A triple review of books by Robert Menzies and his father William, essay by Grant Hochman.

Robert P. Menzies, The Development Of Early Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series #6 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 290 pages.

William W. and Robert P. Menzies, Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 233 pages.

A quiet revolution has been taking place around the world. There are now over 530 million Pentecostal/charismatic Christians (David Barrett, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Jan/01). It was the church growth movement which first brought this explosive growth to the attention of Christian leaders. The focus on what they termed the “Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” based on Luke and Acts, was the driving force behind it, and secondarily, the emphasis on spiritual gifts as found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (Chs. 12-14). From a mere trickle of scholarly research, the last thirty years has seen a river of literature on this topic (see Charles E. Jones, where one finds over 11,000 entries in The Charismatic Movement, Scarecrow Press, 1994). This change has been underscored by the founding of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology in 1992 and published by the prestigious Sheffield Academic Press, in England.

The 2005 cover from Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

Even though they are relative newcomers, classical Pentecostal scholars have been major contributors to the scholarly dialogue. One individual stands out above the others both in quantity and quality: Dr. Robert Menzies. After publishing a series of articles and book reviews, his first book to be published was his doctoral dissertation: The Development Of Early Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts, from Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. This work caught the attention of two of the most prominent world-class evangelical scholars on Luke-Acts, James Dunn and Max Turner. Dunn writes “Pentecostal biblical scholarship has become increasingly a factor to be reckoned with, as its contributions have grown in confidence and weight…So far none commands more respect than the Aberdeen thesis of Robert Menzies.” Dunn closes by saying, “this is a work of significant and substantial scholarship whose strengths cannot be done full justice to in a brief review,” (Evangelical Quarterly, 66:2, 1994, pp. 174-6). Max Turner pays tribute to Menzies in his book, Power From On High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. In the preface Turner writes about Menzies, “His rigorous and perceptive case caused me to reconsider the evidence,” (p.11). This in turn, resulted in Turner publishing a series of articles and then his book (listed above). While both Dunn and Turner take issue with certain areas of Menzies work, they pay tribute to his efforts.

Introduction

Cessationists,¹ those who argue that certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased, are increasingly using an argument-from-analogy from Paul’s epistle to the believers in Ephesus.

This paper offers a biblical rebuttal to the cessationist use of Ephesians 2:20 as an argument for the cessation of prophecy, and, by extension, the other so-called “miraculous” gifts of the Holy Spirit. After a statement of the issue itself, this paper examines the only significant “anti-cessationist” response offered so far, that of Wayne Grudem, and then goes on to offer some alternative responses of its own.

Ephesians 2:19-22 [NKJV]
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Status of the Problem

One of the few remaining New Testament texts to which cessationists appeal for support of their position is Eph 2:20.² The argument-by-analogy is along these lines: since apostles and prophets appear as the “foundation” of the “temple” or church, and since each course of stones in this temple metaphorically represent successive generations of believers throughout church history, then these “foundation” gifts necessarily passed away before the second generation of Christianity.³

From the frequency and extent this argument is made in cessationist circles,⁴ one would assume that there would be a serious reply from their theological dialogue partners, the Pentecostals and charismatics. Pentecostal or charismatic scholars generally have failed to adequately treat this cessationist argument to any significant degree.⁵

Wayne Grudem’s Rebuttal to the Cessationist Use of Ephesians 2:20

Wayne Grudem is the only non-cessationist scholar I can discover who deals with the cessationist argument from Eph 2:20 in any detail.⁶ Quite reasonably, then, Grudem’s response stands as the default Pentecostal/charismatic position recognized by cessationists,⁷ along with their perceptions about its strengths and weaknesses.

Though he presents his position as an attempt to mediate between charismatics and cessationists, it appears that Grudem’s defense on this point shares traditional cessationist presuppositions about the nature of apostles and of the “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20. Grudem seems to agree with cessationists who argue against the continuation of the gift of prophecy in that the gift is somehow identical with the first generation (“foundation level”) of Christian prophets: that necessarily when these particular prophets died, the gift of prophecy died with them. The same, he would also agree, would be true of apostles.

