View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Asbury Theological Seminary

The Significance
of Pentecost
by Howard Marshall

For the Christian "Pentecost" is a shorthand way of referring to the

initialoutpouring of the Spirit on the disciples of Jesus described in
Acts 2, although of course the events of that historic day included a
public address by Peter and the conversion and baptism of a substantial
number of his hearers. The event is scarcely mentioned elsewhere in the
New Testament. The narrative in Acts interprets it as the fulfillment
of the prophecy of the baptism with the Spirit made by John the Bap
tist (Acts l:4f.), and there is one clear reference back to it in Peter's ac

count of the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 11: 15-17; cf. 10:47). Other
wise there is no specific reference to it elsewhere in the New Testa
ment, and there is an account of what appears to be a different be
stowal of the Spirit by Jesus on ten of His disciples in John 20:22.
Luke's narrative is filled with interpretation, and the lack
problems of
of comparative material makes assessment of its historicity and sig
nificance all the more difficuh. What we may be able to discuss with
^
some hope of success is Luke's own understanding of the event, since
we have the rest of his narrative in the Gospel and Acts as a context to

aid us in discovering his interpretation.

The Jewish festival known in the New Testament as Pentecost^ is

the same as the Feast of Weeks (Shabuoth) in the Old Testament. It is
called the feast of harvest in Exodus 23: 16; cf. 34:22. It celebrated the
offering of the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, and was the second of
the three great festivals of the Jewish agricultural According to year."^
Deuteronomy 16:9-12 it was celebrated seven weeks after the beginning
of the harvest with a free will offering to God. More detailed legislation

A lecture delivered at Western Evangelical Seminary, Portland, Oregon,

and also as meeting of the Scottish
the Presidential address at the
Church Theology Society held in January, 1974, at Crieff Howard Mar
shall, Esquire, is Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Kings College,
the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).
17
 The Asbury Seminarian

is given in Leviticus 23:15-21

(cf. Num. 28:26-31), where the date is
established by counting 50 days (that is, seven weeks plus a day) froni
the day when the first fruits of the harvest was offered to the priest.

Although this date may originally have been a movable one, dependent
on the vagaries of the harvest, it came to be a fixed one, established
by
its relation to the Feast of the Passover.^ The festival thus fell in the
third month of the year. In the Old Testament legislation it lasted one
day, which was regarded as a sabbath or holiday, and various special
sacrifices were prescribed to be offered on it. Elsewhere in the Old
Testament, the feast of weeks is mentioned only in the list of regular
yearly feasts celebrated in the Solomonic temple, II Chronicles 8: 13. In
the New Testament there is reference to the Jewish festival in Acts
20:16 and I Corinthians 16:8, apparently as a means of indicating a
date, just as a modern Enghshman might refer to "Whit-Monday"
without thinking of its
theological significance.
An important question is whether the festival had acquired any
further significance in New Testament times beyond being a festival
of harvest. We have clear evidence that in certain circles the festival was

associated with the renewal of the covenant made by God with Israel.
An allusion to this festival may perhaps be detected in II Chronicles
15:10-12 where a renewal of the covenant took place under Asa in the
third month of the fifteenth year of his reign. It is also possible that
the dating of the events at Sinai on the third new moon after the de

parture from Egypt (Ex. 19:1) may have been regarded as suggesting
a link with Pentecost. The key passage, however, is Jubilees 6, in which

God makes a covenant with Noah, and his descendants are commanded
to keep the Feast of Weeks annually to renew the covenant. The feast
was kept by the patriarchs, and then forgotten until it was renewed by

God on the mountain, that is, at Sinai (Jub. 6:19). No date is given in
the Qumran scrolls so far published for their renewal of the covenant
which apparently took place annually (I QS 1:8-2:18), but if the sect
followed the calendar of Jubilees, they may well have done so in the
^
third month, and hence probably at the Feast of Weeks.
How far this understanding of the feast was general in Judaism it is
hard to say. In the rabbinic material, which is later in date, Pentecost is

regarded as the day when the law was given at Sinai, rather than as a
memorial of the covenant with Noah; the earliest datable evidence is a
Statement by R. Jose ben Chalaphta, c. 150 A.D., and from about the
same time Exodus 19 was the appointed lesson to be read on the feast
day.^ The fact that Philo and Josephus make no mention of this may
18
The Significance of Pentecost

be significant,
and suggests that the sectarian view of Pentecost had not
yet become the view of official Judaism. The most that we can say
with certainty is that the association of Pentecost with the renewal of
the covenant and perhaps with the giving of the law was taking place in
some Jewish circles by New Testament times.

An associated question which should be raised at this point is

whether the law was regarded as being given out at Sinai in the languages
of the nations of the world. There is rabbinic evidence that when the law
was promulgated this took place in the
languages of the 70 na
tions of the world: "Each word which proceeded from the mouth of
the Almighty divided into seventy tongues," said R. Jochanan (Shab,
88b). This statement comes from the third century, but there is a

similar rabbinic statement from the second century (R, Ishmael's

school) which may permit an earlier dating of the idea,^ Reference
has also been made to Philo (Decal. 32-39), but Philo refers simply
to the law being givenfor or to all the nations, and makes no reference
either to its being promulgated in different languages or to this taking
place on the day of Pentecost.

II.

The immediate Lucan context for the events of Pentecost is pro

vided by the words of the risen Jesus to the disciples, Luke has divided
the account of this conversation into two parts, one of whichprovides
the conclusion to the Gospel, which thus ends on a forward-looking
note, and the other at the beginning of Acts, which correspondingly
commences with a clear link with the past. So in Luke 24:49 after the

disciples have been commanded to preach repentance and forgiveness

to all the nations, and have been appointed witnesses, they are told,
"Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the
city, until you are clothed with power from on high." There is a similar
statement in Acts 1:4, where we are told that Jesus commanded the

disciples not to depart from Jerusalem, "but to wait for the promise of
the Father." At this point Luke makes Jesus break into direct speech
-

