Introduction
A local group of
Christians with which I am a little familiar provides us with an excellent test
case for my claim that the paradigms and dictionaries we bring to the text are
even more determinative for the meaning we see in the Bible than the text of
the Bible itself.
With what little knowledge I have, I would characterize the group in terms of
three key beliefs which differ from most mainstream churches (if I am wrong on
details, this entry is more about how we read the Bible than about the group
per se):
1. A belief that speaking in tongues is the evidence of having the Holy Spirit
(in distinction from the gift of tongues, which I suppose would be those who
continue to speak in tongues regularly after conversion). Those who do not
speak in tongues are not truly saved.
2. A belief that a person should only be baptized in Jesus' name. Baptism in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is inappropriate because of the
manner of baptism in Acts. Those who have been baptized in the name of the
Trinity must be rebaptized. Further, a person cannot
be saved unless s/he is baptized (although children who have not reached the
age of accountability will go to heaven).
3. A disbelief in the Trinity. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in fact
three phases or modes of the same person. God is one person, not three.
Now, how does this theology work in terms of how the Bible is appropriated. I will give a description in terms of my
claims about how we read the Bible.
This is a wonderful example of a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible. The
overriding presumption is that the words of the Bible form a single message.
Therefore, words from one book of the Bible are interpreted on the basis of
controlling interpretations from other words from other books. This approach,
typical of so many Christian groups, usually reflects a lack of awareness of
how to read the books of the Bible in context. This approach is particularly
typical of the "Left Behind" approach to prophecy, which mixes words
from various contexts all over the Bible into a coherent paradigm.
The original meaning of an
individual book is of course what the words of that book meant when the book
was produced. A contextual reading of 1 Thessalonians thus asks what situation
Paul was in when he wrote it, what the words likely meant in Paul's mind, and
what the words likely meant in the minds of the Thessalonians.
This is of course how the words "want" to be read. Perhaps it is
valid to read them in terms of God's message for us, perhaps in fact that is
what it means to consider them Scripture (I am now alluding to a post-modern
way of using Scripture). But this is not how the words themselves
"want" to be read--it is not what Jesus, Paul, or the other authors
understood their words to mean. When 2 Thessalonians 2 says, "Didn't I
tell you these things when I was with you," it clearly wants us to take
the I as the apostle Paul and the you as the
Thessalonians. Paul did not tell anyone alive the things to which these words
refer.
In the next section, I will explore ways in which the group in question infuses
the words of the Bible with the definitions of their "tradition" and
how they "glue" words from one context to words from other contexts.
All of these operations take place outside the text and the resultant meanings
are distinct from the original meanings of the text. From a post-modern
perspective, however, these observations in themselves do not necessarily mean
the group is wrong. They can modify their paradigm by claiming to have the
correct spiritual interpretation of the text. At the moment, however, these
processes take place on a pre-modern plane. That is, the group does not realize
they are not reading the words with the meanings Jesus, Paul, or the other New
Testament authors understood the words to have.
Acts 2: The Controlling Passage
As best I can tell, the
book of Acts, especially Acts 2, provides one of the most important
"centers" or controlling elements in the way this group reads
Scripture. Thus Acts 2:38 says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive
the Holy Spirit."
The group correctly reads the verse to say:
1. Peter associates the forgiveness of his audience's sins with baptism.
2. This baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ"--nothing is said of
God the Father or the Holy Spirit.
3. A person receives the Holy Spirit in association with such repentance and
baptism.
Let's see how the group relates these three aspects of the verse to their key
beliefs.
First let's look at their insistence that such baptism be in the name of Jesus
[only] and their rejection of the idea of the Trinity.
They have correctly noticed that the book of Acts consistently involves a
baptism in the name of Jesus. Nothing is said in Acts about baptism in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, I suspect they are right to think
that the earliest Christians baptized in the name of Jesus (cf.
But as pre-modern readers, they cannot allow other segments of the early church
to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
(e.g., Matt. 28:19). They view the Bible as a single text written by God, so
the historical tensions that almost certainly existed in the early church are
mowed down by the lawn mower called "harmonization."
At first glance, harmonization looks like it is the most godly approach to
Scripture--finding ways to reinterpret passages of the Bible so that their
meaning is no longer in tension with the meaning of other passages. When the
Holy Spirit is truly behind such harmonization (that is, leading the reader to
truth through it, even though the truth is different from the original meaning)
or when a person is either consciously or subconsciously doing it with orthodox
faith setting the boundaries, I don't have a problem with it.