Grudem, however, ingeniously tries to deny the death of prophecy by claiming that only a special category of prophets is described in Eph. 2:20, namely, that they are “foundational,” and hence, cease because these particular prophets are in fact, apostles! He also offers an alternate possibility that perhaps these “foundational” prophets were an elite group that received and uttered apostolic-level revelation. He agrees, then, with cessationists that apostles, at least the original twelve (or thirteen, depending on how Paul is included) stood to be unique in that they are seen as the authoritative bearers of foundational Christian doctrine, which they wrote into scripture. Accordingly, Grudem sees the apostle/prophets of Eph 2:20 as the equivalent of the canonical prophets of the Old Testament, whose pronouncements and writings also held ultimate religious authority in that they later became scripture.⁸

On this view, and to preserve the continuation of Christian prophecy, Grudem must then define NT prophecy in two categories. 1) Agreeing with traditional cessationists, the first class of prophecy, which was to cease within the first generation, was a kind of interim canon awaiting its written form, while, 2) the second class of prophecy was represented by the “less authoritative type of prophecy indicated in 1 Corinthians.”⁹

Understandably, this novel defense has received a heated response from cessationists, who wish to deny any “two-level” gift of prophecy that Grudem describes.¹⁰ Without going into their argument in detail, they seek to prove that all manifestations of the gift of prophecy in the first generation will cease together, since prophecy is divine revelation, and such revelation must necessarily be enscripturated.¹¹

Grudem therefore finds himself in an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, it is crucial to restrict this class of men to the “foundational” and unrepeatable. This is because he sees apostles (and this first class of NT prophets) as the New Testament counterparts of Old Testament prophets. Therefore they “were able to speak and write words that had absolute divine authority,”¹² that is, in the canon of scripture. Because of the central apostolic role as scripture writers, and because the canon of the NT is closed, the gift or “office” of apostleship must necessarily cease.¹³ On the other hand, “apostleship” is seamlessly listed along with the other “miraculous” spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11, gifts which Grudem insists must continue in the church! In short, Grudem’s views of apostleship, prophecy, revelation and scripture leave him vulnerable to the charge that he is fatally inconsistent in his defense of continuing spiritual gifts.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

V. Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Future Prospects and Tasks

My conclusion is that Pentecostals need the larger Church even as the larger Church needs Pentecostalism. Thus, the quest for a biblically based and Spirit inspired Christian unity must include both movements. In this last section of my five-part article, I want to briefly discuss the various levels of ecumenical activity and make some practical suggestions with regard to how Pentecostals can become more ecumenically conscious and involved.

Levels of ecumenism

There is no one correct way to either be ecumenical or to do ecumenism. In fact, although I present four levels of ecumenical activity here, it is difficult to say where one stops and the other starts. I would surmise that wherever genuine ecumenism occurs, it will include theological and doctrinal discussion (academic ecumenism), the development of interpersonal relationships between clergy across denominational lines (church leadership ecumenism) and between the laity at large (neighborhood ecumenism), and social action of some type (institutional-denominational ecumenism).²² If we keep in mind the artificial boundaries between each level, the following is designed to provide an overview of what ecumenism-in-action looks like.

Academic ecumenism usually involves teachers, professors, and those with advanced training in biblical and theological studies. At this level, the goals of ecumenical discussion include the clearing away of stereotypes, the development of mutual understanding, and, the clarification of actual problems confronting Christian unity (as opposed to problems that are simply the result of misunderstanding or stereotype). Pentecostal academics who have been involved in these dialogues generally are not denominationally funded since most Pentecostal churches and groups do not place such activity high on their priority list. Thus, along two fronts—financially and with regard to one’s personal reputation—Pentecostals who participate at this level of ecumenism do so at some personal risk. It is therefore not unusual to hear many of them attest that their ecumenical involvement proceeds from a sense of divine calling.

“Now when He heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee” (Matthew 4:12).