"The promise of the Father, which," He said, "you heard from me, for
John baptized with water but before many days you shall be baptized
with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1 :4f,). A further statement adds that the
disciples will receive power when the Spirit comes upon them, and will
be witnesses to Jesus to the ends of the earth (Acts 1 :8), The historical
relationship envisaged by Luke between the statements of Jesus in these
two scenes is not clear. At first sight the phrase in Acts, "which you
19
 The Asbury Seminarian

heard from me," appears to be a reference to the statement in Luke

24:49, but the continuation in direct speech suggests rather that what
we have is a
repetition of that statement in somewhat different word
ing; in this case the impHcation is that the
promise "which you heard
from me" refers to some statement made earHer by Jesus in His
earthly
ministry. If so, what statement of Jesus is meant? One possibility is
that the following saying about John the Baptist is a quotation of an
earlier statement of Jesus not reported in the Gospel; some scholars
would claim in fact that Luke has mistakenly attributed to Jesus the
saying of John found in Luke 3:16,^ but this is quite improbable. When
Peter quotes this same saying as a
saying of Jesus in Acts 1 1:16, he is
undoubtedly referring back to the present occasion and not to some
earlier occasion in Jesus' ministry. If we are to look in the Gospels for
some other saying that
be referred to here, our attention should
might
be turned to Luke 12:12 with its promise that "the Holy Spirit will
teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." The parallel in
Matthew 10:20 is closer since it refers to the "Spirit of your Father."
Nor should weignore the promise of the Paraclete in John 14-16.^^
In both Luke 24 and Acts 1 the word "promise" is used of the Spir
,

it. This usage is paralleled in early church phraseology in which we have

mention of the promise of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14) or the promised Holy

Spirit (Eph. 1:13). The phrase recurs in Peter's sermon in Acts 2:33,
and the indication is that some Old Testament prophecy is in mind. We

may locate this in Joel 2:28-32 or perhaps in Isaiah 32:15, a passage

which refers to the Spirit's being poured upon men from on high and
gives a verbal link with Luke 24:49,
The Pentecost event is, then, identified with the baptism of the Spirit

promised by John the Baptist. There is no reference in the present ver

sion of the saying to "fire" (Lk. 3:16). J. D. G. Dunn suggests that this
omission is to be explained by the fact that on the basis of Luke 12:39f,
Jesus has already undergone a baptism of fire on the cross vicariously
for His disciples so that when they are baptized by the Spirit it is no
longer a baptism with fire.^^ This exegesis is improbable, since the
motif of fire is clearly present in the actual story of Pentecost. Rather,
the term "fire" is omitted at this point because it is metaphorical, and
the saying concentrates on the reality. The fire has perhaps been re

placed by the reference to the power (Acts 1 :8) which is to result from
the baptism of the Spirit. This link between the Spirit and power is a

very common one in the New Testament (cf. Acts 6:8; 10:38; Rom.
15:13, 19; Eph. 3: 16; II Tim. 1:7).
20
 The Significance of Pentecost

Elsewhere I have tried to show that when the term

"baptism" is ap
plied metaphorically to the
Spirit, the picture is not that of immersion
in a Hquid, but rather of being
deluged or sprinkled with a liquid that is
poured out from above. This interpretation is supported by the use
of the verb "to pour out" in Acts 2:17f. and
10:45, and perhaps also
by the idea of "being clothed" with power in Luke 24:49. But this motif
of baptism remains on the sub-personal level, and it needs to be cor
rected by the concepts of the
Spirit coming upon a person (Acts 1:8;
cf. Acts 10:44; 11:15) and taking control of him or
filling him.
It follows that the experience of Jesus at the Jordan is the
pattern
for Christian reception of the Spirit, although it should be noted that
the experience of Jesus is not called a baptism with the Spirit; each of
the Gospels states simply that after Jesus had been baptized with water
the Spirit descended upon Him (Lk. 3:21f.; Mt. 3:16; Mk. 1:90; the
reason for this is probably that the
experience of Jesus was regarded as
unique and hence different from that of the disciples.
Finally, it should be noted that the disciples, like Jesus, wait for
the experience of the Spirit in an attitude of prayer, although we are
not told what was the content of their prayer. Dupont draws attention
to their unanimity, comparing the same motif (homothumadon, Acts

1:14) in Exodus 19:8. Their attitude is one of joy, worship and

praise while they wait upon God to act.

III.

It isagainst this background of the Jewish festival and the dis

ciples' expectation that we now consider the main points in the event
itself.
(1) The initial outpouring of the Spirit was upon the whole group
of disciples, reckoned in Acts 1:15 as 120 in number. The allusion in
Acts 2:1 is quite vague, and it could be taken to refer simply to the
eleven and Matthias, who have been at the center of attention in the
previous chapter, or to the eleven with the women and brothers (1 : 14);
in Acts 2:14 the emphasis is again on Peter and the rest of the eleven.
But various considerations suggest that a larger group than the apostles
is meant. For if the Spirit was promised to all the converts of Peter's
sermon in 2:4 Iff., it isunlikely that the
existing disciples would have
been excluded from an earlier point. Moreover, although
the gift at
the promise of Jesus is addressed to the eleven in Acts l:lff., it can
hardly have excluded their companions, who appear somewhat belatedly
in Acts 1:14. Finally, the use of epi to auto in Acts 2:1, when seen in

21
 The Asbury Seminarian

the light of the use in Acts 1:15, implies that a larger group than twelve
apostles is indicated. The difficulty in interpretation is probably to be
explained by Luke's desire to stress the pre-eminent place of the apos
tles over against the rest of the disciples; and it may be observed in
passing that this feature strongly suggests that Luke is using a source
which he is editing to bring out certain features that he considered im
portant, rather than that he was creating a narrative free from any re
^
straint imposed by the use of sources.^
(2) The outpouring of the place not in the temple
Spirit took
(Lk. 24:53), but in the upper room (Acts 1:13). The word "house,"
which is used in Acts 2:2, means the temple as the dweUing place of
God (Acts 7:47) only when there are clear indications in the context;^^
Luke does not mention the temple until Acts 2:46 in a different con

text. To be sure, on this view we have to assume that at some point

the disciples leave the house to meet the crowd, but this is not too

great a difficulty.

