The second part of chapter four from Professor Williams’ book, The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today, about the greatest reality of our time.

The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today: Purpose (Chapter 4, Part 1)

Chapter Four Continued: Purpose, Part 2

Let us now move on to note how the gift of the Holy Spirit enables the performance of mighty works. The witness to Christ is not only that of word but also deed. There is, as we have observed, the powerful word of testimony to Christ whereby persons become vehicles for the transformation of human life, and prophetic utterance may go forth with great directness and forcefulness. But the witness is likewise that of deed wherein mighty works in the name of Christ are also performed.

It is apparent that not only did the early disciples speak about Jesus but also they did extraordinary things. The first mention of this follows upon the narration about Pentecost where the text reads: “And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). The fact of the multiplicity of extraordinary things—“many”—is first to be noted; second, their description as “wonders” and “signs” suggest their character both as miracles and pointers;³⁰ and third, these many wonders and signs are done “through” the apostles, the apostles being channels, and not agents, of their occurrence. The whole atmosphere is charged with awe—“fear upon every soul”—as the exalted Lord does His work through them.

It should be quickly added that signs and wonders are done not only through the apostles but also through other disciples. On a later occasion Peter and John, after being threatened to speak no more about Jesus, return to their own people who pray for a common courage: “grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus” (Acts 4:29-30). As we have already noted, in reference to boldness, the immediate result following upon the shaking of the place is that “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.” Doubtless, the implication is not only that the prayer of the company for bold­ness of speech is answered for all, but also that they are all granted the performance of signs and wonders through the name of Jesus.

Further to examine the above matter: though it is said more than once that the apostles did wonders and signs,³¹ it is appar­ent that others such as Stephen the martyr and Philip the evan­gelist did likewise. “And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). “And the multitudes with one accord gave heed to what was said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs which he did” (8:6). “Even Simon [the magician] himself believed, and after being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles³² performed, he was amazed” (8:13). In addition, ac­cording to Mark 16:17, Jesus said: “And these signs will accom­pany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Similarly, “And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it” (Mark 16:20).³³ Signs and wonders—extraordinary, miraculous deeds—are the practice of the whole Christian com­munity.

It is abundantly clear that the performance of mighty works—signs, wonders, miracles—belongs to the gospel proclamation. The early Christians testify and perform signs and wonders. The proclamation is powerful word and miraculous deed, both by the Holy Spirit, that bear witness to the gospel. The deed is the confirmation of the word—the visible assurance of the mes­sage of salvation. The greatest wonder of all is that of new life, new birth wrought by the word, but this is invisible; hence, when a visible sign accompanies the word there is undeniable attestation to the actuality of what has been inwardly wrought by the message of salvation.

Thus it is a serious error indeed to relegate miracles to the past. It is pathetic to hear among those who vigorously affirm the message of salvation—the necessity of regeneration—that “signs and wonders” are not to be expected any longer. If through the proclamation of the word in the power of the Spirit the miracle of rebirth can and does occur, will not that same Spirit also work other “signs and wonders”? For, surely, other miracles—no matter how extraordinary³⁴—are less significant than the miracle of new life and salvation.

In this section of our study on Matthew 13, we take a look at the parables. This investigation will not likely be the same as many other examinations of Yeshua’s (Jesus’¹) parables. From the outset, our purpose has been to demonstrate the “Jewishness” of this gospel and this section will be no different.

The use of parables is not restricted to the New Testament:

1) I will open my mouth in parables (Psalm 78:2).

2) “Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell the house of Israel a parable” (Ezekiel 17:2).

3) “Tell this rebellious house a parable” (Ezekiel 24:3).

The Hebrew equivalent of “parable” is the word mashal (see figure below), which is a “wise saying” or a sage poem. The root word, from which mashal is derived, is very similar, with the only notable difference being the vowel markers. This word appears in verses such as Genesis 3:16, regarding the “rule” of Adam and in later texts regarding the rule of Jacob’s son Joseph and King David. In the Hebrew mind, a mashal-parable is not simply a wise saying, but a wise saying that carries authority.

