The fifth chapter 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 Five: Reception

The Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in Jesus Christ. From all that has been said about the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of the exalted Lord and given for the primary purpose of bearing witness to Christ, it is apparent that there can be no gift of the Holy Spirit except to those who believe in Him and are thereby called to be His witnesses. Through those who believe, Christ carries forward His ministry in word and deed.

Now it is important to note two matters: the indispensability and the dynamics of this faith in Jesus Christ in relation to the gift of the Holy Spirit. Let us consider these in turn.

It is important first to emphasize the matter of indispensability because of the possible misapprehension that the Holy Spirit may be received without such a faith in Jesus Christ. There have been those who, desiring no relationship to Christ, no faith in Him, would still like to receive the Holy Spirit in the sense of having some kind of inward experience of the fullness of God. For such persons faith in Christ is viewed as irrelevant, even misdirected, since what they seek is an immediacy and unity of the divine Spirit with the human spirit. Christ may point the way to such a mystical union of God and man, but He himself is viewed as not essential to such an achievement. From the truly Christian perspective, however, all immediacy with God is a “mediated immediacy”¹ wherein Christ alone can effect the unity of the infinite God and finite man.

Faith in Jesus Christ becomes all the more important with the realization that the barrier to the reception of the Spirit is not only human finitude but also human sin. Man is totally guilty, and it is only by belief in Jesus Christ that he can receive forgiveness. The wonder of the gospel, the Good News, is that there is cleansing and pardon of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Man may truly repent and receive forgiveness and become a new creature in Christ.

This faith in Jesus Christ is personally oriented. It is directed to Him as the one who lived, died and rose again from the dead. Through His death and resurrection He has made forgiveness and new life a glorious reality. This reality may be entered into by faith in Him, by faith in His name.

It is this faith, this kind of believing in Jesus Christ, that is indispensable to receiving the Holy Spirit.² It is, therefore, pointless to talk about the reception of the Holy Spirit except against this background.

That believing in Jesus Christ is indispensable to the reception of the Holy Spirit is apparent in all the relevant narratives in the book of Acts. Three illustrations may suffice.

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:1-2).¹

The Pharisees we encounter here seem to be challenging Yeshua (Jesus)² once again. Certainly, given our studies so far, we may suspect their motives. Yet the fact that they asked questions does not necessarily imply that they were attacking the Messiah. Rather, it seems, this may be an instance when they were trying to ascertain Yeshua’s theology.

Indeed, we can learn quite a bit from this exchange. The issue at hand is not the Torah of Moses, but the “tradition of the elders,” also commonly referred to as the oral law. The specific “tradition” in question is the washing of hands—an observance called n’tilat-yadayim.

The Pharisees, as we have discussed in previous chapters, were fastidious about ritual purity. They would go to extremes to avoid coming into contact with any unclean thing. One of the results of what may seem to be obsessive-compulsive behavior were the additional rules meant to be “helps” for avoiding ritual impurity.

In the Talmud, tractate Tosefta Berakhot 5:27, is a section regarding the cleanness of hands and food:

The School of Shammai say, “One wipes his hands on the napkin, and places it on the table, lest the liquid in the napkin become unclean because of the cushion, and returns and renders the hands unclean.” The School of Hillel say, “(In case of) doubt concerning liquid on the hands, they are clean.” Another interpretation: “One does not wash the hands for common food. But one wipes his hands on the napkin, and places it on the cushion, lest the liquid in the napkin become unclean because of the table, and return and render the food unclean.”

This is an example of the type of discourse found in the multi-volume Torah commentary—the Talmud. We have represented here both the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. Shammai was considered by most to be very rigid and highly conservative in its interpretation and application of both the Torah and the oral tradition.

The School of Hillel, on the other hand, was considered far more liberal in its approach. From the School of Hillel came the great Rabbi Gamliel, the teacher of the apostle Paul (Acts 22:3). In modern Orthodox Judaism, which is considered by many to be rather strict, the teachings of the liberal Hillel stood the test of time and are most often applied (which causes one to wonder how exacting Shammai’s teachings must have been!).

