Is Pentecost a Beginning or an End?

Introduction

Recent Lucan scholarship has been concerned with whether the Spirit has a soteriological function (initiating or maintaining the individual Christian life), or whether the Spirit has solely a missiological purpose.[1] This paper seeks to redress this balance in Lucan scholarship, one which has tended to exclusively associate the Spirit with the beginning of the church and its requirements.

We propose to redress the balance in Lucan scholarship about the Spirit by prioritizing the question of whether Luke uses instead a Jewish eschatological framework for the bestowal of the Spirit, or whether he works with a broader Christian salvation-historical model. Does Luke see the eschatological bestowal of the Spirit as one pertaining to the “last days” of a Jewish age, or does he see it as a signature for the beginning of a new Christian dispensation? If Luke sees the bestowal of the Spirit as the beginning of a new age, does he see this age as uniquely “Christian” or does he see it as a beginning for the Jews?

This eschatological question subordinates the issues that have dominated Lucan scholarship about the Spirit, which has instead largely accepted that the bestowal of the Spirit pertains to the beginning of the church.

Where issues of eschatology have been addressed, the discussion has centred on how the Spirit is related to a beginning rather than an end — and this has been on the beginning of the age of the church rather than the end of a Jewish age. We need to determine the applicability of Jewish eschatology to Luke’s pneumatology and whether the bestowal of the Spirit can be seen as indicative of the end of a Jewish age.

Our essay reopens the logically prior question of whether the bestowal of the Spirit should be seen as a Jewish phenomenon. Our answer is that Luke does in fact present the bestowal of the Spirit in relation to the “last days” of a Jewish age.

Pentecost

Pentecost is a narrative beginning, but this does not mean that it is the beginning of a new age. The Pentecost account is modelled using narrative patterns from the Jewish Scriptures, and scholars who see in it an actual beginning often point to Sinai as a comparable beginning. M. M. B. Turner has offered the fullest defence of this approach.[2] Our contrary view argues both that Sinai does not inform Luke’s account and that instead his account is modelled on Jewish deliverance and reformation traditions and in particular the deliverance traditions of Isaiah 32, Joel 2 and the reformation traditions of Malachi 3/4. In addition, the theophanic aspects of Acts 2 draw upon Isaiah’s Call Narrative thereby showing that mission is at the heart of Pentecost.

This alternative approach shows that a transition to a new age was possible but not certain. The quality that Pentecost has as a “beginning” does not imply the beginning of a new age in that event; rather it is designed to imply that the birth of a new age was being offered. This is a Jewish rather than a Christian eschatological perspective upon Luke-Acts. The successful establishment of the Christian church has led scholars to read the story of Luke-Acts as a successful transition to a new age. However, this hindsight hardly seems available to Luke and his audience, and in particular it does not situate Luke-Acts in relation to Jewish eschatological expectations.

The leading typology in Acts 2 is not one based around Sinai and the presentation of a Christian analogue to the Old Covenant and the Law. Rather, it is a typology centred in the eighth century deliverance of Jerusalem by the Angel of the Lord. This is suggested by Luke’s use of Isaiah and Joel, the material of which would have been read in an eighth century setting by first century readers. (We cannot bring to Luke’s intertextuality the compositional theories of historico-critical scholarship).

At this point, my argument can call upon Pentecostal scholarship. The premise for Pentecostal scholars who present an empowerment view is that the gift of the Spirit is promised to those who are already Christians. This prior status is shown by Luke’s loose coupling of reception of the Spirit and water baptism. Luke has examples of baptised believers without the Spirit (Acts 8, 19). The gift of the Spirit is therefore secondary and additional to the Christian life; its purpose is mission. Scholars who take this approach may further delimit the Spirit as essentially prophetic in the style of the Old Testament prophets preaching to the nation. R. P. Menzies, perhaps, is the most detailed defence of this position. However, I part company with such scholars because they do not tie the bestowal of the Spirit to Jewish requirements, and share the same approach as more broadly charismatic scholars by taking the gift of the Spirit to be Christian in its focus.

We will first set out the details that correspond to Isaiah 6, and then we will evaluate the commonly made Sinai connections.