Within Orthodox Judaism, these mashalim or parables are commonplace throughout their literature. A novice reader can get lost trying to piece everything together. Determining exactly what the rabbis consider authoritative doctrine or instructive parable is not always clear. This lack of discernment may have been a catalyst to some of the synagogue book burnings conducted by Christian neighbors over the centuries.

Lightfoot comments, “No figure of Jewish rhetoric was more familiarly used than that of parables.”² The Sanhedrin tract in the Talmud states that the revered Rabbi Meir taught the Torah a third of the time according to traditional interpretation, a third of the time using allegory, and a third of his time teaching with parables. In truth, one cannot help but look at the Tanakh (Old Testament) and realize that from the temple ritual, to books such as Solomon’s Song of Songs, to the very lessons of the great Exodus, the Jewish Scriptures are rich in parables.

It is this particular idea that leads Rabbi Hirsch to argue that Psalm 78 (noted above), which speaks of a parable, really tells an encapsulated history of Israel. “Rather than ‘parables’ and ‘riddles’ in the usual sense, the psalm reviews events of Jewish history. The events of Israel’s history are parables in they are object lessons for all time.”³

It would seem that Rabbi Paul would agree: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).

The Talmud, a multi-volume set of commentaries codified in the 6^th Century, sets the standard for Jewish study. Yeshiva students will sit opposite one another and debate the Torah, often with very “heated” dialogue. The principle is that only through debate and the exercise of one’s mind can one truly learn, and truly find conviction in what one believes. The form of Christian study, sitting in a classroom and being spoon-fed information—essentially being told what to believe—is a foreign concept to the Orthodox Jewish approach to learning.

Consensus is not required. In fact, the Talmud is a list of various positions on any particular issue, commonly (but certainly not limited to) the opinions of Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel. The open dialogues, often very tense and in-depth, play on these varying opinions. The supervising rabbi at the yeshiva will wander the room and if he hears quite talk at a table, he asks the students, “are you agreeing or disagreeing?” If they say they are agreeing (hence the quiet), he tells them to move on to the next topic.

William L. De Arteaga, Forgotten Power: The Significance of the Lord’s Supper in Revival (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 287 pages.

This is an important book for Pentecostal and charismatic readers. De Arteaga, a former Roman Catholic who became a Pentecostal over thirty years ago, has drawn from the wealth of his experiences in both traditions to present a well-written and convincing presentation of the need to reintegrate sacramental worship and charismatic spirituality. His chief concern in the book is to restore the importance of the Lord’s Supper in the worship of the church, though his insights can be applied to other types of sacramental ordinances according to one’s tradition.

De Arteaga affirms that sacramental worship and charismatic spirituality are not antithetical. True and long lasting revival must be a three-dimensional and integrated experience represented by the preaching of the Word, the presence of sacraments during worship, and the presence of the gifts of the Spirit.

In the twentieth century the inclusion of the Lord’s Supper in the worship of the church has been greatly diminished. Today we see either a sacramental worship without revival (Roman Catholicism), or revival without sacramental worship (Evangelical/Charismatic). In light of these glaring deficiencies, De Arteaga presents a historical retrospective of the important place that the Lord’s Supper once held within the Reformed and Wesleyan traditions.

Father Bill De Arteaga is a regular contributor to PneumaReview.com.

This story begins with the Puritans and Scot-Irish Presbyterians who, influenced by the Eucharistic theologies of the Reformers, found a prominent place for the Lord’s Supper within their worship. In these movements the celebration of the Supper, whether viewed as a sacrament to strengthen the faith of believers or as a converting ordinance, was a catalyst to revival. Those same sacramental traditions were carried over to North America producing some of the most intense and profound revivals in American religious history.