The questions the Pharisees put before Yeshua may have been a litmus test to find out with which school of thought Yeshua approved. Shammai was adamant about keeping the fingers clean. He taught that the hands could become “unclean” rather easily and thereby render any food being eaten as ritually unclean. Once a person ingested something ritually unclean, he or she also became unclean, and other laws of separation may be applied.

The School of Hillel on the other hand, took a more liberated approach. Their basic philosophy was, when in doubt, “the hands, they are clean.”

Many of the debates carried out two thousand years ago between the various schools of thought have resulted in contemporary observances. In modern Jewish orthodoxy, the tradition of n’tilat-yadayim lives on. In modern Orthodoxy it is believed the dinner table is symbolic of the holy altar and the meal representative of the holy sacrifice. Therefore, a basin is kept nearby so that before every meal the patriarch—the head of the house and symbolic priest of his home—can ceremonially wash his hands before eating just as the Levites washed before assuming their priestly duties.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 195 pages.

When a writer sets out to produce a book on a generalized topic, the attempt can often end in one of two results: either an intimidating 500-page tome is published, or the many sub-topics are rushed through and incomplete. However, when it comes to Kärkkäinen’s new book, neither one of these disappointments were seen. Instead, I found a brief yet comprehensive introduction to the field of pneumatological thought.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen is an associate professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, as well as an active member of the World Council of Churches (WCC). This places him in the perfect position for a fully ecumenical yet scholarly summary of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. For some, the task of covering such a wide topic can be quite daunting. Kärkkäinen, however, takes on the challenge with an obvious love of the subject, and has produced for us an interesting and very readable book.

In his preface, Kärkkäinen tells us that the reason he wrote his book was “to offer an up-to-date survey of the most noteworthy and theologically pregnant orientations to the Spirit in the worldwide ecumenical and intercultural situation at the beginning of the third millennium” (p. 10). His means to reach that end was to cover the topic of pneumatology from a wide range of perspectives, beginning with the biblical revelation and the understanding of the early church fathers, and up through history to the present day (including the contributions of the medieval mystics, the Anabaptists, and classical liberalism, among others).

From there he moves onto the various ecclesiastical understandings of the Holy Spirit and his role in the world, effectively describing the contributions of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, the Lutheran tradition, the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, and ecumenism (represented specifically by the WCC). Of course, the contributions of any ecclesiastical body cannot effectively be addressed without considering the contributions of the individual members of that body. Therefore, Kärkkäinen naturally follows with a chapter on the pneumatological thinking of a number of contemporary theologians, representing a range of Christian traditions, including John Zizioulas (Eastern Orthodox), Karl Rahner (Roman Catholic), Wolfhart Pannenberg (Lutheran), Jürgen Moltmann (Reformed), Michael Welker (Reformed), and Clark Pinnock (evangelical).

At this point Kärkkäinen offers his readers what I believe is a relatively unique chapter on the topic of pneumatology. After approaching this subject from biblical, historical, ecclesiastical, and individual perspectives, many writers may be tempted to believe that they have sufficiently covered all perspectives. However, Kärkkäinen continues: “The one Spirit of God is not a numinous power hovering above the cosmos but a person living in and permeating people in various life situations and contexts … In our contemporary world, theology has the burden of showing its cultural sensitivity … [I]t must be context specific as it addresses God and God’s world in specific situations and in response to varying needs and challenges” (p. 147). Therefore, Kärkkäinen includes a chapter on contextual pneumatologies; that is, theologies of the Spirit that arose out of specific contexts and environments. These include process, liberation, ecological (“green”), feminist, and African pneumatologies. In the midst of all of these controversial perspectives, Kärkkäinen avoids making judgments on these specific theologies, but instead he simply presents them for what they are, and allows his readers to come to their own conclusions.

“Three Temptations of Spiritual Formation” Evan Howard. Christianity Today (Dec. 9, 2002), pages 46-49.

