Since we're talking about tongues.
I actually wrote a paper on that topic. And just to test the limits of this board, I will post it here (it's a little older, so I may have revised some of the views by now). The main point is that you cannot get normative theology from the narrative passages in acts:
INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES FOR THE NARRATIVE
PASSAGES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS
A Paper
December 12, 2006
CONTENTS
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PURPOSE OF ACTS 3
3. NARATIVE PASSAGES IN ACTS 9
4. CONCLUSION 20
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 21
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The twentieth century saw the emergence of a new movement in church history that grew to be one of the largest Christian groups by the beginning of the twenty first century. This group called Charismatics or Pentecostals, is currently the fastest growing group of churches within the spectrum of Christianity. The determining factor in all the denominations that can be included in this group is an emphasis on works and gifts of the Holy Spirit. This, at times, has led to great controversy within the church as a whole and hefty opposition in speech and writing, especially from evangelicals like John MacArthur who outlined his position in his Charismatic Chaos.
As Allan Anderson outlined in his chapter on the theological and historical background of Pentecostalism, the doctrine of âBaptism in the Holy Spiritâ as an experience separable from regeneration was one of the main factors in the development of this new movement. The greatest, if not sole, as some might argue, biblical base for this doctrine is found in the accounts of the book of Acts. The argument for such a doctrine, according to Pentecostal theology, is that Luke described a pattern of separability and distinctiveness of regeneration and baptism in the Holy Spirit throughout the book. Laying aside the argument whether this is the case or not, Wyckoff mentioned another problem which must be solved first: Should some of Lukeâs material in Acts, specifically the narrative sections, be viewed as merely descriptive and historical without being normative and didactic? For instance, can any teaching about âBaptism in the Spiritâ be gathered at all from the passages describing conversions?
However, the arguments for and against a normative interpretation of the narrative passages should not be weighed in light of the controversy about Spirit Baptism. Jon A. Weatherly issued the healthy warning for the interpreter of the book of acts is that he should never ask the text a question the author did not intend to answer. Neither should the best method of interpretation be determined by asking first which doctrine could result from the findings.
A better approach to the problem is asking of Acts what interpreters ask of any book of the Bible: What was the authorâs purpose of writing, what is the genre of the book, or how did he anticipate his work to be read? Clarifying this general topic of survey questions and then building on the findings to show how to deal with the narrative passages in terms of finding theological statements in them should yield a good guideline on how to interpret these parts of the book of Acts.
CHAPTER 2
PURPOSE OF WRITING
Before plunging directly into the survey of scholarship on different aspects of the purpose of the writing of Acts, the issue of connection between the gospel of Luke and Acts deserves mention, as it carries implications for subsequent conclusions. In his summary about scholarsâ conclusions on the relationship of the gospel and Acts Mark Allan Powell wrote:
Although most scholars are now willing to speak of the âunity of Luke-Acts,â they may use that phrase with different levels of unity in mind. Michael Parsons has noted at least five such levels: authorial, [sic] theological, narrative, generic, and canonical.³ Scholarly perceptions concerning these levels of unity might be plotted along a continuum: virtually [sic] everyone recognizes authorial unity (the two works have the same author) and virtually everyone accepts the lack of canonical unity (the two works are separated in modern Bibles). The other levels of unity are the areas where discussion is taking place.
________
³ Mikael Parsons, âThe Unity of Luke-Acts: Rethinking the Opinio Communis,â in âWith Steadfast Purposeâ: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry J. Flanders, ed. by Naymond Keathley, 29-53 (Waco: Baylor University Press, 1990). Watch also for Rethinking the Unity of Luke-Acts by Mikael Parsons and Richard Pervo, forthcoming from Fortress Press.
This quote shows how diverse the opinions on the relations of Acts and Luke are. Thus, different scholars come to different conclusion about Acts, depending on how connected to the gospel they view it, as some would even refuse to study Acts and only study Luke-Acts.
Therefore, this is indeed an important aspect in the study of Acts, especially as it does relate to the purpose and theology of acts, but a more in depth study of this aspect would be too voluminous at this point.
Genre
Although the subject of genre is an important matter to the correct way of interpreting Acts, it needs not a very lengthy discussion due to the relatively large consensus among contemporary scholars. The Greco-Roman world was aware of three genres to which a narrative prose could attest, namely history, biography, and novel. Scholars contest to ascribe the book of Acts to all three.
