Elbert approaches Luke-Acts with two questions: (1) How does Luke expect Theophilus, the reader, to read his two-volume work (Luke-Acts)? and (2) How does Luke expect him to respond to it? As Robert Menzies summarizes, in the forward, first, Luke gives Theophilus “a coherent pneumatological picture.” Second, Luke thinks that “if Theophilus prays to receive gift of the Holy Spirit as Jesus taught, then it will be given to him” (Lk 11.13) and third, that Jesus’s command to ask for the good gift of the Holy Spirit must be understood in light of Pentecost and subsequent pneumatological events in Acts (vii). Significantly, Elbert sees the inchoate state of Theophilus who has received some initial instruction in the faith (Lk 1.4) like Apollos, whose knowledge of Jesus was rudimentary but deficient and was given a fuller picture (5, Acts 18.24–28).

For Elbert, Theophilus was probably a sincere disciple who needed further instruction which included more information about the Holy Spirit that his second treatise more extensively provides (1, 6). Having given Theophilus further teaching and examples of historical precedent, Luke expects him to seek this gift of the Holy Spirit (11). Elbert cites Hellenistic rhetorical parallels that demonstrate a pedagogical and mentoring relationship with the reader (20:n35, n61).

Moreover, the Lukan version of “the Holy Spirit” in contrast to Matthew’s “good gifts” shows that Luke is stressing Spirit reception either by his redactional emendation or by preferring one version of the dominical saying over another retained in the earlier Gospel tradition (11.13 cp. Matt 7.11). Elbert links the good gift-Holy Spirit saying to Acts 1.5, 8; 2.2. Luke’s rhetoric is intended to be didactic for his reader, Theophilus, and later in Luke-Acts, Luke shows him what to pray for and the effects of the gift of the Holy Spirit (34–35). Luke then, views history and narrative as paradigmatic for Christian practice (43–44).

In the third chapter, Elbert focuses on Acts 2.38: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (NRSV). Repentance and baptism are mandated in the final instructions of Jesus (Lk 24.47–49) and found throughout the Third Gospel. The repeated promise of the Holy Spirit in Lk 24.49 and in Acts 1.4, 8, 14 puts Theophilus in “an expectant transition” and is followed with templates for his own petition to receive God’s gift of the Holy Spirit (45). But first, Elbert makes it clear that those who were about the receive the promise of the Holy Spirit “had already entered into genuine Christian discipleship and commitment to Jesus, i.e., that they have entered into that nexus of experiential concepts: repentance, forgiveness, belief, and salvation which Luke associates with experiencing Jesus” (46). He gives ample examples from the Gospel that folk already had experienced salvation before Pentecost. In the text and in the footnotes, he takes issue with those who say that believers only experience salvation after Pentecost, especially James Dunn (46–50). It appears that Dunn and company are interpreting Luke’s pneumatology through the lens of Paul’s understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Luke must be allowed to speak on his own terms, for the pneumatological agendas of both Luke and Paul are not quite the same.

Using a Graeco-Roman historiographical method, Luke presents in Peter’s Pentecost sermon “three narrative functions”: (1) to summarize events with a view of how the reader should respond, (2) to provide precedents that guide the disciples in mission, and (3) “to draw all the threads together into a timely tutorial re the Lukan gift of the Spirit, from both the preceding prophetic xenolalic event as well as from the previous narrative” (50–51). Peter’s initial speech/sermon is programmatic for all of Acts (54). “This emphasis on the individualistic extension of prophetic vocation to all repentant, forgiven, callers upon the Lord’s name who would prayerfully seek the gift of the Spirit, as I shall argue, for 2.38c, is distinctively Lukan” (55).

Elbert notes that the promise of the Spirit is not merely for prophecy: “Luke neither says nor implies that Joel has promised the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ (contra Turner). Rather, Luke’s insertion ‘and they will prophesy’ in 2.18 simply highlights the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy and extends the promise of it to everyone (cf. 1.4; 2.39), thus making Luke’s understanding of prophecy one component of the Lukan gift of the Spirit” (57–58). Luke understands that other aspects of the Spirit’s gift are included, such as dreams and visions and, later, other wonders. Nor is it evident that Spirit-reception happens immediately upon obeying the imperatives of “repent” and “be baptized”; the reception of the Spirit is in the future tense. Elbert demonstrates several passages where the future following the imperative is not immediate (64–73). To insist that the gift of the Spirit must appear immediately at baptism appears “to be non-Lukan importations no matter what their source” (72). Luke has set his narrative up to this programmatic point in the Pentecost sermon to instruct Theophilus, who already knows about repentance and forgiveness of sins, to ask the good Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Elbert makes the case for Apollos receiving fuller pneumatic instruction and experience, for he had the same instructional deficiency as the Ephesian twelve, who knew only the baptism of John. He suggests that Theophilus, though somewhat informed in the faith (Lk 1.4), knows only of a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins and needs further instruction on how to receive the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. Luke does this by his frequent emphasis on prayer, especially regarding reception of the Holy Spirit. These promises and examples provide a paradigm for Theophilus to pray to receive the Holy Spirit (94–95).