But I have two problems with it when it is used to support unorthodox views or
when individuals (I am not referring to this group now) use harmonization to
dismiss sincere Bible scholars as unspiritual because they don't harmonize. The
first problem I have is that harmonizing ultimately rejects the voices of
Scripture and substitutes itself for Scripture.
For example, Matthew and Mark record Jesus' healing of a leper and his healing
of Peter's mother-in-law in opposite order. A harmonizer might suggest Jesus
healed two lepers: one before Peter's mother-in-law and one afterwards. This
example is harmless enough, but you have created a scenario that neither of the
gospels present. You have invented your own scheme
and, in a sense, rejected both what Matthew and Mark actually say.
Again, in this case the result is really not that big of a deal. But the Jesus
only group actually rejects Matthew's baptism in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit in favor of Acts. A clever rationalization
ensues--and such splicing is often ingenious. They might argue that
"name" is singular and invoke some interpretation that says these
three are really all Jesus, just in three phases of his existence. What might
seem to be a baptism in the names of three different persons is really just
baptism in the one name of Jesus.
This leads me to the second problem I ultimately have with harmonization when
it becomes unorthodox or is used to support a condescending attitude toward
Bible scholars (again, I am not referring to the group with this last comment).
The resultant interpretations are simply wrong in terms of what the text
originally meant. It's playing a game with the text. A Bible scholar who
genuinely sees tensions in the biblical text may have a much greater respect
for the text of the Bible than a harmonizer. That's because such a person is
willing to let each part mean whatever it seems to mean. In other words, such a
person doesn't shove harmonizations down the Bible's
throat. Some people's "idea" of the Bible is far more important to
them than the text of the Bible itself.
So in the case of the leper and Peter's mother in law, the wording of the leper
story is extremely similar in both gospels. Indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely
that Matthew and Mark stand in some literary relationship to one another--that
one is either copying its basic text from the other or that they are both drawing
on a common source of some type. As such it is overwhelmingly likely that the
leper story is the same story placed in different locations by the two authors.
Harmonization in this instance is not only not important for
faith but it is simply an incorrect interpretation.
Similarly, while Matthew uses the singular for "name," one can only
support the idea that this is simply naming Jesus three times if one brings
this pre-conception to the text. There is certainly nothing in the text that
would lead us in this direction. The resultant interpretation may preserve the
"idea" of harmony, but it does so by raping the biblical text of its
actual meaning. It ignores what the text wants to say in order to preserve what
the interpreter wants the text to say.
Indeed, if anything the New Testament itself pushes us to distinguish Jesus
from God, not to identify them. Thus Jesus says he does not know things that
the Father does (Mark 13:32). The Father speaks while Jesus prays (e.g., Matt.
3:17). Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15), which seems to place him
on the creation side of the equation in Paul's mind (a situation those of us
who believe in the Trinity also need to explain). The group no doubt has
ingenious ways of reinterpreting these passages, as Christians in general have
great "coping strategies" to explain away "naughty verses"
that don't fit with our Wesleyan or Baptist or Presbyterian paradigms.
But when we really value the text (and are looking for the original meaning
rather than a "spiritual" one), we don't find possible ways to
interpret it so it fits with our theology, we try to go with the most probable
reading of the text. Inevitably, we begin to see the Bible in context as a
chorus of voices that basically are in harmony with each other, but we also see
tensions between real people. From my perspective, you simply cannot let the
Bible set the agenda without reaching some conclusion of this sort. To do
otherwise is to foist on the Bible a view it does not "want" you to
have. It would be like trying to honor me for being such an incredible war hero
despite my continued protests that I have never been in a war or even in the
armed forces. What I really want you to do is to
listen to what I'm actually trying to say to you.
Now in saying such things I do not mean to negate my view that it is ultimately
great to hear the Spirit speaking in the words apart from what they meant
originally. What is important to me is that we don't confuse such spiritual
meanings with the original meaning. And even more important to me is that we
don't mistake the splicings of our own making with
the authoritative voice of God.
The Necessity of Water Baptism
I'd now like to look at
another aspect of the group's interpretive paradigm, namely, the idea that
unless you are baptized in water (in the name of Jesus, as the last entry
discussed), you are not going to make it to heaven.
First of all, I believe the group has rightly ascertained that Acts 2:38 treats
receiving the Spirit as a part of coming to Christ in Acts 2. I feel my
Wesleyan background, using its own interpretive paradigm, has often associated
the Day of Pentecost with a work of grace subsequent to becoming a Christian
(entire sanctification, following the lead of John Fletcher rather than John
Wesley). It took me years to listen to the biblical text on this one. I agree
with the group that Acts treats reception of the Holy Spirit as an essential
component in coming to Christ, not as a work subsequent to conversion.