Only one scholar, Richard Pervo, contended for Acts to be a novel, mainly because of its âentertaining character,â âapostolic escapades,â âaction-packed stories,â and âburlesque and rowdy episodesâ. As one of the many scholars refuting this position, David Balch noted that Pervo takes only a twentieth century view of historiography into account thus comparing what a first century person would expect of a novel with what a twentieth century person would expect of historiography.
Charles Talbert and a few other scholars took the position that Acts was indeed an ancient biography. Drawing from his conclusions about patterns in Diogenes Laertiusâ Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Talbert applied these to Luke-Acts to and found several similarities in content, form, and function which led him to assign Luke-Acts to the genre of biography. David A. Aune, however, found this conclusion lacking, objecting that Talbart did not establish the connection between Acts in particular and the Lives very convincingly, mostly in the area of âsuccession narrativeâ. In addition to these objections David Bach remarks that Talbertâs view of Acts was individualistic, like a biography, was inconsistent with the events Luke did actually describe.
Finally, many scholars today view Acts as belonging to the genre of history. Most of the modern scholarship arguing this seems to depend on David Aunes comparison of Acts to the guidelines for ancient historians outlined by ancient writers from the time of Herodotus in 420 B.C. to Ammianus Marcellinus in A.D. 395. As a summary of the research he surveyed, Powell recognized that âLuke was a competent historian for his own dayâ. Other scholars, like the mentioned David Balch, have been doing further scholarship to promote this position, so that recent New Testament survey books do not even include a discussion of different views on genre but simply take history as the given result of scholarship.
Lukeâs Many Purposes
In surveying the purpose of Luke-Acts, Powell was able to find six different purposes that scholars attributed to the book of Acts was. However, he described the first, an Irenic purpose of reconciling âa major breach in early Christianityâ between âPeter and Paul,â as being rejected by virtually all modern scholars. The second purpose Powell found was Acts as a polemical against Gnosticism. Further, he found several different scholars arguing for models of an apologetic, to the Roman Empire on behalf of Christians, to Christians on behalf of the Empire, and to the Jews on behalf of the Gentile Mission. Beyond these Powell notes scholars finding an evangelistic, a pastoral, and a theological purpose.
After finding similar problems in trying to determine âtheâ purpose of Acts William Willimon concluded that the difficulty lies in âtaking so complex and rich a story as Acts and reducing it to a one-factor analysisâ. In other words, unlike for many other books of the Bible, finding âtheâ one purpose of the book of Acts seems impossible. In this manner, determining several purposes Luke pursued in this book will bring much more fruitful results than trying to pin down one of many mutually exclusive purposes. The most logical starting point for such a search is to find out to whom the book was actually written.
The book itself is simply addressed to Theophilus, and in the prefix of his gospel Luke gave as his reason for writing, âso that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taughtâ (Lk. 1:4). In the beginning of Acts the text did not name any other reasons for being presented either. However, in their summaries of purposes attested to the book neither Powell nor Willimon found scholars that viewed the book as addressed to the audience of Theophilus alone. Rather, the book has lately been ascribed by many scholars as written to a Christian audience.
This in itself is a considerable conclusion, as it would lead one to think that it excluded certain purposes from still being viable options. However, while on the one hand asserting Acts to be written to âTheophilus and his fellow believersâ DeSilva wrote elsewhere that âActs also has a clearly apologetic purposeâ . Thus, even the purposes that seem to only work with a non-Christian audience can still be argued for. Thus it is impossible to truly eliminate any given number of purposes of the book of Acts in order to find âthe oneâ purpose. However, the question about a theological purpose is of specific interest for the quest to the best approach for an interpretation of Acts with special consideration of the narrative passages.
Lukeâs Theological Purpose
The question of whether specific passages in Acts are didactic and normative hinges on the question how much Luke was trying to be didactic and normative at all. If Luke was trying to teach theology, how did he do that? Powell offered one important detail in regard to this question in his discussion of the composition of Acts, specifically the speeches. Powell noted some scholars as claiming that Luke practically composed the speeches from his own opinion while more conservative scholars like F.F. Bruce described Lukeâs composition as more of an editorâs role. Nonetheless in either case Luke most likely did not include any speeches in their original length, so that he did have to decide how to word the exact content. This led Powell to the conclusion that âthey remain primary resources for understanding the theology of the third evangelistâ.