This verse is not, as some might think, God incarnate fleeing danger.  Rather, it is possible that this was in fulfillment of John’s words about Jesus, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

John understood, as each of us eventually must, that the Messiah had to become preeminent. John understood that his own ministry was drawing so much attention that, as we have studied earlier, Jerusalem was coming out to be immersed by him—even Pharisees and Sadducees. We don’t know how many men and women this represents, but enough lives were being transformed that many were wondering if John was the Messiah (Luke 3:15).

But the example we have is that John was servant to the greater good. Jesus claims, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen [anyone] greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11), yet John knows, “He [Messiah] must increase, but I [his servant] must decrease”

How many times do leaders become the focus of ministries? How many times do we hear about so-and-so coming to town and wonder what the Holy Spirit is going to do, when in fact, we should know that the Holy Spirit is in town, and wonder what He is going to do through any willing servant?

The tone of much of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) is that God does not desire offerings and sacrifices as much as He desires a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:17). This was memorialized and epitomized in John, as it certainly should be in the Messiah’s Bride.

Jesus’ withdrawal into the Galilee was not due to intimidation, but because John’s arrest was a clear and evident signal that the ministry of the Messiah would begin outside Jerusalem.

Natural reasoning, natural man would ask, “Why not in Jerusalem?” After all, “The truth was there: exposition, exegesis, hagiology, eschatology, soteriology, christology, theology, apologetics, doctrine. The books were kept there: here were the oracles, the covenants, the ceremonies, the priesthood, the temple; the schools for the scribes, the colleges of both Pharisee and Sadducee; well, God was there, and there exclusively.”¹

Does this sound like an apt description of our churches, Christian schools, and seminaries? Yet is this really were the ministry of God takes place?

Our answer lies in the Torah. For all of its lists of do’s and don’ts, the Torah is the truth of the Almighty, and it contains many, many valuable pictures for our day.

Why did Jesus begin in the Galilee? Let’s look to Moses for our answer.

Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass [that] everyone who sought the Lord went out to the tabernacle of meeting which [was] outside the camp (Exodus 33:7).

What do we know about “outside the camp?” We know that it is where the unclean and rejected of society lived. Some were there only temporarily, perhaps through contact with blood in battle. Others were there indefinitely, resulting from tzaaras (often translated as leprosy), or they were from the mixed multitude that came with Israel out of Egypt—the gentiles.²

Daniel A. Brown, What the Bible Reveals About Heaven: Answers to Your Questions (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1999), 239 pages.

I know Dan Brown. He had recently left the staff at Church on the Way when I joined that group sixteen years ago. In the years since then, I have watched him establish and grow a fine church in Aptos, California. If I remember correctly Dan’s Ph.D. from UCLA is in English, and his skills in that field are evident when you read one of his books.

His most recent is a pleasant and well-reasoned treatise about Heaven. Dan takes the reader through eight steps which provide a straightforward description of most of aspects of our eternal destiny or reward. While it is written to a wide audience, I think pastors will enjoy it. It answers many of the everyday questions that seem to haunt someone in ministry.

Here are examples of those questions: Will my dog go to Heaven? What will Heaven be like? Do we have guardian angels? What about near death experiences—are they real or reliable? Where is Heaven anyhow? What will we do there? Will we recognize our loved ones and friends? Will I be able to sing in Heaven (I can’t here)? What kind of relationship will we have with our enemies in Heaven (Not that any of us have an enemy that might make it to Heaven and surprise us there by popping up one unexpected moment)?

Daniel A. Brown.

In a personable, story-telling style, Dan goes on to teach about Heaven, where it is and who lives there. This is followed by a discussion on the supernatural and how that world affects us here in the natural. Then he gets into death and what it is like to be dead, our life in that state—the place called Heaven. He also has a chapter about the new Heavens and earth, and since Dan is dispensational in his theology, much of his thoughts are framed in that dimension.

James R. Edwards, “A Unity Not of Our Making” Christianity Today (Vol 45, No 10, August 6, 2001), pp. 48-50.