The Lord’s Supper came to lose its centrality in the Reformed Tradition due to the opposition of those who objected to its use as a converting ordinance. It soon became relegated to a quarterly sacrament and no longer produced the powerful conversions and commitment once seen the past.

The Supper played a central role in the revival and renewal of faith in the Wesleyan movement. Influenced by their Anglican background and Moravian contacts, John and Charles Wesley understood the Supper and accompanying love feasts as measures of renewing the faith of believers and bringing in new converts into the church.

Over time, as the Methodist church became detached from its Anglican roots in the United States, its focus remained preaching the gospel to the poor and those in need, but the Supper faded into the background. Later evangelists influenced by the Wesleyan tradition such as Charles Finney and others placed more emphasis on conversions, leading to what is commonly known as the “sacrament of the altar,” which viewed public confessions of faith as central to a convert’s salvation. While recognizing the tremendous success that modern evangelists such as Rinehard Bonnke and Billy Graham have seen in producing mass conversions and the impossibility of incorporating the Lord’s Supper into these massive meetings, De Arteaga still affirms that the Lord’s Supper should play an important role in the revival of the church. In his view, it is the Wesleyan emphasis on sanctification along with its holistic model of Christian life and discipleship—including the Word, the sacraments, small group meetings, presence of the Spirit, robust hymnology, practical ministry to the poor, and goal of Christian perfection—which will produce and sustain revival.

H. B. London Jr., “Stemming the Tide of Clergy Fallout: Lessons from a Marriage” Enrichment (Winter 2003), pages 42-51.

Dr. London and the pastoral ministry team at Focus on the Family take an insightful look at the contemporary problem of ministers leaving the ministry. They take the rich picture of marriage and compare it to the relationship between the church and those who lead the church.

As I read this article, I reflected on the 40 years I have been privileged to be in the ministry. I know from talking with many young ministers that they really have no idea what to expect or what may happen in the work of the ministry.

Theme from the Winter 2003 issue of Enrichment.

Though I had heard the statistics before, it is hard to read that 23 to 27 percent of pastors have experienced a forced termination at some time in their ministry. When I read in this article that the Southern Baptist Convention reported that 23 of their pastors are terminated each week; my heart was broken. What may be happening to these persons and their families, not to mention the repercussion that it would have on the congregation, is very painful. I have observed that when a pastor failed or the church leadership requested the pastor to resign that so many times the congregation floundered, and the next pastor coming in had to rebuild the congregation.

“To say the role of the pastor is a difficult assignment is a great understatement; but like all relationships, it can be very fulfilling when it functions well. It also can be hurtful when it is sabotaged. The bond between pastor and church is so much like a marriage that it would be appropriate to draw some comparisons to building strong families” (page 44). For example, if good communication does not exist between the pastor and the congregation, there will be much misunderstanding.

Congregations often have a tendency to expect unrealistic goals for a pastor. In the article is pointed out that George Barna has said that congregations expect the pastor to fulfill 17 to 20 roles, be available 24/7 and to perform all of the roles at a high level. Because of this pressure a pastor may leave a church or even drop out of the ministry entirely. It is when pastors think they are the only one doing anything in the ministry that mentally and emotionally they will feel alone and isolated.

I talked to a colleague recently who is now driving a truck to make a living. He commented to me that, “It is refreshing to have a job that is not stressful on me and my family.” I asked myself this question, “God, was he called into fulltime ministry?” If he was, how does he live with the fact of the call? Now I realize that he could be an effective witness in his occupation. However, this is an example of the importance of how all of the church needs to be equipped to do the work of the ministry so that so much is not expected of the pastor.

Mark J. Cartledge, Charismatic Glossolalia: An Empirical-Theological Study (Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002), 253 + xvi pages.