Another hint towards this theological interpretation of acts is the sheer amount of works written that assume Acts to have theological intent. In the introduction to his book addressing the tension between Luke the historian and Luke the theologian I. Howard Marshall concluded that he must be seen as both. Much in the same way his book edited together with David Peterson attested to the large amount of theology contained in Acts by including twenty two articles by different scholars that discussed Lukeâs theology which Marshall describes in his introductory essay as âessays on aspects of the study of the theology of Actsâ .
CHAPTER 3
NARATIVE PASSAGES IN ACTS
Arguments for an Interpretation as
Theologically very Significant
While not giving any reason for doing so, Max Turner gave an excellent example for treating a narrative passage as having much theological meaning. His article was devoted to exactly the issues of separability and subsequence, and in it he did very much take the passages as having great theological significance. This position was actually explained a little bit further by Herold Hunter in Spirit-Baptism. He mentioned the tension between historical and didactic parts of scripture. Nonetheless, he saw Luke as âhardly historical in the modern sense of the wordâ and likened Luke to modern day historical theologians. Thus, Luke, according to Hunter, stressed his theological points by the use of relevant historical data.
However, this argument is not as convincing as it may seem. Since it rests on the assumption that Luke was not writing history but rather a pastoral account, it fails to explain why
Luke would use the genre of ancient historiography in such a perfection of the form that Acts would pass for any ancient reader as exactly the later: A History. Moreover, such a history was more expected to âpreserve the great deeds of the past from oblivionâ than anything else. The essential question is really what a late first or early second century reader of Acts would have made of the narrative passages, or, as Gordon Fee proposed, what the authorâs intent was in writing these passages.
Rogar Stronstad brought forth another argument for the normative treatment of the narrative passages. His argument started by making Luke more reliable on Jewish historiography than Hellenistic and continued by claiming that historiography in this sense always carried normative and didactic weight. As biblical reasons for the later Stronstad quoted 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Rom. 15:4, and 1 Cor. 10:11, saying that Paul used historical narratives in the Old Testament for didactic lessons in his epistles. His position of linking Lukeâs writing with Old Testament narrative was derived from I. Howard Marshallâs Luke: Historian & Theologian. In it Marshall argued that âthe writings of Luke are plainly indebted to the Old Testamentâ . He concluded so because of similarities in two aspects: First, Luke recorded events that had taken place before and organized them in a way to emphasize a divine plan in human history. Further, Luke, according to Marshall, interpreted events in a way a secular historian would not have done.
Both these points are valid to a certain extent, but they still have flaws. About Actâs relation to Old Testament narrative Marshall said himself on the next page that he, or anybody else for that matter, could not find any âfirm resultsâ when trying to âset Luke in the context of ancient historiansâ, and that âthe variety of ancient writers prevents us from finding a single context for Luke.â Combining this with the findings of Hemer who, while also doubting the possibility to find a definite answer, was more comfortable placing Luke in a Hellenistic context makes any hermeneutical conclusions that are derived from the assumption that Acts is historical narrative just like the Old Testament vague and flimsy at best.
Secondly, Stronstadâs hermeneutics in order to find hermeneutics are somewhat faulty. Arguing from Paulâs statement in 2 Tim. 3:16 that âall Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousnessâ Stronstad stated that Paulâs usage of âall scriptureâ obviously included historical narrative as well, and he argued further that since all scripture is profitable for teaching doctrine, this must also apply to historical narrative in particular. The fact that he tried to retrieve principles to interpret the Bible from the Bible is commendable. However, going back to Weatherlyâs warning from the introduction not to ask the text questions it never meant to answer Stronstadâs interpretation of this passage seems not very natural as Paulâs intent. Without going into a long exegesis of the text in question Paul seems to have tried more to point out the value of scripture as a whole rather than to explain the correct method of interpretation for each genre represented in all of scripture.
In the same way Stronstadâs interpretation of Rom. 15:4, saying that indeed every single verse in scripture was meant for instruction, does not seem like a very helpful hermeneutical model, as some scripture simply does not have direct instructions for the church or individual believers today. Some passages may be edifying or helpful, but to try to take the long lists of names in Chronicles or Ezra and teach something out of a random selection would be very absurd. The fact that exactly 760 of Zaccaiâs descendents returned to Jerusalem simply does not instruct anybody about anything in the twenty first century (Ezra 2:9). However, this method is exactly what Stronstad suggests could be done in the case of Luke: To take any passage and look for a normative instruction in it.