“Unity in Diversity” has become one of the most popular ecumenical catchphrases. Especially among Pentecostal churches, the phrase seems to open up ways to engage in ecumenical dialogue without threatening the ecclesial independence or doctrinal commitment of the churches. James R. Edwards, Professor of Religion at Whitworth College and contributing editor to Christianity Today, has chosen to examine the phrase more closely. He is concerned about a nearly obsessive reliance on unity-in-diversity language and sees in it, rather than the desired emphasis on unity, a frequent apology for an unquestioned pluralism in Christian churches. Like light shining through a prism, the visible unity of the churches, instead of forming one body, is dispersed into many independent directions. The New Testament, however, Edwards points out, speaks of diversity that is channeled into unity and not, as the ecumenical catchphrase suggests, a unity that is being refracted into diversity. For support, he enlists the help of the Greek New Testament term homothumadon (“of one accord”).

Edwards finds that the use of homothumadon is frequently misunderstood. In secular Greek, the term does not convey the personal sympathy shared by the members of a group but a shared commitment of all to a specific cause. Thus the Greek orator Demosthenes “appealed to the Athenians to put aside their personal feelings and differences” (p. 49) and to unite in the defense against an invasion of Philip of Macedon. Edwards concludes that, like the unity of the Athenians, the unity of the church is “a compulsory unity rather than an intrinsic unity” (p. 49), produced by the extrinsic, and unmerited grace of God. The unity of believers is consequently not a sociological unity but one in correspondence and continuity with the proper understanding of God’s Word. This explains the use of the phrase “in one accord” in Acts 15:25 for an ecclesial situation that seems far from resembling a united Christian community. In order to achieve unity, the church must submit to the extrinsic Word of God, which is the great alien intolerance of human differences and divisions (John 17:11-22). The unity-in-diversity language, on the other hand, gives the impression that unity is based on the self-righteousness of the churches or their adaptability to changing social and theological norms. The true unity of the church, however, is “an alien gift of God from the outside, reflecting both God’s nature and governance” (p. 50). The goal of the church, Edward concludes, is not diversity but unity with God. It is a gift of God’s Spirit as long as the church follows God’s will as it is revealed in Scripture.

The article by Derek Vreeland entitled “Edward Irving: Preacher, Prophet & Charismatic Theologian” has been postponed. It should be appearing in the next issue. Please welcome Grant Hochman and Wolfgang Vondey as new contributors.

The editorial committee is still seeking a respondent to Larry Taylor’s paper on spiritual mapping that concludes with this issue. If you would like to respond to Taylor’s position, or know someone who does, please write me at the address below.

I also wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Amos Yong for his five part series on ecumenism that concludes in this issue. His careful, biblical approach to this subject has been invaluable to me personally.

Perhaps an article has had an impact on you and your ministry. Write us so that we too can share in your story and likewise be encouraged in the Lord.

Blessings upon you,

— Raul Mock

Editor note: Readers are encouraged to join this conversation about strategic-level spiritual warfare, spiritual mapping, and living the Spirit-filled life. Please add your comments under the article.

Worldviews in Conflict (Part 1) with Editor Introduction

Satan in the Bible

When dealing with the related doctrines of Satan and demons, it has become almost customary to cite the warning from C.S. Lewis that two equal excesses persist.³² One is to dismiss the reality of Satan altogether, which is difficult to do if one interprets the New Testament literally. The other, I believe, is to become perilously indulgent with “devil-talk.” It seems fair to say that early twentieth century Pentecostals, in general, were preoccupied with talk of Spirit-baptism. Similarly today, some church leaders may be guilty of over-emphasizing Satan’s power to the point that the devil has grown larger than life—certainly larger than Scripture presents him.

Whether or not Satan once held a prominent position in heaven before he rebelled is a moot point. Popular interpretations of Isaiah 14:12-15 (reputed to be the account of Satan’s fall) in the U.S. were once fueled by American fundamentalist scholars such as M.F. Unger and L.S. Chafer.³³ More recent scholarship reveals a much sharper division over the assumption that Isaiah had Satan in mind when he wrote 14:12-15.³⁴ In fact, in view of the scant references to the devil or demons between Genesis and Malachi, and the complicated use of the name, “Satan,” it may be impossible to identify and organize a biblical demonology based solely on the Old Testament. As Page remarks:

Satan is a very minor figure in the Old Testament, where he is mentioned explicitly in only three passages. Even in these, he plays a secondary, not a major role. … It appears that the concept of Satan was not well developed in the Old Testament period and that it did not exercise the sort of influence on the faith of ancient Israel that it would on late Judaism and early Christianity.³⁵

Satan’s prominence in Jewish literature more likely arose at the time of the worst persecutions of Israel’s history, under the ruthless Antiochus IV during the late second century B.C. As the Jewish people suffered unimaginable oppression and suffering,³⁶ they searched for answers of cosmic proportions. They longed for a Messianic visitation to deliver them from hellish conditions, and they found their answers to the problem of evil in the cosmic struggle between angels and Satan.³⁷ Thus, extra-canonical literature was reared out of a background of Hellenistic and Persian Dualism and the desperate hope of an anguished nation.

English professor Brian White gives a practical reminder of the empowerment of the Spirit in our day-to-day lives in his article “Pentecost and the Inside-Out Church.”

Messianic teacher Kevin Williams continues his Messianic Foundations Series with the fifth 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.

Pastor Derek Vreeland tells the story of one man who shaped the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in “Edward Irving: Preacher, Prophet & Charismatic Theologian.”

The Pneuma Review is pleased to present the full text of J. Rodman William’s book The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today (Logos, 1980) in succeeding issues. You will be deepened and encouraged by this exposition of the contemporary work of the Holy Spirit.

In the article, “Workmen or Captives? Avoiding the Snare of Subjectivity” Pastor Dave Harvey exposes some of the lies of the current popular feel-good approach to interpreting Scriptures, encouraging us to learn to handle the Word properly. In doing so, we will become skilled workmen in the rich, timeless, and objective truth of God’s Word, rather than remain captives in our own cramped, subjective little universe of personal impressions.

The Pneuma Review editorial committee has assembled a diverse panel to discuss the important topic of free-will and how beliefs about it affect our theology. Starting the discussion in the Spring 2002 issue will be Dr. Ken Archer, of Church of God Theological Seminary, Cleveland, Tennessee, presenting the openness theism perspective. In future issues you will see responses from charismatic Calvinists, classical Arminians, and those who say the free-will of man and complete sovereignty of God are compatible. Join us for this friendly dialogue and be deepened in your appreciation for brothers and sisters who have reached different conclusions on this important topic.

Jeff King, “Let Us Weep for Zion” Charisma (Aug 2001), pages 58-63, 82.

Journalist Jeff King tells the moving story of how the SS St. Louis, filled with European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, was turned away by the US in 1939. King summarizes a number of historical events that have indelibly caused the Jewish people to believe the Christian Church to be their enemy. King says the call for repentance of the Church’s anti-Semitism is beginning to be heard, describing numerous recent developments that are changing how some Gentile Christians are relating to Jewish people.

Gary M. Burge, “Word Power: A little knowledge of New Testament Greek can be a dangerous, or edifying, thing” Christianity Today (Oct 22, 2001), pages 73-75.

This Professor of NT from Wheaton explains the dangers and benefits of knowledge of NT Greek by doing seven brief word studies of important words including: tetelestai, skenoo, and emphusao. Also in this issue of CT you will find these significant articles: Raymond C. Van Leewan says “We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation.” In “A Translation Fit for a King,” David Neff argues that the King James Version was intended to suppress freedom but actually ended up encouraging it.

Full article (available as of Aug 7, 2014): www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/october22/7.73.html

“Chipping In” Mission Frontiers (Sept 2001), pages 16-19.

MF interviews Ajith Fernando, a prominent Sri Lankan leader, asking questions about North American support of foreign ministries. If you support or are considering supporting nationals, do not miss Fernando’s invaluable wisdom on strategic giving.

Lynne Haggerman, “Employee Discipline in the Church” Enrichment (Fall 2001), pages 100-101.

Four primary reasons why church discipline may be ineffective and seven biblical solutions from an employment expert.

B. Courtney McBath, “Is the Anointing for Sale?” by Charisma (Oct 2001), pages 68-70, 84.

Pastor McBath offers a brief, biblical challenge to ministries—he specifies charismatic ones—to stop using manipulative and money-for-blessing techniques to promote giving.