the outset that my purpose is also to engage with the Third Wave in such a way that I am heard by both sides – the Third Wave as well as the academy.

I have a number of reasons for wanting to engage with the Third Wave. All evangelical Christians, whether ‘charismatic’ or not, would claim that their theology and praxis are derived from within a biblical framework that is informed primarily by the NT and that often reflects their particular denominational or group emphasis. The Third Wave’s particular theological emphasis has become highly influential in PCR circles, and provides an important contemporary example of a Christian group claiming to reflect or reproduce a normative NT paradigm in their theology and praxis. As such, they clearly deserve closer attention.

Their theology of ‘signs and wonders’ is informed by a NT paradigm that is both influential within PCR circles, as well as being potentially divisive within the wider Christian community. As such, its importance for contemporary theology and praxis in the church today approximates that of ideas about baptism in the Spirit and the manifestation of charismata that were characteristic of an earlier stage of PCR. These issues were not only controversial within the church at the time; they also attracted notable scholarly attention.

The way in which the Third Wave gather and use the NT evidence to inform their contemporary paradigm raises important critical, exegetical and hermeneutical issues that need to be addressed both here and, I would argue, by all Christians who believe that the NT provides normative models for the church today. It is to these hermeneutical issues relating to an appropriate methodology for interpreting and evaluating the NT evidence that we must now turn.

Hermeneutical issues and methodology

In the 1970s James Dunn set out to engage with those involved then in PCR (as well as others) through his examination of the NT evidence for the process of Christian conversion-initiation. In so doing, he opened up a field of debate between those involved directly in PCR and the academy that continues vigorously to the present day. More importantly, Dunn pioneered dialogue at a scholarly and technical level with Pentecostals and others that has increased in both the range of subjects under discussion, and the number of scholarly contributions both from sympathetic ‘outsiders’ as well as from those who identify themselves as coming from within the ranks of PCR. In a sense, the purpose of this present study is to take the dialogue on a stage further, by engaging in a detailed examination of the NT material offered in evidence by the Third Wave in support of their theology of ‘signs and wonders’.

At an early stage in Dunn’s dialogue with Pentecostalism over the issue of baptism in the Spirit and how this relates to the NT evidence for the process of Christian conversion-initiation, he raises the important methodological issue of how we are to approach the NT evidence by asking the question ‘Are we to approach the NT material as systematic theologians or as biblical theologians and exegetes?’ Dunn answers the question by pointing out that the common error of the former is to approach the NT as an homogenous whole, selecting texts on a particular topic out of their literary context and using them to construct a theological framework or system that he deems ‘extra-biblical’. For Dunn, the more appropriate approach is that taken by the latter, who treat each author and book separately with a view to identifying the particular theological emphasis and intention of the various writers before allowing a particular text to interact with others. He adds:

This means, in our case, that we cannot simply assume that the Gospels and Acts are all bare historical narratives which complement each other in a direct 1:1 ratio, nor can we assume that Luke and John have the same emphases and aims. They may, of course, but we cannot assume it without proof.

Just as this methodological point was an important one to make for Dunn’s study, so it is for my present study. Those with whom I shall engage also have a strong tendency to treat NT texts in a similar homogenizing fashion. It is encouraging to note that there is an increasing degree of theological expertise being brought into the various discussions between scholars associated with PCR and their partners in dialogue, and this strengthens even further the case for appropriate methodologies to be used by all sides. Indeed, there is a growing recognition that biblical scholarship, which is sympathetic to a high view of the authority of Scripture, has a crucial role to play in setting the hermeneutical agenda for evaluating biblical models that inform contemporary faith and praxis.