THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT CONTINUED

In its last number (14:2, Fall 1979) the Journal has continued the significant dialog within Wesleyan groups on the baptism of the Spirit. The following is offered in the interest of continuing discussion, and will offer comment on the articles by Colonel Agnew and Professors Grider and Wood[1] as they relate to the biblical data. (I shall not take up the matters of Professor Arnett’s article, because it is basically an historical study of the expression of Wesley.) It is not my intention to offer a protracted response point by point to all the evidence marshalled in favor of traditional views because I view their various treatments as flawed at the point of method and perception and apart from their learned scrutiny of data. What I am seeking here is a better understanding of the nature of the evidence.

It seems necessary, first, to begin by offering some clarification of the fundamental significance of the aorist tense and the very tenuous character and doubtful value of any treatment of the subsequency or the crisis nature of entire sanctification by appeal to this tense. Both Agnew (passim) and Grider (pp. 39, 42, 47) make considerable appeal to the aorist tense to establish their positions; there is, of course, much precedence for this within the holiness tradition.[2] Two points are often made: (1) that the aorist tense indicates punctiliar action (i.e., crisis, not process); and (2) that it indicates prior action. John 17:17—“sanctify (aorist) them in the truth”—underscores, it is said, the first point. So, too, with the aorist optative of I Thessalonians 5:23—“the very God of peace himself sanctify you wholly.” The second point, prior action, often comes to expression in the discussion of Acts 19:2—“Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?”, and Acts 11:17, “God gave to them the same gift he gave to us after we believed.” But almost all such discussion builds upon misunderstanding of the function of Greek tenses, and the aorist tense in particular.[3]

A. The Type of Action. It is commonly said that the present tense in Greek expresses continuous or repeated action while the aorist tense expresses punctiliar or simple action. So when the aorist tense is used (as in John 17:17 or 1 Thessalonians 5:24 ) the action is recognized as punctiliar. But such a view needs to be qualified, and perhaps in view of the qualification even revised. Both A. T. Robertson[4] and J. H. Moulton[5] speak of the Aktionsart of the aorist tense as punctiliar—but punctiliar rightly understood. It is not so much that the event itself is punctiliar, but rather that it is viewed by the writer as a whole without regard to its actual occurrence. It may refer to an action as a whole as though it were a point, or, to use Moulton’s[6] metaphor, “a line reduced to a point by perspective” (emphasis mine). Perhaps the most frequently cited example which most effectively illustrates this “line reduced to a point” feature of the aorist tense is the use of oikodomethe in John 2:20, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years.” Here is a multi-year construction project referred to as a whole event by the aorist tense. The grammarians refer to this as the constitute aorist and it is by far the most common use of the aorist tense. In fact, Robertson goes so far as to call it “the normal aorist.”[7] J. H. Moulton also speaks of the aorist as punctiliar in that it “regards action as a point,” and adds that it “looks at a whole action simply as having occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress”[8] (emphasis mine). All the grammars agree that when we speak of the aorist tense as punctiliar it is in terms of perspective, that is, how it is viewed or referred to apart from how the event itself may or may not have occurred.

Blass-Debrunner, when discussing the punctiliar aspect of the aorist tense, notes that “The action is conceived as a point with either the beginning or the end of the action emphasized . . . or the action is conceived as a whole irrespective of its duration”[9] (emphasis mine).

Similarly, E. D. Burton delineates the aorist tense in terms of perspective without reference to the actual nature of the event. “The constant characteristic of the Aorist tense in all its moods, including the participle, is that it represents the action denoted by it indefinitely, i.e., simply as an event, neither on the one hand picturing it in progress, nor on the other affirming the existence of its result.”[10] Burton approves of Brugmann’s[11] statement that most of the time the aorist is used in such a way that the act is viewed as complete and whole, undivided; the fact is simply stated without respect to duration[12] (emphasis mine).