Among the proliferation of books aimed at the study of glossolalia (i.e., speaking in tongues) that have been published in the last few decades, I found this new volume to be an interesting addition. While most of the studies that have been done have focused on either biblical, sociological, or linguistic issues, Cartledge’s book takes on the task of empirical theology—that is, theology derived from “the faith and practice of [the] people concerned” (p. 7).

Cartledge’s aim when he prepared his study (which began as a doctoral dissertation) was to use empirical and statistical methods to determine the nature and function of glossolalia. He deals within the context of the New Church movement in Great Britain, with an eye towards other Pentecostal and charismatic assemblies. In order to do so, he began with a survey of one particular independent Charismatic church in Liverpool, England, and then moved on to a more expansive survey of 633 individuals from twenty-nine churches. The survey included general preliminary questions such as gender, age, marital status, and occupation, and from there moved on to more particular questions such as “How do you understand the phrase ‘speaking in tongues,’” “What is the aim of speaking in tongues,” and “What emotions do you feel (if any) when you speak in tongues.”

As I began reading Charismatic Glossolalia, I will admit that I began to grow skeptical about the basic premise of the book. I believed that any serious study of “the nature and purpose of glossolalia”—at least from a Christian perspective—should not try to formulate its theological conclusions from a study of people’s practice and individual beliefs about glossolalia, but rather that the Bible alone should be the sole source of theological development.

However, as I continued to read, I began to understand the idea that Cartledge is presenting. He is not attempting to base our beliefs and theology about glossolalia on our experiences; rather, he is attempting to gain an understanding of how our beliefs and theology affect our experiences and our attitudes. To that end, he included a comprehensive survey of New Testament studies of glossolalia, as well as theological, sociological, psychological, and linguistic studies.

Our experience and attitudes as Christians should always line up with God’s Word, and this equally applies to the practice and understanding of glossolalia. The wonderful thing about this book is that Cartledge didn’t do this survey for the survey’s sake; rather, he took the results, compared them to the scriptural revelation, and pointed out (both to us and to those who participated in his survey) where they do not match up—i.e., where beliefs, experiences, and attitudes needed adjusting. This is indeed the aim of true theology—transformation.

Do Pentecostals believe in continuing revelation? Edgar Lee writes for a classical Pentecostal audience, explaining how understanding the place of revelation today is important for every Pentecostal/charismatic believer.

“You Pentecostals believe in continuing revelation, don’t you?” That question, posed years ago by an evangelical friend who probably thought I was a little heretical, pointed out to me how important it is to clarify our doctrine of revelation.

Many groups over the centuries have indeed held heretical notions of revelation, placing greater emphasis on the messages of their prophets than the teachings of Scripture. One particularly notorious example is found among the revolutionary Anabaptists of the 16th century, some of whom took over the city of Munster, Germany, and led the populace in revolt and sexual excess through prophecies and revelations.

Since we as Pentecostals believe that God continues to speak in various ways to the church today, we must carefully outline a doctrine of revelation that is truly biblical.

The doctrine of revelation

Edgar Lee in 2004.

Christianity is a revealed religion. It teaches that humankind are the fallen creation of a qualitatively superior divine Being who cannot be known unless He chooses to reveal himself. Even so, the Bible shows that our holy God takes the initiative and mercifully reaches out to communicate with an unworthy race which He wishes to redeem. To those who respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God personally reveals himself through Christ and provides both the information and the miraculous regeneration needed for salvation. Thus a sound doctrine of revelation is the foundation of Christian theology.

While several biblical words may be translated revelation, the most common Old Testament verb is galah (cf., 1 Samuel 3:7; Daniel 2:22,28; Amos 3:7), and the most common New Testament verb is apokalypto [noun apokalypsis] (cf., Romans 1:17; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 1:17, 3:3,5). Both of these words have the idea of “uncovering,” thus “revealing.” To illustrate, the ancient Greeks used apokalypto for the unveiling (uncovering) of a statue. These words are used over and over again in Scripture as God makes himself and His will known.