Indeed, I would say that Paul, Acts, and Hebrews treat the reception of the
Spirit as the defining
element of becoming a Christian (cf. Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor.
5:5).
But is baptism in water as essential as "baptism in the Spirit" or
the reception of the Spirit, terms that Luke-Acts seems to use interchangeably.
Some groups, including some in my own tradition, make fine distinctions between
phrases like "baptism in the Spirit," "filling with the
Spirit," "receiving the Spirit," and the "fulness of the Spirit." But these are moves made from
the outside of the text looking in. The text does not make any explicit
distinctions of this sort--they are read into the text rather than out of it.
Jesus in Luke foretells baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts implies that Pentecost
is the fulfillment of this prediction. The Day of Pentecost is thus baptism in
the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 equates receiving the Spirit with the Pentecost
experience. They are said to have been filled with the Spirit on this day
(2:4). Finally, the phrase fulness of the Spirit does
not even occur in the New Testament. Once again we see that the definitions and
dictionary a person brings to the text determines the meaning you see in the
text.
So how essential is water baptism? It is clearly important. Acts 2:38 treats it
as normative. The first words out of the Ethiopian eunuch's mouth after Philip
convinces him of the gospel relate to water for baptism (Acts 8). Suffice it to
say, the idea of a Christian group forbidding water baptism or even not
encouraging it would have been foreign to the book of Acts.
But is it as important and
essential as "baptism in the Holy Spirit"? Will an unbaptized Quaker or Salvationist miss heaven over this?
What about someone who dies before they get to a baptismal? The group in
question is keen to point out that Acts 2:38 says that the baptism is "for
the forgiveness of sins." The reception of the Holy Spirit is not
mentioned here as the mechanism of cleansing--the water baptism is.
On the other hand, this is a lot of weight to put on the preposition
"into" in the Greek. Words like these can have many different
nuances, and the group is taking these words in a very, very narrow sense,
probably much narrower than they were originally meant.
Thus Acts 15:8-9 speak of the purification coming by way of the Holy Spirit:
"God who knows the heart witnessed to them by giving them the Holy Spirit
just as He also gave to us, and he showed no difference between us and them
when he cleansed their hearts on the basis of their faith." The coming of
the Holy Spirit in the incidence to which Peter refers took place before these Gentiles had been baptized
(Acts 10). This fact demonstrates that the two "baptisms"--baptism in
the Holy Spirit and water baptism--are separable experiences.
Indeed, at
Paul can associate joining together with Christ with baptism (
In short, baptism in water is clearly associated with the cleansing of the
heart in Paul and Acts. But 1) since water baptism and Spirit baptism are
separable experiences in Acts, 2) since when the distinction is not made the
spiritual seems to take precedence, and 3) since the spiritual is more often
mentioned and water baptism is not, on the whole water baptism seems secondary
to Spirit baptism.
So would a Spirit baptized person who was not water baptized go to heaven? The
NT doesn't directly address this question. True, the thief on the cross was
never baptized, but the Holy Spirit had not yet been given at that time. He was
like an Old Testament saint in that regard.
I'm not sure I have a knock down drag out argument except to say that it is not
the baptism that the NT authors emphasize as the operative element in
conversion. 1 John speaks of the heart, for example.
True, Paul does have followers of John the Baptist become rebaptized
at
So I probably cannot prove what any NT author would say about the unbaptized Quaker or the person who gets in a car accident
on their way to their baptism. But would God have accepted any of the Gentiles
in Acts 10 after they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? I
think He would have, although this is an inference. And while I cannot
absolutely prove it, it seems to me that the baptism of the group in this
passage (Acts 10:47) is almost a kind of after-the-fact ratification of that
which the Holy Spirit had already done in them.
So inferences are involved on both sides of the issue. I have to infer what the
NT authors would say about an unbaptized Quaker. I'm
trying to do so on the basis of what the text says.
The group in question is also inferring an answer to this question. In
particular, they are inferring that all the relevant passages that don't
mention water baptism while talking about the Spirit in conversion assume it as
equally essential. All in all, their interpretation centers primarily on a
rigid reading of one verse (Acts 2:38), whose interpretation is then inferred
in all other places in the NT.
But we cannot assume that Paul has the same precise theology as Luke--or even
that Luke is giving us Peter's exact words on the Day of Pentecost (there's
significant evidence to conclude that the sermons of Acts give us as much of
Luke as they do of the historical sermons in question). That means that the
group's case is built on 1) the "normal" process of conversion in
Acts (without any comment on the unusual) and 2) inference from the
"normal" examples of Acts. The NT makes no direct comment on the
"unusual" circumstances we are addressing.