Finally Stronstad denied the existence of purely narrative portions of Acts outright by arguing that such a description was an invention of modern day critics while Luke actually wove theology all throughout his arrangement of material. A major fallacy in his reasoning is that he actually misquoted Marshall severely, or better, quoted him out of context. Stronstad took a statement from Marshall that âHis [Lukeâs] view of theology led him to write historyâ to support the above mentioned point and claimed that Marshall wrote this in response to the question âdo history and theology stand in opposition to each other?â
Stronstad made this say that history and theology were not separable in Lukeâs writing, completely ignoring that Marshall was writing all this in response to liberal scholars who claimed that Luke, because he was a theologian, could not have been a reliable historian. Marshall simply said that because of Lukeâs theology he must have attempted to write reliable history. This had nothing to do with the issue Stronstad talked about. In his attempt to disprove scholars claiming that Pentecostal theology was based on prooftexting Stronstad actually prooftexted from Marshallâs book, ignoring the authorâs intent of the writing and thus applying bad hermeneutics even in his research.
Arguments against an Interpretation as
Theologically very Significant
Among the greatest critics of the Pentecostal hermeneutical approach to the narrative sections in Acts is Gordon D. Fee. In Reading the Bible for all Its Worth, which is meant as a hermeneutical guideline for reading the Bible, he argued that historical precedent, taking the narrative passages as didactic and prescriptive, was a fallacy in hermeneutics that would lead to false doctrine. Gordon, calling himself a Pentecostal, is the most outspoken scholar against the didactic and prescriptive interpretation of these narrative passages of Acts. According to Bradly Trumann Noel only three Pentecostal scholars have made a serious attempt to discuss this position with him: William Menzies, Rogar Stronstad, and Robert P. Menzies. In an article summarizing the argument Noel outlined Feeâs position, described three points on which the other three scholars contested him and than wrote what Fee had responded. Following Noelâs outline under consideration of observations made above will yield some fruitful insights on the matter.
Fees first large point in this hermeneutical issue was that authorial intent ought to be the most important question in approaching a text and its meaning. Fee argued that âsince God chose to communicate himself to us through human speech in historical particular circumstances, we are locked into a hermeneutical process that demands by its very nature that we listen carefully first of all to what is intended; for there alone lies our hope of hearing what God himself wants us to hear.â
The essence of statements summarized by Noel against this position was twofold. First, he pointed out how the determination of what exactly the authorâs intent or purpose had been was still a point up to discussion. Secondly, Pentecostals receded to arguing that Luke was indeed intending to write about the charismatic nature of the Spirit, thus making the passages normative, as they pertained to Lukeâs purpose.
This point has some merit. As is evident from the discussion in the previous chapter, determining Lukeâs purpose is a hard question indeed, and virtually no consensus has come about in the broad spectrum of the scholarly world. Thus, this approach to a hermeneutic of the narrative passages may easily make the reader the final authority over the text. If passages that coincide with the authorâs intent should all be viewed as normative while those that are written in the exact same manner not coinciding with the authorâs intent are not, an artificial double standard appears that could make Acts say many completely different and contradictory things solely depending on the view of Lukeâs purpose. For example, if Luke wrote Acts as an instruction manual for the early church then passages about church leadership carry high normative values while narratives of Paulâs actions before gentile rulers are marginal historical titbits; the reverse is true if Luke wrote the book as an apologetic or evangelistic book to non-Christians, making the passages on church leadership say nothing while actions before non-Christians become normative for future witnesses. Such a pick and choose method seems too haphazard to become a hermeneutical pattern for interpreting the narrative passages.