Luke does not invent Theophilus to be a mere foil for him to present a theological treatise wrapped in a narrative; rather he gives instruction to Theophilus on what to pray for, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and what to expect in the breath of prayer for his future ministry. The primal mode of biblical revelation subsists in the telling of a story and expecting the readers to respond to the salvation-history event. The story cannot be divorced from the didache.

Elbert’s lengthy essay, presented in 2000 as a Society for Pentecostal Studies conference paper, should have been published much earlier; his argument is persuasive, and he maintains a detailed and frank interaction with other scholars in his footnotes. We have Robert Graves of the Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship to thank for making this seminal essay available to the Church and the academy.

Reviewed by James B. Shelton

Acts: The Gospel of the Spirit is a translation and update of González’s Hechos in the Comentario Biblico Hispanoamericano (Miami, Fla.: Editorial Caribe, 1992). González‘s discussion for each section in Acts is divided into two parts distinguished by two different typefaces. First, González makes academic comments, the text in our context (xiii). Next, he addresses issues confronting the Church both north and south, Hispanic and Anglo. Often González addresses topics at the heart of classical Pentecostalism and even of the faith movement. Although he often speaks from a Protestant-Hispanic perspective, his hard-hitting observations address both the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant English speaking churches.

The academic sections are helpful to all expressions of the academy and ecclesial communities. González addresses traditional questions raised by scholars and maintains openness to the claims of the text. For example, after a discussion of the we passages, he concludes that the most simple and probable notion is to accept that the we refers, as the text would like us to think, to one of Paul’s companions, who is also the author of the book (4). He also discusses the chronology and theology of Paul as presented in the Acts and the epistles and concludes that, though they are different, they are not irreconcilable. Throughout the commentary he interacts with both English- and Spanish-speaking academicians on significant issues. This provides a wider exposure to scholars working in spheres that are often unavailable to many readers.

Although he does not address in detail questions of Luke’s pneumatology normally raised by Pentecostals and Charismatics, González does address the issue of speaking in tongues and Spirit-inspired witness. He also acknowledges the miraculous activity of the spirit. He concentrates on the social issues that the Gospel addresses such as wealth and poverty, power and allegiance to the Church and state, and polity. His is a healthy restatement of the goals of the gospel of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals and Charismatics are well advised to pay González rapt attention lest we neglect the weightier matters of the spirit.

The application sections identify the major practical issues which confronted the ancient community and challenge the present Church. Notably González accepts much of the first-century worldview. For example he cites Bultmann’s insistence that it is impossible to use modern scientific wonders and medicine and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles. González objects that much of the Spanish-speaking community of faith does not agree; the truth is, however, that what Bultmann declares to be impossible is not just possible, but even frequent (84).

Justo L. González

Many of González‘s applications are quite prophetic and insightful. For example, in the section, Beware of Gamaliel! he warns that the Church often opts for fatalism and inaction by hiding behind the words, If it is a matter of God, we cannot really oppose it, and if it is a human matter, it will fail With that excuse, we allow injustice to continue rampant in our society (85). Other thought-provoking subheadings are, When the enemy Calls Us to Obedience, Between Simon Magus and Simon Peter, When Evil Produces Good, and Good Produces Evil, A Subversive Message, and Beware of Cheap theology! (which is rather expensive). González grapples with issues which confront the Church of all cultures and languages. He warns that Bible interpreters must not be carried by their own ideologies The text says what it says, whether we like it or not. The function of the interpreter is not to take the sting out of the text (76-77). González says Acts is about a strange kingdom which operates differently from all the present kingdoms. Its smallness and insignificance, like the mustard seed and the leaven, turns the world upside down in a reversal of values.

The story here is about the acts of a Spirit who makes it possible for believers to live, even amidst the kingdoms of this world, as the citizens of that other kingdom (21).

For the Hispanic Church, Acts steers her between the Scylla of mere political revolution and the Charybdis of compromise with worldly authority. González‘s commentary provides a warning to the affluent Anglo faith community that indifference to their brethren in Christ to the south and in their midst may well assure that they in the north share the fate of the rich man who gave Lazarus no aid or comfort (Lk. 16:19-31). The problem of materialism is solved by helping those who have not (Lk. 3:1-14). González‘s work is not a mere Hispanic curiosity. This commentary can be ignored by the north only at its own peril.