Isaiah’s Call Narrative

Luke is deliberately evoking Isaiah’s Call Narrative (Isa 6:1-13). Isaiah saw “the lord sitting (ka,qhmai) upon a throne” and “the house” (oi=koj) “full (plh,rhj) of his glory” (Isa 6:1, LXX[3]). In the accompanying theophany smoke fills (pi,mplhmi) the temple, and there is a voice or sound (fwnh,) of praise (Isa 6:3-4), which shakes (evpai,rw[gk]) the doorposts of the temple. Isaiah has his “lips” (Isa 6:9) purged as a symbol of his appropriateness as a mouthpiece of the deity.

Luke’s Pentecost account has corresponding detail: Luke has the disciples in “the house” ([gk]oi=koj), when the house is filled (plhro,w) with  a rushing mighty wind (Acts 2:2); the disciples are then filled (pi,mplhmi, Acts 2:4) with the holy Spirit, and their voice (fwnh,, Acts 2:6) is a voice of praise, and they are empowered to speak on behalf of God; finally, this event takes place after Jesus has ascended and been exalted to a position as “the lord” sitting upon a throne (ka,qhmai, Acts 2:33, 34).

In addition to these correspondences, there is a broad thematic “fit” with Acts insofar as Isaiah’s call narrative is about calling and commission. The crux in the text is about who will be “sent” (avposte,llw) and who will tell the people (Isa 6:8-9). This corresponds to the commission of the disciples to be “apostles” (avpo,stoloj, Luke 6:13, Acts 1:8). Isaiah’s commission was ultimately to be unsuccessful insofar as the people would hear “but not understand”, and see “but not perceive” (Isa 6:9). This is the quotation upon which Luke concludes his view of the Jews (Acts 28:25-26), which thereby shows his Isaianic view of the preaching of the disciples throughout Acts.

A typological comparison between Pentecost and Isaiah’s Call Narrative is further supported by determining where the theophanic phenomena were experienced. Scholars have mainly supposed a setting in a house or more specifically a room in a house.[4] Luke certainly uses oi=koj of “houses” and in contrast to the temple (Acts 5:42). C. K. Barrett argues that Luke’s use of ka,qhmai elsewhere in Acts means “sit” and therefore in Acts 2 the disciples are sitting in a room and that oi=koj should be understood as “room”.[5] He allows the possibility that oi=koj may indicate a chamber of the temple rather than a room in a private house, and he cites Josephus’ usage of oi=koj for the temple chambers (Ant. 8.65).

The possibility that it was a room in the temple compound is supported by the silent transition in the narrative to a public space where there is a crowd. Barrett notes that any transfer of location is formally absent from the text.[6] Since, the multitude that subsequently clusters around the disciples (Acts 2:6) would not be facilitated in the room of a private house, some transition to a public space is needed, and one that can attract and embrace three thousand converts. Luke adds that the disciples were daily in the temple (Acts 2:46, cf. Luke 24:53; Acts 5:25), and this would seem the natural location for them on the day of Pentecost.

However, another possibility is that oi=koj refers to the temple as a whole rather than a chamber,[7] and that the disciples are sitting in an open area at the time the sound and rushing wind engulfed them. While Luke uses i`ero,n in Acts for the temple (22 times), rather than oi=koj,, this word is used by him (Acts 7:47, 49; cf. Luke 13:35; 19:46), when he is directly using Jewish scriptural material about the temple.[8] Luke could therefore be using oi=koj as part of his set of allusions to Isaiah 6 and as part of his theophanic description. A setting in the temple makes it more likely that the Spirit would have inspired praise amongst other speech acts.

Sinai Typology

Many scholars have affirmed that there are similarities between Luke’s Pentecost account and the Sinai theophanies.  Similarities with the scriptural account include details such as the following: the people were gathered together (Exod 19:8) prior to the theophanies in the third month after leaving Egypt (Exod 19:1), and similarly, Pentecost was in the third month after the crucifixion and the disciples were gathered together; the Sinai theophanies involved “sound” (fwnh,)) and “fire” (pu/r), which are features also mentioned at Pentecost (Exod 19:16-18; 20:18; Acts 2:2-4); and the Sinai theophanies accompanied something that was “given”, viz. a law, likewise the Spirit was “given” at Pentecost. Finally, a comparison can be made between the 120 at Pentecost and the group of elders who approach God on Sinai, while the people remain “afar off” (Exod 20:18, makro,qen, Acts 2:39, makra,n).