Fee also categorized hermeneutics into three categories: Christian theology, Christian ethics, and Christian practice or experience. He concluded that most Christians agreed on the first two parts, like the fact that believers should be baptized, that the Lordâs Supper should be observed, and that believers should be empowered by the Holy Spirit in their works. He reasoned further that the Bible clearly taught these doctrines while the modes of how to baptize, how often to observe the Lordâs Supper and how to obtain the empowerment of the Holy Spirit were often disputed among different denominations. These, according to Fee, were the areas where people most often came to historical precedent in the narrative portions of acts, or even in their own church tradition. This point was more of the nature of practical theology, pointing out that the narrative passages are usually used in order to form practice, not theological doctrine
Stronstad criticized Fee for putting Christian experience and practice into one single category. He argued that experience and practice were indeed quite distinct from each other and events like regeneration or filling with the Holy Spirit were distinct as experiences because they were not actions by man but actions by God. Practices, so Stronstad, were indeed questions like the frequency of the Lordâs Supper or the exact mode of baptism.
In his response Fee admitted that experience and practice may not be in the same category. However, he pointed out that his point that both were usually based on an argument of historical precedent rather than direct teaching was just as true. Fee contended that he simply put them together because he saw the hermeneutical issues as similar. His point remained that neither modern day church practice nor experience should be based solely on historical precedent in the Acts narratives but rather on clearly teaching passages.
The last point of disagreement Noel identified was about the fact when historical precedent could indeed be normative. Fee argued that narrative could only be used as prescriptive when that was either clearly the authorâs intent or when it was in line with a clear teaching elsewhere in scripture where teaching was the clear intent. Otherwise interpretations were too much subject of the readerâs opinion, and using analogy to find modern day application would be too arbitrary.
Noel summarized several critiques of this argument, pointing out that the acceptance of this preposition would undercut any theology based on an interpretation in terms of historical precedent. Stronstad continued to argue against this, holding to the point that Luke was indeed a theologian in his own right, not being inferior to Paul. He, again, concluded this from a statement made by Marshall who wrote that âhe [Luke] is a theologian in his own right.â This made Stronstad argue that Luke was just as apt to write theological statements as Paul or any other New Testament writer for that matter. In addition he gave several examples where biblical figures used the Old Testament to establish a historical precedent for their action. The specific passages were Lk. 4:25-25; 6:1-11, and Acts 10:1-48 where Jesus and the disciples use Old Testament stories to justify their behaviour.
This objection has two separate answers to it. First, Stronstad was again misquoting Marshall. The context of Marshallâs statement was that some scholars argued that Luke could not be a reliable historian because of the apparent differences in theology between the speeches of Paul Luke recorded and the theology found in Paulâs epistles. What Marshall did not do was trying to answer the question whether Luke had theological intent in his narrative passages, as Stronstad would like him to. Secondly, Fee answered Stronstad by admitting that he clearly pointed out how behaviour was justified through historical precedent, even how behaviour could be called normal because of it. However, Fee argued that just because something was permissible or even normal that did not necessarily mean that it was normative today. Going from the Example in Lk that Jesus gathered grains on the Sabbath he explained that it was permissible but not mandatory for everyone to gather grain on that day.
Departing from these Pentecostal scholars the evangelical world of hermeneutics does have some encouraging words to say to Fee. Most standard works of hermeneutics today do assert that it is the authorâs meaning in the text that should be found, and that meanings found in the text that were not intended by the author are probably not Godâs meaning either. In this manner Feeâs struggle for authorial intent does seem like the more valid option.
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
Looking back at all the things considered in this discussion of the interpretation of the narrative passages of acts a few questions have been answered while many more were raised. One clear result is that Luke definitely did try to teach something of theological value with his second volume. Modern Scholarship almost unanimously asserts this, or even goes so far as to skip any discussion of the âifâ and proceeds straight with the âwhatâ of Lukeâs theology. On the other hand Luke was also clearly a historian by his daysâ standards following the Hellenistic patterns of how to write a history exceptionally well.
So, do the narrative portions contain theology? The answer seems to be yes and no at the same time. Luke, like any historian, selected certain texts, omitted others, and told events in a fashion that seemed right to him. So the theological meaning of those narrative texts seem to be more in the wider scope of the whole book than in the intricate details of the individual passage. What overall theme these passages teach hinges mostly on the question of Lukeâs purpose of writing the book which is a question that scholars have not found any real consensus on. If a purpose of writing becomes clearly established this establishment would shed a lot of light on the question of meaning for the narrative portions.