Nigel Turner correctly notes that the tense stems only indicate “the point of view from which the action or state is regarded”[13] and not necessarily the nature of the action itself. He adds that the aorist tense “regards the action as a whole without respect to its duration; time is irrelevant to it.[14] All this is very much in accord with the meaning of the term “aorist” (aorist) from a, the alpha privative, and horidzein, “to define.” That is, it is the tense which, over against the present and perfect systems, does not define the nature of the action. The nature of the action may be defined by the words themselves (e.g., such verbs as “dwell” and “remain” are by definition linear) or by context, which in the end is always definitive.

A further word needs to be said regarding the aorist imperative. Both Robertson[15] and Moulton[16] draw attention to observations by Gildersleeve and Mozley that the aorist tense is the normal tense of prayer. Moulton writes, “Moreover, even in the language of prayer the imperative is at home, and that in its most urgent form, the aorist.”[17] Gildersleeve speaks of the almost exclusive use of the aorist in prayer as the “true term for instant prayer.”[18] What this means is that the aorist tense is the normal, the common tense in prayer because it has (to use Moulton’s expression) a tone of urgency. Thus, it may be pointed out that all the imperatives in Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer are aorists. The same is to be said of Luke’s version of the prayer except where he has changed the petition from “give us today” to read “give us daily,” a change which suggests the use of the present tense. The significance of this observation on the use of the aorist imperative in prayer may be noted in the petition, “Thy will be done,” which must by definition be continuous (linear) not crisis (punctiliar) even though the aorist tense is used. In the same way we note that all the imperatives of John 17 are aorists. Yet the petition “Keep them in your name” (vs. 11) must be continuous action. In short, the tense of these prayers (and this would include John 17:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23) is due not to how the action occurs but to the fact that the peculiar “tone” of the aorist is most suited for prayer.

In view of the widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of “punctiliar” when applied to the aorist tense and its frequent misappropriation in biblical interpretation, perhaps the suggestion might be made that we do away altogether with saying that the aorist tense denotes punctiliar action. The qualifications of the grammarians are frequently not heard, so wisdom indicates that we ought to refer to the aorist as the tense of “undefined action” rather than punctiliar. The “point perspective” can then be picked up when we speak of constative aorists, inceptive (ingressive) aorists, or culminative aorists.[19] To put it in a quite matter-of-fact manner, context and the choice of verbs rather than tense will commonly indicate the nature of an act or event. Sometimes nothing more than style or the avoidance of monotony may lie behind the choices of tenses. The Aktionsart of the aorist tense leaves it undefined.

B. The Time of Action. The other issue of the aorist tense, the one appealed to frequently by Grider, is the time of the action indicated. Both he[20] and Agnew[21] refer to the NASB’s rendering of Acts 11:17 to show that Cornelius and his extended family received the baptism of the Spirit after believing. Grider speaks of this translation as “somewhat less prejudicial” and says the NASB “translates it in the way aorist participles are normally to be rendered.”[22] Again we must draw attention to the true nature of the Greek tenses for a clearer understanding of just what tenses do and do not say. The tenses tell us basically the type of action (the Aktionsart) rather than the time of action. In the Greek present tense, for example, we have what is called “futuristic present”[23] as well as the “historic (past action) present.” In the case of the aorist tense it is true that time may be conveyed in the indicative, but only through the use of the augment, not by the choice of tense. When we get beyond the indicative mood, which alone employs the augment, time of action is very much a secondary factor if indeed it is present at all. Speaking of the aorist participle Robertson notes that “antecedent action” is the usual idiom, but adds that “simultaneous action” is also very common.[24] He reminds us that the time relationship is indicated by content and that the aorist participle does not in itself mean antecedent action.