The spiritual formation movement is growing in significance and impact among Christians of all traditions. Numerous influences are shaping this movement, most of them positive, but there are real dangers lurking. Author Evan Howard writes that when we seek to be shaped by Christ, it is often difficult to keep a fully Christian approach. He says that “Christian spiritual formation is not simply fostering the experience of the Spirit but rather a radical formation, a shaping and molding of the believer into conformity with Christ through the Spirit” (p. 49).

Howard states that the Pentecostal/charismatic “movement has spawned a renewed sense of worship, and emphasis on the personal touch of God for believers, and a new sense of the church as a community of gifted believers. The renewed interest in and study of Christian spirituality has been a big boon for charismatics. Again and again, historians of Christian spirituality have pointed out that charismatic experience and expression are not isolated phenomena of recent American history. Some of the most respected saints in church history have experienced and even encouraged profound experiences of the Spirit” (p. 49). He goes on to warn that those who emphasize spiritual experiences often fall into the danger of shifting their focus from scripture to these experiences. By way of example he then critiques Guy Chevreau’s assessment of the Toronto Blessing Catch the Fire, saying that spiritual transformation must be part of the renewal.

All believers who are participating in organized prayer movements or rediscovering Christian disciplines need to be aware of the temptations that are ready to draw them away from Christ. I also recommend reading the article “Missing ingredient” by Eugene Peterson in The Christian Century, Mar 22, 2003 (Vol 120, No 6), pages 30-37. Probably no seasoned disciple of Jesus has not known of at least one person who has succumbed to such temptations and made a wreck out of their “formation.” Let us be careful to put our Living Messiah and His Word at the core of all we learn and practice.

Reviewed by Raul L. Mock

Read this article online: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/december9/4.46.html

Oral Roberts, Expect A Miracle: My Life and Ministry (Thomas Nelson, 1995), 388 pages, ISBN 9780785274650.

There is something powerful about reading stories of lives God has used. Autobiographies never go out of date. While this was published in 1995, it has a vitality and ring of truth that grows with age. I like reading autobiographies, particularly when they are written by contemporaries that I knew or knew about.

Oral Roberts relates his beginnings, beginnings that were humble indeed. We learn that his sister Jewel spoke seven simple words to her brother when he was dying of Tuberculosis. “Oral, God is going to heal you.” Several days later Oral’s father knelt by his son’s bedside and prayed Oral into the Kingdom of God. Within days of his confession, Oral’s brother Elmer took Oral to a tent meeting in Ada, Oklahoma where evangelist Charles Moncey was preaching. That night Oral was healed and also called into the ministry—a ministry that so many of us have enjoyed. God brings His ministers to all kinds of places we do not know to reach people that we again do not know.

Oral received an audible call from God immediately before he was healed: “You are to take My healing power to your generation. You are to build Me a university and build it on My authority and the Holy Spirit” (p. 32).

Oral’s book reminds us that there is a long distance to travel from the call to the result and he takes the reader on that trip in an engaging manner. I was challenged as I read of Oral’s struggles and his devotion to his Savior who called him. Successful people work hard, they stand against adversity from every direction and they often partner with God so that their lives make people expect miracles. I did not know that in his first healing crusade Oral Roberts faced a man who had a revolver in his hand and pulled the trigger only to miss our brother by 18 inches.

Oral soon began to recognize a warming in his right hand that came and went. When that feeling was present people got healed, and Roberts soon came to depend on that sign of God’s presence when preparing for his crusade services. We read of the healing of a deaf boy one night in a small church in Nowata, OK. I marvel at the visitations of a God who is so great that He can show up in a place named Nowata and change the destiny of a small child and never lose a moment on His throne. We are never fully prepared for Him to act until He does and then all we can do is marvel.

In July 1950 Oral Roberts possessed the largest tent available. It sat 12,000 people. Oral wrote “I wish I could describe to you the feelings that swept over me when I stood before the crowds, knowing that after I preached and extended the invitation for the unsaved to receive Christ, hundreds of very sick people were going to come before me, one by one, as I took on all their sicknesses with my faith in the living Christ” (pp. 103-104).