A far better understanding of Lukeâs theology is to look at the speeches which are clearly of a more didactic nature and are also clearly edited by Luke to a certain extend, so that Luke had the greatest freedom in promoting his thought and theology. Finding a âpatternâ in Lukeâs narrative sections and building a doctrine for church practice upon nothing but those sections still remains a questionable affair.As far as this research is concerned Luke did not intend to give the church a set of precedents how things âought to be doneâ until the coming of Christ but rather an account of what âhas been done.â
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Periodicals
Balch, David L. "The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History." Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (fall 1990): 5-19.
Barrett, David B. and Todd M. Johnson.âAnnual Statistical Table on Global Missions: 2003.â International Bulletin of Missionary Research 27 (January 2003): 24-5.
Fee, Gordan D. âResponse to Roger Stronstadâs âThe Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedentâ.â Paraclete 27 (summer 1993): 11-14.
Gasque, Ward W. "A Fruitful Field: Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles." Interpretation 42 (April 1988): 117-131.
House, Paul R. "Suffering and the Purpose of Acts." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (spring 1990): 317-30.
Noel, Bradley Truman. âGordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Thirty Years Later.â Pneuma 26 (spring 2004): 60-80.
Moscato, Mary A. âCurrent Theories Regarding the Audience of Luke Acts.â Currents in Theology and Mission 3 (December 1976): 355-360.
Stagg, Frank. âThe Purpose and Message of Acts.â Review & Expositor 44 (January 1947): 3-21.
Stronstad, Roger. âThe Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent.â Paraclete 27 (summer 1993): 1-10.
Winn, Albert C. "Elusive Mystery: The Purpose of Acts." Interpretation 13 (April 1959): 144-56.
Weatherly, Jon A. âThe Writersâ vs the Readersâ Purpose.â Stone Campbell Journal 5 (spring 2002): 93-113.
Books
Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: University Press, 2004.
Aune, David E. The New Testament and Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.
Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts: Revised Edition. The New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordan D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans, 1988.
Corley, Bruce. âA Student;s Primer for Exegesis.â in Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, ed. Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. LoveJoy, 2-20. Nashville: Broadman, 2002.
DeSilva, David Arthur. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry. Downers Grove, IL: InterVrasity Press, 2004.
Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping Godâs Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.
Ehrmann, Bart D. The New Testament: A Biblical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Elwell, Waltar A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Fee, Gordan D. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody, MA; Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
__________. A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989.
__________. âHermeneutics and Historical Precedent â" a Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.â in Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, ed. Russell P. Spittler, 118-33. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976.
Fee, Gordan D. and Douglas Stuart, Reading the Bible for all Its Worth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles. Translated by Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.
Hades, Moses. Helenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. Morningside Heights, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Holy Spirit Baptism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1972.
Hunter, Herold D. Spirit-Baptism: A Pentecostal Alternative. Lanham, MD: University Press, 1983.
Marshall, Howard I. Luke: Historian & Theologian. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
__________. âHow Does One Write on the Theology of Acts?â in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson, 3-16. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
MacArthur, John E. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.
Martin, Ralph P. and Peter H. Davids, ed. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997.
Peterson, David. âLukeâs Theological Enterprise: Integration and Intent.â in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson, 521-44. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Powell, Mark A. What Are They Saying about Acts? Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991.
Stott, John R.W. The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit. Downerâs Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972.
Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1977.
Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974.
__________. Luke and The Gnostics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Willimon, William H. Acts. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988.
Wyckoff, John W. âThe Baptism in the Holy Spirit.â In Systematic Theology, ed. Stanley M. Horton, 423-56. Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 1998.
Electronic Documents
McLean, Mark D. âToward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic.â Pneuma 6 (fall 1984): 35-56. Online, Available from http://www.firstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSFETCH?fetchtype =fullrecord:sessionid=fsapp6-58421-eswowa1v-5a4x14:entitypagenum=22 recno=24:resultset=5:format=FI:next=html/record.html:bad=error/badfetch.html:entitytoprecno=24:entitycurrecno=24:numrecs=1
Turner, Max. âInterpreting the Samaritans of Acts 8: the Waterloo of Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology?â Pneuma 23 (fall 2001): 265-286. Online, available from http://www.firstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSFETCH?fetchtype=fullrecord:sessionid=fsapp7-35121-ev1m21bz-7irq3o:entitypagenum=49recno=5:resultset=5:format=FI:next=html/ record.html:bad=error/badfetch.html:entitytoprecno=5:entitycurrecno=5:numrecs=1