Even when the aorist participle may be viewed as antecedent, it is usually not in the sense that Grider has in mind when he speaks of subsequent action.[25] Probably the most common use of the anarthrous aorist participle is what J. Harold Greenlee[26] and others call “coordinate circumstances that is, two separate actions closely related in a single event or, to say it another way, two components of a single action, but one act logically (and at times necessarily) preceding the other. In Mark 1:7, for example, the Baptist says that he is not worthy to “stoop down and loose” (kupas lusai) the thongs of the Messiah’s sandals. The question is not whether he is worthy after stooping down, since it is obvious that he is not worthy before stooping down or while stooping down; rather stooping down and loosing are two parts of a single act, one necessarily preceding the other but still a single act. Similarly in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) we do not understand the tenses to say “(sometime) after having gone into the world make disciples” but “go and make disciples.” To come closer to home on matters relating to the baptism of the Spirit the aorist participle epelthontos in Acts 1:8 does not suggest that sometime after the Spirit has come upon a believer he or she will receive power. On the contrary it is the very receiving of the Spirit that is the bestowal of power: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” Just so in Ephesians 1:13, “When you believed you were sealed.” The renderings of the RSV and NIV in Acts 11:17, therefore, are not “prejudicial” but represent a fair understanding of the nature of tenses, and particularly the aorist participle. Grider suggests that such interpretations are due to the interpreter’s basic theology intruding.[27] But does he consider that his own use of the aorist tense may be an example of “theology intruding”—especially when it builds upon a faulty understanding of a tense?

If we take aorist participles down his path, then Acts 15:8 could mean that “He [God] bore witness to them (sometime) after having given does (aorist participle) the Holy Spirit.” And the following verse would mean that God “made no distinction (sometime) after He cleansed (katharisas, aorist participle) their hearts.” Such use of the aorist is patently unacceptable, and the context tells us so. This coordinate expression of the participle is probably the most frequent use of the anarthrous participle. Examples can be found on every page of the Greek New Testament, but to give only one example, in Mark 10:1 , anastas erchetai—Jesus “arose and went” south to Judea. Two components—two sets—but one action or event, much like the student who “stood up and asked a question.” Any suggestion of “some time later” or “still later” is a serious abuse of the aorist tense—unless, of course, the context calls for it. But then it would not be the tense that is determinative. Both Agnew and Grider appeal to the tense rather than the context.

In brief, then, neither the type of action nor the time of action is defined by the aorist tense—except in the indicative mood where time is expressed yet even there it is due to the augment and not the tense stem—since the aorist tense leaves the action undefined This undefined feature is especially true in the participles and the imperative mood. On these matters context is everything. Of course since the aorist tense leaves the action undefined, it permits the possibility of punctiliar (crisis) action, but then again the appeal is to context and not to tense. I am, for example, quite certain that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the believer is a “crisis experience” not because in Acts 1:8 the tense is aorist, but because of the context and the very nature of the action as it is described there and elsewhere. Wesleyan writers—and all others!—will enhance their exegetical and theological work when they exercise much more caution regarding the aorist tense and reveal a careful understanding of it.

A second matter which reveals a serious flaw in the articles by Agnew, Grider and Wood has to do with exegetical and theological method. In their treatment of the material in Acts, for example, none of them raises the question as to the author’s intent. Why, for example, does Luke recount the experiences of the Samaritans, of Cornelius and his family, and some “disciples” in Ephesus who knew only John’s baptism? Instead, we find only a microscopic probing of details rather clearly intended to uncover what the writers (Grider and Wood) have determined must be there. There seems to be almost no recognition of the heilsgeschichtlich dimension that controls Luke’s narrative—that is, that Luke tells how others outside the immediate Jewish community entered the new age of the Spirit. These biblical narratives are often lacking in details; and that partly explains why they are at times so difficult to understand. But one certain point seems to me to be almost beyond doubt, namely, that Luke is telling of the spreading reception of the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit and how through that experience more and more people as well as more diverse types of people entered the fellowship of what Paul calls the body of Christ.