Oral Roberts had some great moments and some terrible difficult moments to live through as he gave his life to telling you and me about our God.

He closes his autobiography with his ten secrets of success. This chapter is perhaps the best of the entire book which I found moving and inspiring. I like Oral’s first principle: Remember that the message is far greater than the messenger. Indeed without the message, we would all be chaff blowing in the wind. We do thank our Heavenly Father for sending gifts to the body of Christ like Oral Roberts. In as much as he followed Jesus, let us emulate him. Surely the Lord has used him to impact his generation.

Reviewed by H. Murray Hohns

Further reading:

Miracles supplement:  www.oralroberts.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/DOC_BIN/miracles_mag/2010/pdf/ORinsertWeb.pdf

Peter Darg, host, Yeshua/Jesus: Exploring the Jewish Roots of Jesus (Gateway Films, distributed by Vision Video www.visionvideo.com). Starring: Barbara Babcock, Ken Howard and Ossie Davis.

As an introduction to Jewish roots studies, Yeshua/Jesus is a good start. It takes a wealth of available information, boils it down, and presents it in an 85-minute film (VHS). Written for the uninitiated, it assumes the viewer knows little and takes them on a whirlwind tour of Israel and Israeli life as it was 2,000 years ago.

Cinematically, it does not compare to a film like the Visual Bibles’ Matthew, but the visuals are adequate for the purpose.

As far as context is concerned, the film covers most aspects of Yeshua’s life with accuracy, save one. The producers, like many other Christians, take the biblical account of Yeshua’s visit to Jerusalem and the temple when he was 12-years old and assume he was participating in a bar mitzvah. As a matter of history, the tradition of the bar mitzvah took root in European Jewish society during the Middle Ages. Yeshua was likely accompanying his father to the temple to learn what would be expected from him the next year, which, being of age, he would be required to offer his own Passover lamb. That appeared to be the only subject where history met misinterpretation.

Overall, the film is a reasonable entry-level to Jewish Roots information.

Reviewed by Kevin M. Williams

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

As appearing in Pneuma Review Summer 2003.

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

Chapter 2: Learning Context

Although all of us officially recognize the importance of context, most Bible readers still ignore it in practice. You may be an exception, but do not be too disturbed if you are one of those readers unfamiliar with the actual context of many of the passages we cite in this chapter. I have cited these passages purposely because I have repeatedly heard these passages taken out of context, and my students are frequently surprised when they actually read them in context. Although we may think we read the Bible in context, too often we read the Bible in light of how we have heard others use those same Scripture texts. Whether those interpretations are new or old, they cannot take priority over what the text itself says in context.

You need not agree with our interpretation of every example cited below, but these examples will suffice to illustrate how frequently we have ignored context. They should also illustrate how context makes a difference in our understanding. In no instance are we challenging specific doctrines people have sometimes based on these verses; we are challenging methods of interpretation. (If some texts in context do not support a doctrine, the doctrine might still be defended if other texts support it.) You will learn context principles best if you actually work through the passages yourself before reading our interpretation of them; this way you will recognize what students in my classrooms usually recognize: when most the students come to the same conclusions independently, they recognize for themselves how clear the point of the text is.

We begin with some brief examples of context within verses, but the emphasis of this chapter will be on broader levels of context.

Context within Verses

You have perhaps often heard the expression, “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18). But what does Proverbs mean by “vision”? Does it just mean having a good plan for the future (the way some of my friends had preached it before they realized the context)? Does it mean that a driver who needs glasses might run over someone if she drives without her glasses? Because most of the Book of Proverbs is a collection of general principles rather than a sustained argument, the verses around Proverbs 29:18 do not help us interpret the verse very well. The other half of the verse, however, does provide some context. “Where there is no vision, the people perish; but happy is the person who obeys God’s law” (Prov. 29:18). The second half of the verse parallels the basic idea of the first half: visions and the law are both sources of God’s revelation, sources of hearing from God. In other words, “vision” does not refer to mere natural sight; nor does it merely refer to having a plan for the future; it refers to hearing from God. The Hebrew term translated “vision” here in fact relates to dreams, revelations, or oracles, which confirms the point: God’s people needed the Bible and genuine prophets who had heard from God to guide them in the right way.