(3) The event was a purely spiritual baptism. There is no mention

of any baptism with water at this point. For the event stands in delib
erate contrast with Johannine water baptism. It is true that the con

verts later in the day receive Christian water baptism as a preliminary

to the gift of the Spirit, but the first outpouring was on disciples who

already believed in Jesus. It may be that some of them had been bap
tized by John, and that others had received baptism from the disciples
of Jesus in the early days of His mission, as John 1:35; 3:22; 4: If., im-

ply. While we should not use Johannine statements arbitrarily to

explicate Lucan theology, it should be remembered that there was some

community of traditions between Luke and John, and that Luke thinks
of the apostles in particular as having been with Jesus right from the be
ginning, namely "from the baptism of John" (Acts 1:22). It is, there
fore, possible that Luke thinks of the disciples as having already re
ceived Johannine baptism, and hence being in no need of Christian bap
tism by water, but it may be safer to say that he simply does not raise
the question in any way.

(4) The coming of the Spirit was attested by two outward signs.
Elsewhere the Spirit is likened to wind (Jn. 3:5), and the word itself
(pneuma) means "wind." So it is not surprising that His coming was ac
companied by a noise Hke that of wind. The house was filled with it,
a curious description of a noise which makes it into something almost

palpable. The fact that the noise came from heaven means that it came
from God and was unearthly. There is no suggestion that it was an in-

22
The Significance of Pentecost

telligible noise to anybody present. Wind can be an accompaniment of

a theophany (II Sam. 22:16; Job 37:10; Ezek.
13:13), but it does not
appear in the Sinai narrative it is associated in the present passage
with the Spirit rather than with Old Testament theophanies.
Fire also is common in theophanies, and is an integral element in the
Sinai imagery (Ex. 19:18).^^ But the mention of it here is basically
due to its association with the Spirit. Often it signifies cleansing and
purification, but this element is not stressed here, and the thought is
perhaps rather of power. The narrative describes a flame that divided in
to several tongues, so that each tongue rested upon one of the persons
present; one experience from one source was common to all the par
ticipants. As with the wind, the appearance is merely like that of the
thing described. Luke is attempting to put into words something that is
ineffable and is merely an outward accompaniment of a spiritual reality.
(5) The disciples were filled with the Spirit. Luke uses three dif
ferent words for filUng. The adjective pleres is used to describe the state
of a person who is full of the Spirit, and it describes Jesus after His bap
tism (Lk. 4:1), the seven deacons (especially Stephen, Acts 6:3, 5;

7:55) and Barnabas (Acts 1 1 :24). Thus it refers to a permanent endow

ment that becomes part of a person's character. Closely associated with
the adjective is the verb pleroo which is used only once in Acts with
reference to the Spirit: in 13:52 it is used in the imperfect to describe
the way in which the converts in Pisidian Antioch were being filled
with joy and the Holy Spirit; the tense suggests a continuing process.
We may compare Ephesians 5:18 where the readers are exhorted not
to be drunk with wine but to go on being filled with the Spirit. Finally,
there is the verb pimplemi, which is a characteristic word in Luke-Acts.
It can be used of the initial endowment of a person who is to serve God,
such as John the Baptist (Lk. 1:15) and Paul (Acts 9:17). But it is
especially used where a person is inspired by the Spirit before making
a statement under prophetic inspiration or preaching a sermon (Lk,

1:41, 67; Acts 4:8, 31; 13:9). The word can be used in this way to de
scribe the experience of someone who is already filled with or full of
the Spirit and now receives a further filling. The implication is that our
western logical concept that something which is full cannot be filled

any further is misleading if applied to the Spirit.

One filling is not in
^
compatible with another.
Now the verb used in Acts 2:4 is pimplemi. The choice of the verb is

dictated by the fact that this is Luke's normal verb for the process, but
at the same time probably by the fact that the filling leads directly to

23
 The Asbury Seminarian

prophetic utterance under the inspiration of the Spirit. The filHng of

the Spirit here could, therefore, be understood simply as a momentary,

special inspiration to enable the disciples to speak in tongues. But it

seems unlikely that this is the case, and that the verb refers at the same

time to the reception of a permanent endowment.

For, first, as we have already noted, the verb can have this sense

(Acts 9:17).
Second, Peter regards the gift of the Spirit to Comehus, on the basis
of which he becomes member of the church, as being the same in es
a

sence as the gift at Pentecost. In fact, the Cornelius episode demon

strates the essential equivalence of all the various terms used to de
scribe the gift of the Spirit .^^ It is a baptism (Acts 1 1 : 16; cf. 1 :5). The
Spirit falls on Cornelius (Acts 10:44; 11:15), just as He comes upon
the disciples (Acts 1:8), and is poured out in the same way (Acts 2: 17f.;

10:45). Cornelius receives the Spirit (Acts 10:47) in the same way as
the converts at Pentecost (Acts 2:38). It is true that Cornelius is not
said to be filled with the Spirit, but this is probably because the thought
of filling is closely linked with that of Christian witness and mission,
and also because the thrust of the Cornelius story lies in the sovereign
act of God in pouring out the Spirit rather than in the human reception
of the gift.
Third, it would not make sense if the converts on the day of Pente
cost received a permanent gift which had not been received by the

apostles. A possible counter-argument is that the apostles had received

an earlier, permanent endowment with the Spirit, but this was not in

fact the case. For the only possible identifiable situation in which this
could have happened is the incident in John 20:22. There is, however,
no proof that Luke knew of this incident, despite his familiarity with

Johannine traditions; even if he did know of it, he would seem to have

deHberately omitted it in favor of the Pentecost story; but he could not

have done so, if he thought that both incidents were theologically neces
sary. He would not have left the basic endowment of the Spirit to his
readers' imagination. In any case, the incident in John 20 stiU leaves
Thomas, never mind Matthias, without the gift of the Spirit. Further,
Luke regards the gift of the Spirit to new converts as being the same as
the gift to the apostles. This is demonstrated by the parallelism in ter
minology that has already been observed between the Pentecostal out
pouring and the gift to Cornelius, and between Cornelius and the Pente
cost converts, both of whom "received" the Spirit. Any
attempt at
subtle differentiation between the terms used is doomed to failure.