In addition to these similarities, scholars have put forward several socio-literary arguments to show that Luke’s readership would have made a connection between Pentecost and Sinai because of their likely awareness of common cultural codes. The contribution of the literary co-text is twofold: firstly, it joins the event of the giving of the Law and the establishment of the covenant to the celebrations of the Festival of Weeks; and secondly, it embellishes the scriptural Sinai narrative with details that are reminiscent of Luke’s descriptive detail in Acts 2. Thus, texts variously describe the Law at Sinai being offered to the nations in i) different languages; ii) in thundering voices; and iii) in a theophany involving flames of fire. Israel is then chosen because of its response to the offer made by Yahweh. It is argued that Luke’s readers would have seen the bestowal of the Spirit as an analogous and comparable foundational event involving flames of fire, a thunderous sound and tongues.

Scholars offer a broadly similar argument. J. C. Vanderkam[9] and L. O’Reilly[10] particularly emphasize rabbinical texts (2c. and later). Vanderkam also stresses the associations between Sinai and the Festival of Weeks that are indicated in Jubilees and Qumran texts. Turner’s case is largely based on Philo’s account of Sinai, and his conclusion is that “there is a relatively secure case that Acts 2 deliberately evokes the fundamental Jewish story of Moses’ ascent to God to receive the Torah which he then gives to Israel (and beyond) with theophanic accompaniment”.[11] After his review of primary texts, Vanderkam concludes that, “the Jubilees-Qumran tradition shows that already in the second century B.C.E. the Festival of Weeks was closely tied to the events at Mount Sinai”.[12] Correspondingly, he observes that there is little in Acts 2 that reminds a reader of what the Old Testament says about this festival.

Against these scholars, R. P. Menzies argues that Pentecost merely shows an author who is “familiar with the language of Jewish theophany”. [13] Barrett expresses a similar opinion when he says that “Luke is accumulating features characteristic of theophanies”.[14] H. Conzelmann states that any comparison is “debatable”.[15] G. Hovenden’s evaluation of the positions of Turner and Menzies is that “while Turner’s argument probably wins the day, it needs to be said that the parallels are to Philo’s elaboration of the Sinai event rather than to the Old Testament account”.[16] We need not rehearse the arguments of these opposing scholars; however, we can supplement their collective case with some typological considerations.

Whether a scholar perceives any typology in the account of Pentecost largely depends on how s/he perceives Luke’s theological intent; the typology is used to support this theology. Thus Menzies, who sees the gift of the Spirit as a supplementary gift for mission, is sympathetic to a comparison with Babel, and is disinclined to see any Sinai typology in the Pentecost narrative. Turner uses a Sinai typology to support the view that Luke is presenting a theme of covenant renewal in his account. J. D. G. Dunn uses Sinai typology in a similar vein to Turner, except that he sees Pentecost as initiation of a new covenant.[17] O’Reilly eschews the idea of covenant as the basis of comparison, and argues instead that the typology consists in “the affinities between the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost and the giving of the Law at Sinai”,[18] and he does this because he sees the story of Acts as the story of the “word of God”. These scholars represent the main typological choices that have been offered.

All of these approaches are attempts to characterize the beginning that is Pentecost in an ecclesiologically significant way legitimating the existence of “the church”. Contrary to Turner’s view that there is a “secure case” for comparing Pentecost and Sinai, there are significant typological arguments to be heard against the case. Considerations of plot, episode details, as well as the character-roles of Jesus and the disciples, militate against reading Pentecost as an anti-type to Sinai:

1) While Pentecost is a “beginning” for the disciples (Luke 1:2; 24:47; Acts 11:15), it is not a beginning for Jesus (Acts 1:2). Sinai was not a beginning for Israel, rather the departure from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea were the “beginning”, as indicated by the institution of the calendar (Exod 12:2). Luke’s comparison of the bestowal of the Spirit to water baptism (Luke 3:16) suggests a natural antitype in the crossing of the Red Sea.[19]

2) Sinai represents a covenant agreement; there is sacrifice and declaration of intent, and a giving of a law. The series of episodes represents an extended transaction between the people and Yahweh. These elements are absent from Acts 2.[20] Had Luke intended a comparison or contrast with the Law and the Spirit, he could have used Ezek 36:26-27 or Jer31:33, as Paul does in 2 Cor 3:3.