Theologians have come to use two basic concepts to describe the way God reveals himself as taught in Scripture. The first is general revelation which denotes that disclosure God makes of himself in the created order and which is available to all human beings everywhere and at all times. Men and women may see evidences of God’s handiwork in nature as did David: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). Paul also taught that “God’s … eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen … from what has been made …” (Romans 1:20).

I was a little boy during the great depression. I was born in 1931 six miles east of New York’s Times Square and shortly after that, my parents bought a modest home on a dead end street where it would be safe for me to grow and play. The street was 320 feet long, lined with eight houses on each side and several abandoned tennis courts sat at its dead end.

No one had any money in those days but we always had a Christmas tree. I remember when you could buy a Christmas tree for a dollar. In early January all the men in our area would bring their Christmas trees to the abandoned tennis court where they would be stacked into a huge pile which was then set on fire. It was an impressive sight for a youngster’s eyes. All those dry fir trees bursting into an instant conflagration was exciting to see. That neighborhood tradition continued until the war came. Memories of good days long ago!

I teach a course that covers religious revivals starting with the 16^th century, stories of other fires and exciting conflagrations of the Spirit. I find this course easy to teach since its content is fascinating and familiar to me. My two favorite historical personalities are Charles Grandison Finney and Benjamin Hardin Irwin. My guess is that you have heard of one of these men, but not the other.

Charles G. Finney (1792-1875), leader during the Second Great Awakening.
Image: Wikimedia Commons

Charles Finney was a lawyer who lived in upstate New York. He was handsome, blond, six feet tall, 200 pounds, and a fine athlete in his day. He had a wonderful baritone voice, was an excellent cellist and had a brilliant mind. Once he became a believer in Jesus Christ, he left law and went on to be one of most famous preachers of the nineteenth century. In my mind, that makes him one of those “not many noble” that the Bible talks about. Finney was a “feminist” in that he insisted that women break the longstanding tradition of not speaking in church. Later, Finney opened Oberlin College, of which he was one of the founders, to women and to escaped slaves.

When Benjamin Irwin preached in the 1890’s in the heartland of our country, fire and heat could be felt and seen by the audience. This phenomenon brought all kinds of attention and popularity to Irwin. However, he was soon to crash and burn as his leadership came to an end in 1900. Two gifted men, one who lived for others and one who lived for himself.

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Spring 2003.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

Chapter 1: Context, Context, Context!

One of the most important resources for understanding the Bible is in the Bible itself: context. Some readers want to skip to verses elsewhere in the Bible (sometimes with the help of references in one’s Bible’s margins, but these were added by editors, not as part of the Bible itself). But we can make the Bible say almost anything by combining different verses; even verses that sound similar may in context address quite different topics. Using this method, one would think that “one is justified by faith without works” (Rom 3:28) and “one is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (James 2:24) contradict each other. By contrast, each passage makes sense in a special way if we read it in its context: the flow of thought from what comes before and after the passage we are studying. In context, James and Paul mean something quite different by “faith,” and both affirm that a person is made right before God only by a sort of genuine faith that is expressed in a fairly consistent life of obedience (see our discussion below).

The Importance of Context

Context is the way God gave us the Bible, one book at a time. The first readers of Mark could not flip over to Revelation to help them understand Mark; Revelation had not been written yet. The first readers of Galatians did not have a copy of the letter Paul wrote to Rome to help them understand it. These first readers did share some common information; in this manual we call this shared information “background”: some knowledge of the culture, earlier biblical history, and so on. But they had, most importantly, the individual book of the Bible that was in front of them. Therefore we can be confident that the writers of the Bible included enough within each book of the Bible to help the readers understand that book of the Bible. For that reason, context is the most important key to Bible interpretation. (Background, what the writer could take for granted, is also essential; we will return to that subject in a later chapter.)

J.I. Packer became Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Regent College in 1979.