24
The Significance of Pentecost

Our conclusion is that Luke refers to the Pentecost

experience of the
disciples fiUing
as a with the
Spirit, and that this the same as the
means

baptism of the Spirit, the gift of the Spirit, and so on. The choice of
the particular term "filling" in this context rather than any of its
syn
onyms is with a view to the prophefic inspiration which accompanied
the gift on this particular occasion.
(6) As a result of the filling with the Spirit the disciples speak in
"other" tongues, that is, tongues or languages other than their own. The
verb apophtheggomai is used both of the activity of speaking in tongues
and also in 2:14 of the sermon of Peter, and it indicates
solemn,
a

weighty or oracular utterance. It can be used of speaking soberly in

contrast to speaking madly (Acts 26:25). But it can also be used of ec
static utterance by soothsayers and others under divine inspiration.^'*
This idea is probably present here, only the idea is not of wild talk so
much as of speech inspired by the Spirit.
The story makes it certain that intelligible human languages are
meant, not the unintelligible tongues such as are often found in modern
glossolalia or such as are usually thought to have been spoken in
Corinth. It is to be assumed that the several speakers each spoke one
particular language, although it is possible that they each spoke several
different languages in succession.

(7) According to 2:5 the audience consisted of Jews.^^ They

were not necessarily all permanent residents in Jerusalem, despite the

use of katoikeo, which normally carries this meaning, for the same verb

is used in 2:9 of one section of this people and describes them as re

siding in Mesopotamia. It has been objected that if they were largely

temporary pilgrims, then the Christian church newly formed in Jeru
size after they had all
salem would
very quickly have shrunk to a small
returned home. But Luke says nothing about the proportions of visi
tors and residents. They included proselytes, 2:11, but the stress is on
their being Jews. The presence of Gentiles is not implied, and if the
description of Pentecost is meant to foreshadow the worldwide expan
sion of the church, it is an expansion among Jews scattered throughout
the world that is used to provide the picture. The presence of Gentiles
at this stage in Luke's account would have been anachronistic, and here
it is thespread among Jews and proselytes, which had to be used to
symbolize the universal spread of the Gospel.
(8) The speaking in tongues was followed by a sermon spoken by
Peter, whose opening words act as a commentary on the preceding
event. The disciples are not drunk. On the contrary, the event fulfills

25
 The Asbury Seminarian

prophecy. The words of Joel 2:28-32 are cited with one or two altera
tions to the text which help to bring out the significance more fully.
First, Joel is regarded as describing what will happen "in the last days,"
a phrase added to the text. The
gift of the Spirit is thus a token that the
last days foretold by the prophets have arrived. The passage from Joel
does in fact go on to speak of the coming of the day of the Lord and
describes various events which precede it, so that Luke's pesher inter
pretation is justified: the period preceding the day of the Lord has ar
rived.

Second, the Holy Spirit is poured out by God, but this idea is clari
fied in verse 33. It is the exalted Jesus who receives the Spirit from
God and pours it out upon men.

Third, the passage in Joel emphasizes that the Holy Spirit will be
poured out on "everybody," and not confined to a particular group of
people such as the prophets. Male and female, young and old will all be
the servants of God and will share in the thought which is not
gift -

developed here, but which was seen to be fulfilled in the early church.
Fourth, the outpouring of the Spirit is associated with the gift of
prophecy, and also with the seeing of dreams and visions through which
God speaks to men. The repetition of "and they shall prophesy" in
verse 19 underlines the importance of this concept. For Luke, prophecy

includes the power to foretell the future (Acts 2:30; ll:27f) and the
gift of exhortation (Acts 15:32). There seems no reason why it should
not be extended to include declaring the mighty acts of God (Acts 2:11;
cf. 10:46). In Acts 19:6 the gift of tongues and prophecy are closely
linked, but it is not clear whether they are identified. It is true that Paul
distinguishes the two activities. Luke may be simply associating two
very similar spiritual phenomena, and finding the best Old Testament
precedent that he can for speaking in tongues, or possibly he regards
the gift of tongues as a "sign" and Peter's preaching as "prophecy." What
is important is that the activity of speaking in tongues is regarded as a

proclamation of the mighty acts of God and is closely related to proph

ecy. In other words, the gift of tongues is used here to proclaim the
Gospel, although it needs to be "interpreted" by the sermon of Peter;
in itself it is inadequate.
Fifth, it would appear that the speaking in tongues is to be regarded
as a "sign." Peter's quotation alters Joel's "portents in the heavens and

on the earth" to "portents in heaven above and signs on earth beneath.''

The strange natural phenomena in the following list fall into the cate

gory of portents, and these are probably regarded as the still future

26
The Significance of Pentecost

precursors of the day of the Lord (unless Lk. 23:44f. is regarded as ful
filling the The signs are not Hsted, but no doubt include the
prophecy).
speaking in tongues which is regarded as a divinely inspired accompani
ment to the preaching of the Gospel.

Sixth, the prophecy speaks of the possibility of salvation for all who
call on the name of the Lord. Accordingly, the sermon develops into an
exposition of the identity of the Lord with Jesus and an appeal to men
to be saved. Those who respond to this appeal are promised that on be

ing baptized they will receive forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit.
Luke describes how they were baptized, but does not say anything
further about their reception of the promised benefits. It is to be as
sumed that what Peter promised to the converts actually happened; it
would be very wrong use of the argumentum e silentio to claim that
a

it did not. What we would Uke to know is whether the new converts re
ceived the Spirit "with signs following," but we are simply not told. Per
haps the correct conclusion to draw is that it did not matter.

IV.

So far we have been

engaged in the fashionable pursuit of redaction
criticism, that is, examining the passage for what it tells us about the
purpose of Luke in recording it. But redaction criticism cannot be
carried out in isolation from source and tradition criticism, and such

study must be undertaken before we venture to draw any conclusions.