3) There are multiple ascents and multiple theophanies at Sinai; no one ascent or theophany serves as a type for Pentecost.[21] A comparison can be made with the first theophany at Sinai (Exod 19:16) in terms of the “wind” and the “fire” but, crucially, Moses has not ascended to the top of Sinai prior to this theophany, and only communicates with God from the base of the mountain (Exod 19:20); law-giving is implied by the editorial conjunction of legal material that follows (Exod 20:1-17), but there is no explicit mention of “the giving of the law” or of any transaction to do with the making of a covenant.

Following an ascent/descent (Exod 19:20-21), the next theophany (Exod 20:18) duplicates the detail of the first theophany without the mention of “fire” but, again, Moses is with the people, “afar off” rather than up the mountain, and there is no mention of anything being given, although it is implied (again via editorial collocation) that the ten commandments were given before Moses had to return suddenly to the people.

The next theophany (“fire” — Exod 24:17) sees Moses up the mountain to receive the Law (v. 12), but it follows the covenant transaction, which takes place someway down the mountain, and at which both Moses and the elders of Israel are present.  Furthermore, only tabernacle plans follow this theophany, rather than what might be considered “the Law”.

If Luke intends his readers to pick up on Sinai in his Pentecost account, he does not point them to any one episode. The right spatial relationship in which both Jesus and Moses are “up” and “give” something to the “people” does not coincide with the occurrence of the theophanic detail to which Luke is said to make an allusion (Exod 19:16).[22]

4) Instead of inviting his readers to compare a single ascent of Moses up Sinai and the giving of the Law to Pentecost, Luke may actually invite a more general comparison between Moses and Jesus’ multiple ascents to heaven after the resurrection. A typology is suggested[23] in Jesus’ cryptic remark to Herod, “Behold, I cast out demons, and I do cures today and tomorrow (sh,meron kai. au;rion), and the third day (τῇ τρίτῃ) I shall be perfected” (Luke 13:32). This remark describes a two-day time-period for his ministry, and then a “third day”. The same lexical fragments pick out identical time periods in the Sinai account, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow (sh,meron kai. au;rion), and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day (th.n tri,thn)” (Exod 19:9-10). This allusion may indicate Luke’s perspective on Jesus’ exorcisms, viz., that they were an anti-type to Moses’ sanctifying of the people, prior to ascending the mountain to God on the third day.

The fragments, sh,meron kai. au;rion and τῇ τρίτῃ, if they allude to the Exodus text, identify a “third day” upon which Moses ascended Sinai as being analogous to the period after the resurrection, which took place on the “third day” (Luke 24:7, τῇ τρίτῃ). Luke identifies an evidently symbolic period of forty days for this time in which Jesus was “teaching” the apostles (Acts 1:3), and this may allude to the forty-day periods during which Moses received tabernacle instructions and commandments from God (Exod 24:18; 34:28). Luke’s account distinguishes two and possibly three ascensions[24] of Jesus (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9), as well as mysterious appearances and disappearances (Luke 24:31, 36). Luke’s readers may therefore have seen a comparison with Moses’ multiple ascents of Sinai and the period of the Ascension.