Editor Note: The editors of the Pneuma Review are aware that Dr. De Arteaga’s views on sacraments will not be universally received among our readers. This guest essay is printed to encourage thought and discussion. Please add your comments below to join the conversation.

Revivals without the Lord’s Supper

As we have seen,* by the time Charles Finney began his revival ministry in the 1820s, the model of the Word and the Lord’s Supper as a vehicle for revival began to diminish. With the revival ministry of Dwight Moody (1837–1899), Finney’s innovation of revivals without the traditional sacraments was solidified as the evangelical pattern. Since then no major evangelist has incorporated the Lord’s Supper as part of the revival cycle—although a few have urged immediate baptism after the conversion experience.

Was the elimination of the Lord’s Supper and its replacement with the altar call a Spirit-inspired development, or was it an unfortunate mistake? The noted Christian historian Iain Murray has recently said a loud Yes to the second question in a thoughtful and provocative book, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism.¹ Murray argues that evangelicals should return to the revival methods that stressed prayer and personal repentance rather than the emotionalism of an altar call. We have pointed out how the abuse of the altar call, especially when combined with the doctrine of eternal assurance, has contributed to the blight of American antinomianism (ch. 2*).

Reinhard Bonnke

In truth, contemporary evangelists such as Billy Graham and Reinhard Bonnke have, in sheer numbers of conversions, outpaced all of the traditional sacramental revivals of history. It is hard to see how, for instance, the current Bonnke revivals in Africa could accommodate any sort of communion service. In a recent revival campaign in Benin, West Africa, the Rev. Bonnke and his ministry team attracted 640,000 persons during their six-day campaign and received 200,000 responses for salvation. The ministry team was overwhelmed by that response, as they had brought only 120,000 copies of their discipleship booklet, Now That You Are Saved. Thankfully they coordinated with the area Christian churches to assure that those who made a decision for Christ were channeled into active fellowships.²

To criticize that many of the persons who make the altar call at such events eventually backslide is to miss the point that many others do in fact become mature Christians. The current rapid expansion of Christianity in the Third World would not have been possible without the new sacramental form of the altar call. Further, most mature evangelists, such as Graham or Bonnke, go to great lengths to cooperate with local churches to assure that the convert’s discipling follows the altar call.

Reinhard Bonnke preaching at the 2005 Crusade in Jos, Nigeria.

If Christianity were ruled by statistical analysis, we might indeed conclude that such is the case and indeed declare the altar call the new sacrament of evangelization—end of argument. However, Christians must always look back to the biblical evidence as a “reality check” and affirmation of current practice. In fact, both the Old and New Testament revivals have a strong sacramental component that is too often overlooked by modern readers, who look at the biblical data through contemporary, nonsacramental categories. Looking carefully at the biblical witness will help locate the divine plan for the role of the Lord’s Supper in revivals.

“Where Judgment Begins” Leadership (Winter 2003, Vol XXIV, No 1).

Mark Beeson, Stanley Grenz, David Handley, and Erwin Lutzer are sorting out the tangled elements of ethics and integrity in the Winter 2003 issue of Leadership dedicated to “Integrity and Ethics.” “An Honest Sermon” by Mike Woodruff and Steve Moore addresses plagiarism in the pulpit. “24 Reasons Why I believe in Hell” David Shelby. Charisma (April 2003), pages 68-72.

This is a passionate appeal for evangelism using a critique of universalism as its backdrop. The article could be retitled “24 reasons not to believe in universal salvation.” In one statement that is potentially confusing and inflammatory, Shelby says, “We need to look no further than most of the mainline denominations to see what happens to evangelism when Universalism is prevalent” (p. 72). The theological differences between inclusivism and universalism are not mentioned in this article. Bible teacher David Shibley closes by urging, “We must believe the truth, and we must act on what we believe. Let’s not just reject faulty theology; let’s embrace those who need Jesus” (p. 72, emphasis his).