But beyond that, what kind of evidence exists in any of the narratives to suggest that any of these experiences were experiences of entire sanctification? Wood speaks of the cases of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Paul (Acts 9) and the Ephesians (Acts 19) as showing a two-step pattern and a repudiation of Dunn’s so-called “soteriological monism.”[28] However one might interpret the so-called first phase of these experiences (the Samaritans before the visit of Peter and John, Paul before the arrival of Ananias, the Ephesians before Paul’s coming), what does one find in the texts to suggest that the second phase was an experience of entire sanctification? And going farther back to the disciples’ experience in Acts 2, what is to be found in the narrative that even hints that on that day they were made perfect in love? Taken together all these accounts are to be seen heilsgeschichtlich as the extension of the “fullness of times” declared by Jesus (Mark 1:14; note the perfect tense of peplerotai) upon His own receiving of the Spirit and confirmed by the casting out of demons, which was the fundamental evidence of the arrival of the eschatological Kingdom (Matthew 12:28). During His ministry His disciples live and minister under the aegis of His (Jesus’) receipt of the Spirit. Upon His departure the direct possession of (by) the Spirit is promised and, on Pentecost, experienced. The extension of that experience is then told by way of Samaria , Caesarea, Damascus and Ephesus . It is, therefore, of no real consequence when Grider establishes by considerable effort that the disciples were Christians (he calls them “justified”) before Pentecost, since there is no effort within Wesleyan circles to deny it. It really means only that after the original followers were Christians they received the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit. Any identification of that with entire sanctification would have to come from the text. Grider’s evidence only becomes meaningful if one assumes a priori that a second experience is by definition the experience of entire sanctification. And he does assume it, since he offers no evidence from the text. The appeal to katharisas in Acts 15:9 is of no consequence for the reasons Dr. Deasley gives.[29] Even if, as Wood attempts to argue,[30] there is a time lapse between conversion and the Spirit’s baptism in the experience of the Samaritans, we still find nothing in the narrative to indicate that this experience of the Spirit is the occasion of their perfection in love. The same is to be said of the strange interpretation by Grider[31] of the experience of three thousand converts on Pentecost who believed, repented and were baptized (first work!) and after all three thousand were baptized—“it would have to be later, if three thousand were to be baptized in water”—then they receive the Spirit as promised. Does not this very forced effort to see two works of grace[32] reveal the poverty of an approach which forces a two-step paradigm on every text?[33] But even granting the best possible case, again we have to ask the question: where is the evidence within the narratives to indicate that any of the people involved were at the moment of these experiences sanctified wholly? It is surely of much greater—even decisive—significance to note that these are all descriptions of an initial receiving of the Spirit, of their coming to possess inwardly the living Spirit of God. One gets the impression from Grider and Wood that any experience of the Spirit that is subsequent to conversion, especially if it is in “Pentecostal language,” is the second work of grace. Such “soteriological dualism” deserves the same criticism Wood levels at Dunn’s monism. Wood, for example, devotes three full pages[34] to a treatment of the experiences of the Samaritans, Paul and the Ephesians to support the idea of a time lapse between conversion and the baptism of the Spirit, but does not devote even a single line to show from the biblical texts that these experiences were what the holiness movement calls the crisis of entire sanctification. Only the a priori assumption that the baptism of the Spirit is the experience of entire sanctification could justify such a conclusion.

It is the flagrant use of assumptions which so egregiously vitiates the points that Agnew, Grider and Wood attempt to establish. Certain equations within the Wesleyan movement have contributed uncritically to their application of a two-step paradigm. It is commonly assumed that the circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 30:61 is perfection in love. And both are equated with the baptism of the Spirit. Add to these the expression of the heart of stone becoming a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 26:26) and we have a set of expressions—circumcision of the heart, the heart of flesh, the baptism of the Spirit—which have been equated with the experience of entire sanctification. But surely it must be recognized on the basis of the biblical evidence that every believer has a heart of flesh, has experienced heart-circumcision as a member of the Kingdom and has received the Spirit as promised! To deny any of this is to negate the newness of life and the liveliness of being in Christ. The experience of Christian perfection is the perfecting of all that is given upon entrance into the community of the Beloved. If we were to put it in the form of an equation, we would set it out as follows: Christians = those of the New Covenant Community = the circumcised of heart = the Spirit-baptized ones = those who are born from above = those with a heart of flesh = the Church on earth. None of these expressions is to be denied to any believer. They are co-extensive, and such a proviso as “potentially but not actually” must apply to all of the terms if it is applied to any of them.