Accordingly, rather than equate Pentecost and Sinai, Luke’s allusions suggest a comparison between the period of the Ascension and Sinai. Sinai has a narrative focus on Moses ascending and descending and bringing the commands and instructions to the people; this is Luke’s record about the Ascension period. Such a comparison would be part of Luke’s general presentation of Jesus as an anti-type to Moses.[25]

5) The Ascension period is the concluding part of Jesus’ ministry in relation to the disciples. Rather, than comparing Pentecost to Sinai, Luke’s readers are more likely to have compared Jesus’ teaching throughout his ministry to the giving of a law. This is indicated by Luke’s allusion to Deut 1:1 and the “words of Moses” in Jesus final remark to the disciples in Luke 24:44, (oi` lo,goi ou]j evla,lhsen Mwush/j panti. Israhl/Ou-toi oi` lo,goi mou ou]j evla,lhsa pro.j u`ma/j). This closing Lucan epitaph sets Jesus’ words as the anti-type to the Law given through Moses, and therefore it is unlikely that Luke’s readers would have seen the “gift of the Spirit” as the anti-type to the gift of “the Law”.

6) In terms of the plot of Exodus, the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost is more likely to evoke recollections of the bestowal of the Spirit upon Joshua through the laying on of hands, in readiness for his work after Moses’ departure (Deut 34:9). A typology based on this incident retains a Moses-like character role for Jesus (as in the conventional Sinai reading of Acts 2); it adds an element of “succession” (the disciples have the character-role of a “successor”), which is absent from the conventional Sinai typology; it offers a scriptural precedent for the “laying on of hands” motif in Acts; and it supplies a reason for the mention of “signs and wonders” in Acts 2:22 in connection with Jesus — such a mention of “signs and wonders” in connection with Moses immediately follows  the bestowal of the Spirit upon Joshua (Deut 34:10-12). Alternatively, a comparison with the bestowal of the Spirit upon the seventy elders would be justified in terms of plot.

7) Luke’s note of timing — Pentecost — may not be designed to connect with the giving of the Spirit, as most scholars suggest. It could equally provide a context for understanding the success of the disciples’ initial preaching. Firstfruits was celebrated at the beginning of harvest (Exod 23:16, qerismo,j), and the festival of “ingathering” at the end of the harvest. Luke has previously used a harvest figure to describe the mission of the seventy (Luke10:1-2, qerismo,j). This suggests that Luke would have conceived of the disciples at Pentecost as “labourers” in the field and the result of their preaching on this occasion (3000 converts, Acts 2:41) to be the firstfruits of a future fuller harvest. Such a typology is consistent with Luke’s view of “the preaching of the word” as a sowing of seed (Luke 8:11). This proposal locates the point of Luke’s calendrical observation in Jewish scriptural traditions about Firstfruits, rather than contemporary Midrash upon Sinai traditions.

8) Finally, Sinai and Pentecost do not assign a structurally comparable role to the character of the recipients of the Law/Spirit.. Sinai does not embody the response of praise on the part of the people. The people need cleansing (Exod 19:10), there is a danger of perishing (Exod 19:21), they are afraid (Exod 20:18), and finally there is the sin of the Golden Calf (Exod 32). Instead of a Sinai typology, the outburst of praise at Pentecost could have been seen as analogous to the praise delivered by the Red Sea.[26]

Conclusion

Luke’s inspired use of the Jewish scriptures implies that he constructs typology with multiple echoes to his scriptural source materials. Thus, any Sinai typology in Acts 2 should consist in a series of echoes and allusions. The lexical links and typological correspondences that have been put forward are miscued and an insufficient basis upon which to affirm that the implied reader would have drawn a comparison between Sinai and Pentecost.

Our conclusion therefore is that Luke is not deploying any extensive Sinai typology. The elements of his account echo different scriptural episodes, Babel, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the call theophany of Isaiah. If Luke intends a link with proto-rabbinic traditions about Sinai, then this is likely to reside in the common requirement that the Torah and the Gospel needed to be taken to the ends of the earth in all languages. This single point of contact, however, does not yield a Sinai typology in the Pentecost account; rather it is recognition of the language barrier facing the proclamation of the Word of God. This is not a sufficient basis upon which to compare Pentecost to Sinai as a foundational event. Contrary to Turner’s view that there is a “secure case”[27] for comparing Pentecost and Sinai, there are significant typological arguments to be heard against this view. These question whether the comparisons of scenic detail that Turner and other scholars assert are sufficient to make Pentecost theologically comparable as a foundational event.

---