Tongues as Evidence of the Spirit
The final component I wish
to discuss on this topic is the belief that speaking in tongues is not just a
gift of the Spirit that some
Christians have, not even the view of some that speaking in tongues is a gift
all Christians could have,
but evidence of the Holy
Spirit's presence in your life to where if you have never spoken in tongues,
you are not a Christian.
It is easy enough to see where the group gets this idea. It's a simple line of
thought:
1. A person is not a Christian if s/he has not
received the Holy Spirit.
2. A person who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues.
3. Therefore, a person who has never spoken in tongues has not received the
Holy Spirit and is not a Christian.
I agree with the first premise. However, I disagree with the second.
Accordingly, I disagree with the conclusion.
I've argued before that the "dictionary" you bring to a word
determines the meaning you see in it. That is true in this case. A person from
this group brings a "definition" of the Spirit that entails speaking
in tongues. Therefore a person is not a Christian if they have not spoken in
tongues.
Where does this "definition" come from? I would say two places.
First, it comes from the experience of the founders of this group. It's easy to
say that all Christians will speak in tongues when you come to Christ if you
spoke in tongues when you came to Christ. The problem is of course for the rest
of us who believe we experienced conversion and yet did not speak in tongues.
If the founders of this group spoke in tongues when they had their conversion
experiences, it is easy enough to interpret the fillings with the Spirit
accordingly. After all, on three occasions in Acts groups who receive the Holy
Spirit speak in tongues (Pentecost, Gentiles, followers
of John the Baptist).
Here we encounter an important dynamic of biblical interpretation. The book of
Acts has a "gap" with regard to the relationship between receiving
the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The text of Acts does not say that those
who receive the Holy Spirit always
speak in tongues. The reader must then infer whether 1) we are meant to assume
speaking in tongues every time someone receives the Spirit in Acts, even though
Acts does not say so or 2) there were only certain key occasions when speaking
in tongues occurred.
We might note that Philo the Jew mentions a tradition that a fire issued from
In any case, speaking in tongues has a strong symbolic significance here, a
significance that our dictionary doesn't come equipped with because we are not
ancient Jews. The tongues that took place in Acts 10 make it clear that the
Gentile experience of the Spirit was in no way inferior to the inaugural
experience of the Jews at Pentecost. The purpose of narrating speaking in
tongues at
Nevertheless, their position is largely an argument from silence. Tongues does not play a major role in the New Testament. It
appears almost exclusively in these three Acts passages and in 1 Corinthians.
Of course there are significant differences even between 1 Corinthians and Acts
on this score. The tongues of Acts seem to be human languages that help
unbelievers come to Christ. The tongues of 1 Corinthians push unbelievers away
and seem to be something like the tongues of angels (13:1).
In 1 Corinthians Paul addresses a problem in Corinthian worship relating to the
use of tongues, and the overall tendency of 1 Corinthians 14 is to promote the
use of prophecy over tongues in worship. Paul allows the use of interpreted
tongues only and then only two or three in a service.
He says not to forbid tongues, which is clear enough about the direction of the
conversation: he is not promoting, he is not prohibiting. I do not say this to
demean the use of tongues--I don't actually have a problem with Pentecostal
groups that might have uninterpreted tongues
throughout the whole worship service. Paul was writing to the Corinthian church
within the parameters of their context. I suspect that many Pentecostal
churches actually are edified
by uninterpreted tongues in their worship! (and by the way, I use this same line of argument to justify
the
My point is that I have good reason to think that an approach that considers
speaking in tongues so essential to Christianity is out of focus. As Paul says,
"All don't speak in tongues, do they?" (1 Cor. 12). In Greek this is a question expecting a
negative answer. No, all don't speak in tongues. Paul makes no distinctiong between the gift of tongues and tongues as an
evidence of the Holy Spirit. This is splicing done from the outside of the text
looking in. Paul's primary point indeed seems to be to tell a Corinthian group
that thinks its hot stuff that its not as hot as it
thinks.
Well, my blather goes on too long. A final word about the
comment in the latter part of Mark 16 in later manuscripts predicting that
Christians will speak in tongues. Some groups in
And of course in the end these verses were not in the original of Mark.
Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century mentions that the ending was
absent from almost all the Greek manuscripts he has seen of Mark. The earliest
manuscripts of Mark do not have it. There is a shorter ending in some
manuscripts that reflect texts of Mark floating around that supplemented the
text with something else. All in all, these verses start the chapter all over
as if 16:1-8 didn't even exist. It is largely a summary of various
post-resurrection statements in the other gospels.