It is time to ask how this narrative came into being and how it is related
to other teaching about the Spirit in the New Testament.
Various scholars have detected internal inconsistencies and improb
abilities in Luke's account which suggest that he used more than one
source and/or that he has considerably modified his source material. We

may Hst these as follows:

(1) The number of people involved is immense. The
baptism by im
mersion of 3,000 people cannot have taken place in a single day. Nor
could 3,000 people gather together without the Romans intervening to
hear Peter speaking in
suppress a possible riot. Nor could 3,000 people
the open air.
at least largely Jewish, and nearly everybody
(2) The audience was

would have understood Aramaic Greek: what, then, was the need for
or

the language miracle? Moreover, other accounts of the phenomenon of

such as
tongues appear to refer to speaking in unintelligible languages,
are found in modern glossolalia. Now the apostles were accused of
drunkenness, which is said to be an improbable comment on speaking
27
 The Asbury Seminarian

in real languages, but makes sense if the apostles talked what seemed to
be gibberish. Hence it has been argued either that two different ac
counts, one depicting glossolalia and the other speaking in foreign lan
guages, have been confused by Luke, or that he has wrongly inter
preted an original account of glossolalia in terms of speaking in foreign
languages (the drunkenness motif being a relic of the original story).
(3) It is unlikely that Peter's speech would have been recorded at
the time, and along with the other speeches in Acts it falls under the
suspicion of being a Lucan composition.
(4) Finally, there is no mention of the Pentecost event outside
Acts, and (5) the suspicion arises that the whole thing is a Lucan inven
tion, making use of various current motifs.
These points vary in substance and importance:
(1) A basic difficulty lies in the size of the crowd: could 3,000
people have met together like this? The simplest solution may be that
the number has been exaggerated, but it is not wholly impossible. If
we are going to be dubious about the baptism of 3,000 people, it may

be remarked that Peter's sermon began at 9:00 a.m., and this would
allow plenty of time for baptisms, especially if there were 120 Chris
tians available to help in the task. It is very doubtful whether early
Christian baptism was invariably by immersion; the case for affusiori,
which could be carried out more expeditiously, is a strong one.
Given the right conditions, 3,000 people can hear a single speaker with
out a public address system. And Pilate was not necessarily in Jeru

salem to halt the proceedings; he did not normally stay there.

(2) Although the audience was Jewish, the various groups from
the Diaspora would still have had their own languages, and the declara
tion of the Gospel would come to them more significantly in their own

tongues. We should not rule psychological explanations of New Testa

ment phenomena completely out of court, and in this case we may note
how ethnic groups may keep up their religious devotions in their own

language long after they have become assimilated both linguistically

and culturally to a larger group. Many immigrant groups in the United
States continued to hold church services in Swedish, German and other

languages until
quite recently. The opposite may also be true; Jews, who
may have worshiped in Hebrew in their synagogues, may have been all
the more impressed to hear the gospel in the vernacular languages which
they used every day.
The accusation of drunkenness would have been made by anyone
who did not understand the languages other than his own which were

28
The Significance of Pentecost

being spoken, and also by anyone who wanted to deride the bold
speaking of the disciples and the enthusiasm and reUgious fervor which
they showed. There is no basis for tracing two sources or an edited nar

rative here.

It is most difficult to get reliable criteria and evidence for evaluation

of the phenomenon of tongues. It has been argued that the phenomena
described in I Corinthians 12, 14, included speaking in known lan-
guages. If this case is accepted, the major contextual argument
against the historicity of Acts 2 at once disappears. To be sure, this
view goes against the usual exegesis of I Corinthians 12, 14, and it de
mands that the gift of tongues be regarded as something miraculous;
it will be unwelcome to scholars who feel that wherever possible a

natural explanation should be preferred to a miraculous one. This fact

no doubt explains the popularity of the view that ecstatic
speaking in
uninteUigible tongues is meant, since this is a phenomenon that can be
produced by ordinary, natural means,^^ But exegesis of the text is
primary, and there is a good case that Paul understood the tongues
spoken at Corinth to be, or to include, foreign languages. There are
some cases of this phenomenon claimed by modern PentecostaUsts,

although it must be freely admitted that modern glossolalia is usually

conducted in unintelligible tongues,'^^ It is of course possible that both
types of glossolalia were found in the ancient church, just as both have
been claimed to happen in the modern Pentecostal movement,"^^

(3) The third main element is the speech of Peter. This raises the
whole question of the speeches in Acts, on which I accept the minority
view that they are based, at least in part, on good tradition and are not

entirely the creation of Luke."^^ In the present case the crucial point
is the use of Joel 2:28-32 as a commentary on the gift of the Spirit: is
the application of the text due to Luke, or is it based on the tradition?
There is naturally no way of proving that Peter himself spoke in this
manner on the actual day of Pentecost. The manner in which the quo

tation is subject to pesher treatment may suggest the hand of Luke

(but pesher was common in the early church). But the fact that the use
of the text is traditional may be deduced from the recurrence of the
same text in Romans 10:13 and Revelation 6:12. This independent

use of the text by Paul and the author of Revelation suggests that it
came from the early church's stock of scriptural quotations,^^
We may
text whose relevance to the ex
perhaps conclude that here we have a

perience of the church was recognized from an early date. If Psalms

67 (68): 19 is alluded to in Acts 2:33 (see note 43), this would be a

29
 The Asbury Seminarian

further example of use of an early church "testimony" (cf. Eph. 4:8).

(4) The next problem is that Pentecost is not referred to elsewhere
in the New Testament. Nevertheless, the same basic experience is pre

supposed in Paulinetheology ."^^ For Paul, a man is not a Christian un

less he possesses the Spirit of Christ, and this experience of the Spirit
is crucial: it comes to those who hear the
message with faith (Gal. 3:2;
Rom. 8:9). Hence Paul attests the validity of the individual experience
described in Acts 2:38. Furthermore, for Paul the church is the temple
of the Holy Spirit, in the same way as the individual (I Cor. 3: 16f.; cf.
6:19; Eph. 2:22). Here we have the ecclesiastical equivalent of the gift
of the Spirit to the individual. The question is whether Paul's
teaching
implies beginning
a to the process of the Spirit coming to men. More
over, the New Testament writers that the
preaching of the
were aware

message was accompanied by signs and wonders

wrought by the Spirit
(Heb. 2:4; cf. Rom. 15:19; II Cor. 12:12). This provides a context in
which the story of Pentecost is thoroughly at home. But did the induce
ment provided by the context lead to Lucan creation of the story? Why
is it not in fact mentioned elsewhere?"*^ Evidence can be produced to

strengthen the argument from silence, namely that in the East Syrian
and Palestinian church, the Ascension was celebrated on the fiftieth day
after Easter until the fourth century; the Pentecost tradition cannot
have been known in that area.^^ This claim, however, apphes only to
part of the church and may simply mean that the ascension and out
pouring of the Spirit were celebrated together.
(5) The final consideration must therefore be whether one can

satisfactorily account for the story as a piece of fiction. Several attempts

have been made to do this. It may suffice to outHne the solution of
fered by E. Haenchen."*^ According to this scholar, Luke had no an
cient traditions at his disposal for his attempt to depict the impor
tant event of the coming of the Spirit. Since he had already dated the
Ascension 40 days after Easter, he chose the next following festival for
the occasion. He wished to show that the Spirit came from God, and
so adopted the imagery of a wind from "on high"; he also wished to

portray graphically how the Spirit came upon certain men, and there
fore chose the imagery of a flame of fire, which was derived from the
Jewish tradition of the law-giving at Sinai on Pentecost. In Philo this
flame had turned into voices, and with the help of the tradition of the
law being given in 70 languages, Luke had the concept of the tongues
spoken by the apostles. He could not make use of the imagery of Gene
sis 11, since the event was limited to Jews, but he could at least give