Another methodological flaw is to be noted in the appeal to language—and to terminology in particular. Again Wood, for example, speaks of the “relationship of Pentecostal language to entire sanctification.”[35] Why does he not speak of the relationship of Pentecost to entire sanctification? He would then be relating one experience to another experience. But why relate the language of Pentecost to entire sanctification? If one chooses to do so, and if it clarifies an issue, one can relate the language of anything, e.g., of creation or of the atonement, to entire sanctification. (Wood does in fact refer to ekkechutai as Pentecostal language, whereas it is as much associated with atonement as with any single idea. See, among others, Matthew 26:28; Exodus 29:12.) The appeal to language is an appeal to descriptive form, and I for one have no problems with employing any language as long as it clarifies and as long as it does not involve misinterpretation. But one has to ask if the appeal to the language of Pentecost is not a retreat from the position that the experience of Pentecost is the experience of sanctification? Elsewhere it is said that Pentecost is related to, associated with, or linked with entire sanctification, but again this seems, methodologically, to be a relate from the equation that supposedly rests at the center of the holiness movement, viz., that the experience of Pentecost is the experience of entire sanctification. We can be quite certain that the Pentecostal gift is related to entire sanctification, because that Gift is integral to the whole work of sanctification.

May I offer here a brief word on the effect of not giving attention to the context of words and the way they are used by writers. Grider refers to my description of conversion as a “truly sanctifying experience” and comments that this appears as though “the converted person is already sanctified in a pretty complete sense” (p. 48). He then adds, “His word ‘truly’ is surely similar to ‘entire’ or ‘full’ or ‘wholly’ which holiness people have often used of the second work of grace” (p. 48f). Grider does not perceive how I use the word, but takes it as he would use it. In his essay, How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler reminds us repeatedly that we must listen to how a writer is using a term and what he is trying to convey. What am I conveying by my description of conversion as a “truly sanctifying experience”? The same thing Wesley expressed in his sermon, “On Sin in Believers,” when he says of the Corinthians that “. . . their hearts were truly (emphasis mine), yet not entirely, renewed” (Sugden, II, p. 371). In the same sermon Wesley adds, “We allow that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious. He is born again. . . . He is a child of God. . . . He is ‘created anew in Christ Jesus’: he is washed, he is sanctified. His heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed ‘from the corruption that is in the world.’” (p. 365f) That is all that I meant by my expression, and I meant all of it! But even this is yet a long way from entire sanctification.

We must all keep in mind our basic goals in working through Scripture on the matter of Wesleyan doctrine. We are seeking to show that Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection is biblical in substance, though we all need to reserve the right to revise, when required by Scripture, his perspective in any number of directions. To be able to make it marketable, we must be able to show that it is biblical. Attempts to define the baptism of the Spirit in ways not in accord with the tradition must be viewed from this angle: they are attempts to set Scripture in perspective, to set aside what is exegetically untenable in order that we—the holiness tradition—might rest our case and proclaim the good news on grounds that will bear the weight.

[1] Milton S. Agnew, “Baptized With the Spirit,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, 14:2 (Fall 1979), pp. 7–14); J. Kenneth Grider, “Spirit-Baptism the Means of Entire Sanctification,” ibid., pp. 31–50; Laurence M. Wood, “Exegetical Theological Reflections on the Baptism With the Holy Spirit,” ibid., pp. 51–63. In this discussion, citations of these writers’ comments will be footnoted simply by page number.