J. I. Packer, “Why I Walked” Christianity Today (January 2002), pages 46-50.

Evangelical leader J. I. Packer explains why he left the Anglican Church when the denomination authorized its bishops to bless same-sex unions in June 2002. Although this article specifically addresses issues being faced by Anglicans, the principles of standing—even fighting—on the unchanging Word of God should give guidance to anyone concerned about doctrinal issues within their own church or denomination.

André Lemaire, “Burial Box of James, the Brother of Jesus: Earliest Evidence of Jesus Found in Jerusalem” Biblical Archaeology Review (Nov/Dev 2002), pages 24-33, 70.

Leading epigrapher (specialist in ancient inscriptions) André Lemaire was the first to recognize the importance of the Jerusalem limestone burial box bearing the inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” After mounting significant evidence, Lemaire concludes, “it seems very probable that this is the ossuary of the James of the New Testament. If so, this would also mean that we have here the first epigraphic mention—from about 63 C.E.—of Jesus of Nazareth” (page 33).

Clinton E. Arnold, “It’s All Greek to Me: Cleaning up the confusion about Bible translations” Discipleship Journal 132 (Nov/Dec 2002), pages 28-32, 34-36.

Greek Professor Clinton Arnold answers your questions about the differences found in today’s English Bible translations. He explains how different versions reflect different theories of translation and manuscript bases as well as the effect of change in English language upon translation. Easy to read charts demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of word-for-word (formal equivalence) and thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence) translation philosophies, what versions pastors are using (45% of Pentecostal/charismatics are using the KJV), characteristics of major Bible versions, and a comparison of 16 versions looking at two verses. Professor Arnold makes recommendations for using different translations for personal Bible reading, careful Bible study, public scripture reading, and all-around Bibles.

Vern S. Poythress and Mark Strauss, “The TNIV Debate” Christianity Today (Oct. 7, 2002), pages 36-43, 45.

There has been a growing theological controversy regarding the use of gender-inclusive language in the Bible that has come to a head with the recent publication of Today’s New International Version. Christianity Today decided not to permit an advertisement aimed against the TNIV, preferring to allow the differing opinions each speak for themselves. This article asks the question, “Is this new translation faithful in its treatment of gender?” Vern S. Poythress says “No” and Mark Strauss says “Yes.” It seems apparent that the concept of gender inclusiveness is not the only question involved for either proponents or detractors of this translation. For more information about this debate, visit the following websites: www.no-tniv.com [as of June 2, 2014, no longer active], www.tniv.info, and http://biblepacesetter.org/bibletranslation [as of June 2, 2014, no longer active]

The Summer 2003 issue continues the study of Biblical interpretation with Professor Craig Keener. Chapter Two: “Learning Context” is a lesson in reading the Scriptures for what they were intended to say instead of reading them according to our preconceived ideas.

Messianic teacher Kevin Williams continues his Messianic Foundations Series with the tenth chapter in a mini-series on the Gospel of Matthew. Kevin will be looking at the Hebraisms and Jewish background often missed to reveal beautiful prophetic pictures fulfilled at the coming of Messiah. Be sure to read every installment of this unique commentary on the Gospel to the Hebrews.

Chapters from J. Rodman William’s book The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today (Logos, 1980) continue with “Chapter Five: Reception.” You will be deepened and encouraged by this exposition of the contemporary work of the Holy Spirit.

How Much Does God Control? The dialogue about free will continues in the next issue when Ken Archer responds to Graham Old. A presentation of the open view of God was made by Kenneth J. Archer, entitled “Prayer Changes Things,” in the Spring 2002 issue (Vol 5 No 2). Graham Old wrote from a charismatic Calvinist position for his paper that appeared in the Summer 2002 (Vol 5 No 3) issue.Join us for this friendly dialogue and be deepened in your appreciation for brothers and sisters who have reached different conclusions on this important theological issue.