30
The Significance of Pentecost

some indication of the spread of the Gospel by making the Jews from
the the various countries of the world. Since,
Dispersion represent
however, he wanted to make Peter the spokesman of the Gospel mes
sage, it was necessary to limit what was said in tongues to avague
praise of God and to indicate that it was unintelligible to part of the

crowd.
The weaknesses in this reconstruction are patent. We have seen that
the detailed Jewish traditions about Pentecost and the law cannot be

certainly traced back to this date, and if they cannot be, then Haen-
chen's whole case collapses. Moreover, there is no clear indication that
Sinai traditions were in Luke's mind.^"^
impossible to account for
It is
the story without some original event in Jerusalem to spark it off, and
this event must have included glossolalia. Moreover, it must have hap
pened at Pentecost, for there is no reason why Luke should arbitrarily
have chosen this date. Above all, Haenchen's view assumes that nobody
remembered the first days of the church, which is highly improbable.
The fact that the event is not recorded elsewhere in no way contra
dicts this assumption. The Gospel of John is concerned purely with
events during the ministry of Jesus, and hence John 20 is in no way a
substitute for Acts 2 and certainly not for Haenchen, who does not
-

regard it as an early tradition anyhow. In the end, the question is

whether it is more plausible to try to account for material in Acts his

torically or in terms of creative fiction. I have no doubt where the

44
answer ought to lie.

V.

We must now attempt to assess the significance of Pentecost for

Luke. It is an important event for him, since he alone of New Testa
ment writers explicitly significant event in the
refers to it. It is the first
of the
story which he has to tell in Acts and constitutes the beginning
church's mission. This missionary element is probably the most impor
tant single aspect of the story in Luke's view. The gift of the Spirit
of the Gospel oc
equips the disciples for witness, Peter's proclamation
cupies the center of the account, and the story culminates in the con

version of some hearers of the message.

3,000
(1) We have seen that in some areas of Jewish thought theday of
Pentecost linked with the renewal of the covenant
was
and the giving of
a number
the law at Sinai. Are these ideas present in Acts? Although
little evi
of scholars have claimed that this is the case, we have found
dence to substantiate this view. If it was true, we would expect to find

31
 The Asbury Seminarian

some trace of the typology in the of the passage. This would

wording
be all the more so since we know that the early church did operate
with the idea of the new covenant (cf. II Cor. 3), and believed that
Jesus had inaugurated the new covenant by His death; Luke is familiar
with the idea of the covenant made with Israel (Lk, 1:72; Acts 3:25;
7:8), and in all probability with the concept of the new covenant (Lk.
22:20). But there is remarkably Httle trace of this idea in the wording
of the Pentecost narrative. Nor does there seem to be any definite al
lusion to the law-giving Sinai
beyond the possible reference to
at
Psalm 68 in 2:33. There is some paralleUsm between the theophany at
Sinai and the visible manifestation of the Spirit; in particular there is
the passage in which Philo speaks of the flame at Sinai being turned
into articulate speech, but I can find no reason to believe that Philo's

exegesis has influenced Luke. The fire in Acts is surely to be linked

primarily with the fire in John the Baptist's saying. Nor again, is there
sufficient evidence to link the use of tongues at Pentecost with the
rabbinic tradition that the law was given in the tongues of the nations.
If any such ideas were present in the tradition before Luke, he certainly
did not develop them. It seems unlikely that a contrast with the old
covenant was a major theme for Luke.

(2) The same negative verdict must be returned on accounts to see

in Acts 2 a conscious Christian counterpart to the story of Babel in
Genesis 1 1 .^^ Once again the necessary verbal links are lacking, which
we would have expected from a writer so thoroughly familiar with the
Old Testament as Luke."*^ In Genesis 1 1 the basic point of the story is
the scattering of the of the world, which results from the con
peoples
fusion of their tongues. The story of Pentecost can certainly be regarded
as a counterpart of this, although it does not in fact undo the confusion

of tongues but simply makes use of it. One can preach a valid sermon

on the contrast, but Luke did not do so.'*^

(3) We back, therefore, to the basic point that for Luke the
come

story of Pentecost represents the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus

after His resurrection, which in its turn takes up the prophecy of John
the Baptist, that thewould receive power when the Spirit
disciples
came upon them, and would be witnesses to all mankind. The corres

pondence between the prophecy and the event is so close that it cannot
be doubted that the working out of this correspondence is the main
motif in the mind of Luke. Along with this emphasis on the fulfillment
of the Baptist's prophecy is the indication that the earlier promises of
God in the Old Testament, especially in Joel and possibly Isaiah 32: 15,

32
The Significance of Pentecost

here find their fulfillment. Hence the event is regarded as falling into
the pattern of promise and fulfillment, which is central to Luke's the
ology of history, and as such it forms part of the events prophesied
for the last days. Thus, the mission of the church is seen to be an es
sential part of the divine plan of salvation.
(4) The main point of the narrative is the reception of the Spirit.
We have argued that for Luke the various terms used to describe this

experience all refer to the one basic event of Christian initiation, with
the single exception that Luke regards "filling" with the Spirit as a re-

peatable act which is usually directed to preparation for some particular

task of witness and inspired utterance. The Pentecost gift combined
these two aspects of the Spirit's work. It was both initiation and prep
aration for inspired speech. The gift of tongues, regarded by Luke as a
form of prophecy, is seen as an outward manifestation or sign of the
presence of the Spirit, and appears when it is needed, whether to testify
to spectators of the reality of Christian experience or to confirm it to
the participants themselves (Acts 10:44-48; 19:6).