[2] E.g., Daniel Steele, Mile-Stone Papers; Doctrinal, Ethical and Experimental on Christian Progress (New York: Eaton, 1878), Chapter Five, “The Tense Readings of the Greek New Testament” is built almost entirely on misunderstanding. J. H. Greenlee, “The Greek New Testament and the Message of Holiness” in Further Insights into Holiness, ed. Kenneth Geiger (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1963), pp. 73–84, correctly notes “The aorist tense is not concerned with the length of time which is required for an action to occur.” But he errs in speaking of aorist tense as conceiving the action as completed (emphasis his). This can only be said of the indicative mood. This misconception of the aorist as indicating action either completed or to be completed—and therefore an “event”—vitiates his discussion. So, for example on the prayer of Ephesians 3:14 –21 he notes the aorist tense of all the verbs and adds, “I cannot avoid the conclusion that the apostle here is praying that an event may take place in the hearts of Christians, not mere continued progress” (p. 85). “Mere continued progress” is supposedly pejorative; and logically it is not the alternative to “event.” A better explanation of the verb tenses in this prayer is to be found in that portion of this paper which cites footnotes 17 and 18.

[3] “The translators of our English version have failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force of the tenses than from any other cause,” F. W. Farrar, quoted in A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 821. Robertgon’s comments (pp. 821–830) are important.

[4] Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N.T., p. 829.

[5] J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I, Prolegomena, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908), p. 109.

[6] Ibid., cf. C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951), p. 11, who approves this metaphor. Note the similar expression “action focused on a point” by Delbruck and Brugmann, Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T., p. 832.

[7] Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N.T., p. 832.

[8] Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 109.

[9] Friedrich-Wilhelm Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 166.

[10] E. D. Burton , Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1898), p. 16.

[11] Karl Brugmann, Griechische Grammatzk, 2nd ed., (Munchen: Beck, 1890), p. 159.

[12] For similar references in Burton to the aorist tense see Moods and Tenses, pp. 17, 19, 60.

[13] Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III. Syntax, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 59.

[14] Ibid. Elsewhere in the same volume Turner confuses the issue by some of his comments which come close to contradicting his own perceptions.

[15] Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N. T., p. 947f.

[16] Moulton, Grammar of N. T. Greek, 1:173.

[17] Ibid.

[18] B. L. Gildersleeve, ed., The Apologies of Justin Martyr, (New York: Harper, 1877), p. 137.

[19] Cf., Frank Stagg, “The Abused Aorist,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 91:2 (1972), pp. 222–31. The author expresses similar concerns in greater detail.

[20] pp. 39.

[21] p. 9.

[22] Ibid., cf. also on p. 42, “On the basis of what is customary with an aorist participle. . .” On p. 41f. Grider again appeals to the NASB of Ephesians 1:13 in the same way.

[23] As we do also in English: “The king is coming”

[24] Robertson, Grammar, p. 860.

[25] Note his interpretation (p. 42) of Ephesians 1:13 that “still later” after believing and being justified they were sealed with the Spirit.

[26] J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1963), p. 67.

[27] p. 39.

[28] p. 55.

[29] Alex R. G. Deasley, “Entire Sanctification and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit: Perspectives on the Biblical View of the Relationship,” in Wesleyan Theological Journal, 14:1 (Spring 1979), pp. 39, 44.

[30] p. 55.

[31] p. 44.

[32] Cf., Wood, p. 55, who more judiciously acknowledges that the baptism of the Spirit on this occasion occurred at conversion.

[33] Cf. Prof. Deasley’s comment (WTJ, 14:1, p. 30) regarding efforts to posit an earlier repentance and faith as Peter was beginning to preach to Cornelius.

[34] pp. 56–58.

[35] p. 51.

THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT—CONTINUED