VI.

Luke's various accounts of the gift of the Spirit do not indicate a

clear relationship to baptism with water. Although the gift uniformly
follows the preaching of the Gospel and the acceptance of the message,
there is no uniformity in the relation of the gift of the Spirit to water-

baptism, except that it can usually be assumed to follow it, and cases
where this does not happen can be explained as exceptions to the rule.
J. D. G. Dunn has disputed that in the New Testament water baptism
is the means whereby the Spirit is bestowed on believers: "God gives
the Spirit directly to faith," he avers."*^ This is too strong a statement.
Against it we have the evidence of Acts 2:38, which should not be
pressed to mean something else simply because it stands alone. It is
probable that Dunn has been led to an unsatisfactory statement by
failing to distinguish between water baptism as the means of bestowal of
the Spirit and as the condition. The two things accompany each other,
normally very closely. The Pentecost experience should, therefore, prob
ably be regarded as an exception to the rule: it had a unique character.
There is little stress in Acts 2 and elsewhere in Acts on the ethical
effects of the of the Spirit. The Spirit brings joy and assurance to
gift
and
believers, and equips the church for mission by giving it boldness
Luke does not mention the work of
power in declaring the Gospel. But
the Spirit as the Holy Spirit. Only once is the Spirit linked to Christian

33
 The Asbury Seminarian

ethics, namely in Acts 1 1 :23, where the goodness of Barnabas is rooted

in his being filled with the Spirit. This means that an account of the
Spirit's activity which is based solely on the Pentecost story is one
sided and inadequate; the Pentecost story is concerned solely with mis
sion, and stresses the importance of this aspect of the Spirit's work. In
one sense, therefore, the church cannot be content
merely with a repe
tition of "Pentecost": it needs an experience involving other dimen
sions of the Spirit's activity. But is Pentecost itself a repeatable ex

perience? Obviously, as the birth of the church, Pentecost is basically

unique. But that is not the whole story. We may, perhaps, draw an
analogy with the apostolate as understood by C. K. Barrett. There is a
primary sense in which the apostolate was basic and unrepeatable: the
apostles could have no successors in principle, because apostles were es
sentially witnesses of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. But this
does not mean that the church cannot still be apostolic in the sense of
displaying apostolic qualities what Paul calls the signs of an apostle.
�

So, too, the Spirit who came upon the disciples at Pentecost still comes
upon the church to equip it for mission.
It does not seem to be the case that the foundation of any and every
new local church is accompanied by a "little Pentecost": nothing in
Acts supports such a view. But there can be repetition of what took
place "at the beginning" (Acts 11:15). The experience of being filled
with the Spirit was and must be repeatable. The experience of tongues
was also repeatable, but was not a necessary
sign of being baptized or
filled with the Spirit. The fact that the gift of tongues is so rarely linked
with reception of the Spirit in the New Testament indicates that it was
not regarded as a normative or necessary accompaniment of spiritual

experience. Other considerations will determine whether it is to be ex

pected as a normal part of Christian experience outside the apostoUc
age, but this point lies outside our present scope. All that we are en
titled to say at the moment is that the reception of the Spirit by individ
uals or groups is what characterizes the church throughout the New
Testament; it is in the light of this that we are to test our own experi
ence today.

FOOTNOTES

^"We must start from the question, 'What was Luke's inten
"
tion?' E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (Gottingen, 1959),^^
p. 137.

34
The Significance of Pentecost

For the Greek word see Tobit 2: 1; II Maccabees 12:32.

^For Lohse, TDNT VI, 44-53, especially 45-49; M.

details see E.

Delcor, DBS VII, 858-879; J. Kremer, Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgesche-

hen, Stuttgart, 1973, pp. 11-27.

'^There was, however, a dispute between the Pharisees and the

Boethusians over the
way to calculate the 50 days from Passover
right
to Pentecost. The Pharisees interpreted Leviticus 23:15 to refer to the

first day of the Passover feast, which was celebrated as a Sabbath, and
hence reckoned 50 days fromNisan 15; this meant that Pentecost fell
on the same day of the week as Nisan 16. The Boethusians interpreted
the same text to refer to the first weekly sabbath after the celebration
of the passover, and hence for them Pentecost always fell on a Sunday.
The former practice appears to have been followed in the first century;
cf. SB II, 598-600; J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge,
1973), pp. 55-57.

^Unpublished 4QDB placing the ceremony in the

evidence from
third month is cited by J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wil
derness of Judaea (1959), 1 16f.; cf. J. Kremer, op. cit., p. 16f.

^Seder (SB II, 601). However, in Jubilees 1:1

01am Rabba 5
Moses receives the law at Sinai on the sixteenth day of the third month.
It seems that already for the author of Jubilees the law-giving is as
sociated with the Feast of Weeks. The question appears to have been
discussed early in the second century A.D. by R. Akiba (Yoma 4b; B.
Noack, "The Day of Pentecost in Jubilees, Qumran and Acts," ASTI 1 ,

(1962), 73-95, especially 81).

^Psalm 68 was a lesson used at the Festival of Weeks. Jewish exe

gesis regarded verse 19 as a reference to Moses giving the law to Israel

(cf. SB III, 596-598), but it is not clear how far back this use and in

terpretation go back.

^SBII, 604f.; J. Kremer, op. cit., pp. 250-252. Cf. 0. Betz, "Zun-
und Qumran (Ber
genreden und susser Wein," in S. Wagner (ed.),Bibel
see E. Lohse, op. cit.,
lin, 1968), pp. 20-36. For a more cautious verdict
p. 49 n. 33. See further J. Dupont, Etudes sur les Actes des ApZtres
(Paris, 1967), pp. 481-502.
35
 The Asbury Seminarian

^H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, Tubingen (1963), p. 22.

^^F. F. Bruce, The Book of the (1954), p. 36. On the place

Acts
of the Spirit in the teaching of Jesus see G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Jesus
and the Spirit," in A. Descamps et di., Melanges Bibliques Gembloux,
(1970), pp. 463-478.

^ ^
J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Spirit (1970), p. 42f.

^^I. Marshall, "The Meaning of the Verb 'To Baptize,'

H.
"

EQ
45 (1973), 130-140. Cf. J. Kremer, op. cit., p. 185.

^^^J. Dupont, op. cit., p. 484.

1 3
For a detailed treatment, see J. Kremer, op. cit.

D. G. Dunn, op. cit., p. 40.

^^Cf.
J. Kremer, op. cit., p. 215. Dupont holds that the group in
1:14 is meant, 1:15-26 being a later addition to the original narrative.

Preferred by F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 55f.

17
E. Haenchen, op. cit., p. 131 n. 8.

^^G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (1962),

pp. 67-72.

'^The choice of the word pnoe'is dictated by the fact that pneuma
was obviously unsuitable at this point in the sentence. For a similar

physical accompaniment to the coming of the Spirit see Acts 4:31.

Josephus, however, mentions it (Ant. 3:80). Certainly there was

noise (echos) at Sinai: Ex. 9: 16; Heb. 12: 18f. ?Mo. Decal. 33, 46.

�^^Philo,Decal. 33, 44-49; Tg. Jon. Ex. 20:2 (cited by Kremer,

op. cit., p. 247). Cf. F- Lang, TDNT VI, 934-941. In Philo the voice of
God was changed into a flaming fire as the commandments were ut
tered.

36
The Significance of Pentecost

-^^On the words used see G. Delhng, TDNT VI, 128-131, 283-298.

D. G. Dunn, op. cit., pp. 70-72.

^"^J. Behm, TDNT 1, 447.

25
The problems caused
by the list of nations in w. 9-1 1 cannot be
discussed here. Cf. B. M.
Metzger, "Ancient Astrological Geography and
Acts 2:9-11", in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, Apostolic History and
the Gospel (Exeter, 1970), pp. 123-133; J. Kremer, op. cit., pp. 145-
158.

E. Haenchen, op. cit., p. 138.

'^'^G. Friedrich, TDNT VI, 851 f.

�^^See especially E. Haenchen,

op. cit., pp. 130-139; R. F. Zehnle,
Peter 's Pentecost Discourse (Nashville 1 97 1 ), pp ,
. 1 1 1 1 23
-

^^H. W. Beyer, TDNT II, 702f. and many scholars.

^^Cf. I. H. Marshall, as in n. 12 above.

31
Haenchen has evidently not heard of Hanham Mount or Mow

Cop �

or even taken into account the size of ancient theatres.

39
K. Haacker, "Das Pfmgstwunder als exegetisches Problem," in
0. Bocher and K. Haacker, Verborum Veritas (Wuppertal, 1970), pp.
125-131. Similarly, J. Kremer, op. cit., pp. 160-163.

^^J.
G. Davies, "Pentecost and GlossolaUa," JTS 3 (1952), 228-
"

232; R. H. Gundry, 'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?", JTS 17 (1966),

299-307. While these scholars restrict tongues to human languages,
"heavenly" languages should probably be included also (I Cor. 13:1).

^"^Cf. K. Haacker's comments (op. cit.).

^^W. J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels {\912).

^^Samarin claims that there are no authenticated modern examples

37
 The Asbury Seminarian

of speaking in foreign languages, but see D. M. Howard, ^jv the Power of

the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, 1973).

^^F. F. Bruce, "The Sermons in Acts -

after Thirty Years," in R.

Banks, Reconciliation and Hope (Exeter, 1974).
38
-"^C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 1952, pp. 46-48.

3Q
�^^J. Kremer, op. cit., pp. 28-86.

^^J. Kremer, op. cit., pp. 237, rightly notes that other important
incidents such as the birth and baptism of Jesus find no mention in the
Epistles.

'^^R. F. Zehnle, 112, citing G. Kretschmar, "Himmel-

op. cit., p.
fahrt und Pfingsten," ZKG 66, 1954-55, 209-253. But did this celebra
tion on the fiftieth day include both the Ascension and the outpouring
of the Spirit? Cf. Eph.4:7f.
42
E. Haenchen, op. cit., pp. 137-139.

A O

There is certainly not sufficient proof of the association of the

lawgiving in various languages at Pentecost to allow for a firm case. We
need some firm indication in Acts 2 that the narrator had in mind a

conscious contrast with the law giving at Sinai. Although J. C. Kirby

asserts that this is implicit (Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost 1968,

p. 118; cf. J. D. G. Dunn, op. cit., 48f.), I cannot find any evidence for
it in the narrative (similarly S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile
Mission in Luke Acts, Cambridge, 1973), pp. 126f. W. L. Knox, The
-

Acts of the Apostles, (Cambridge, 1948), p. 85f. claimed that Psalm 68

(67): 19, which in Jewish tradition was interpreted of the giving of the
law, is alluded to in Acts 2:33 with reference to the gift of the Spirit.
J. Dupont (op. cit., p. 100) originally rejected this allusion. In his later
study of Pentecost (ibid., p. 295 n. 25 and 481) he accepted it, and has
recently attempted to substantiate it in "Ascension du Christ et don de
TEsprit d'apres Actes 2:33," in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (edd.),
Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 219-228.

^"^R. Zehnle 's theory is similar to Haenchen's and equally specula

tive and vulnerable. J. Kremer's detailed study comes to the conclusion

38
The Significance of Pentecost

that a historical event on the

day of Pentecost lies behind Luke's narra
tive, although he claims that Luke has
given it a more realistic, con
crete form, and that much of the imagery of wind, fire and tongues is a
midrashic development made at an earlier stage in the development of
the tradition. See also L.Goppeli, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
(1970), pp. 20-24.

'^^L. Goppelt, ibid., rightly regards Acts 2 as programmatic for the

Book of Acts in the same way as Luke 4:16-30 is for the Gospel.

^^E.Trocme, Le "Livry des Acts" et I'Histoire (Paris, 1957), pp.

202-206; E. Haenchen, op. cit., p. 138; S. G. Wilson, op. cit., p. 126,
argues that this element may have been more obvious in a putative
original form of the tradition which described a mass ecstasy in which
the disciples spoke in one single Spirit-language. But this is purely
hypothetical.

^^The use of sugcheo in Acts 2:6 and Gen. 1 1:7, 9 is not a very

strong link.

^^J. Dupont, Etudes, p. 501 n.

^^J. D. G. Dunn, op. cit., p. 100.

^^For the development of this idea see C. K. Barrett, The Signs of

an Apostle (1970).

39