Gaffin: Pentecost "once-for-all, redemptive historical"

"The overlap between the close of the Gospel (24:44ff.) end the beginning of Acts (1:3-11) is calculated to show that during the 40 day interim until his ascension, the resurrected Jesus taught the apostles (Acts 1:2) that the recent and impending events concerning him are epochal, decisive junctures in the coming of the kingdom of God (cf. esp. Acts 1:3). He did so by showing that these events are the fulfillment of the Old Testament, which, in all its parts, concerns him (Luke 24:44). The pervasive sense of the Old Testament is christological (v.45). Its overall focus is messianic suffering and resurrection, and—it should not be missed—as the direct entailment of these climatic events (what is also "written"; note the Greek syntax), preaching the gospel to the nations (=the church, vv. 46f.); the Messiah's death, his resurrection, and the church, according to Jesus, form an unbreakable unity in the teaching of the Old Testament.

"To that end (i.e., the worldwide, church-building spread of the gospel, anticipated throughout the entire Old Testament with its unified focus on Christ), the apostles, as witnesses, are to wait for Pentecost (vv. 48f.; Acts 1:5, 8). The Spirit's coming on Pentecost is as climactic an event, and as essential to the messianic work of salvation foreseen in the Old Testament, as are Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension.

"Peter reinforces that point, in fact it is a major emphasis, toward the close of his (essentially Christ-centered) Pentecost sermon. In Acts 2:32-33, following out of his focus on the earthly activity, death and especially the resurrection of Jesus (vv. 22-31), he closely conjoins, in sequence: resurrection—ascension—reception of the Spirit—outpouring of the Spirit. The last, Pentecost, is coordinate with the other events, conjoined with them in an especially intimate way; it is climactic and final on the order that they are; it is no more capable of being a repeatable paradigm event then they are. Resurrection—ascension—Pentecost, though temporally distinct, constitute a unified complex of events, a once-for-all, redemptive-historical unity, such that they are inseparable; the one is given with the others.

"…Pentecost, then, is an event, an integral event, in the historia salutis, not an aspect of the ordo salutis; Pentecost has its place in the once-for-all, completed accomplishment of redemption, not in its ongoing application. Without Pentecost the definitive, unrepeatable work of Christ for our salvation is incomplete. The task set before Christ was not only to secure the remission of sin but, more ultimately, as the grand outcome of his Atonement, life as well (e.g., John 10:10; 2 Tim. 1:10)—eternal, eschatological, resurrection life, or, in other words, life in the Spirit.

"Without that life 'salvation' is obviously not only truncated but meaningless. And it is just that life, that completed salvation, and Christ as its giver that is openly revealed at Pentecost. The difference Pentecost makes is primarily a difference for Christ. Along with the resurrection and ascension, it marks him out as having received the Spirit, as the result/reward for his obedience unto death (Phil 2:8-9), in order to give the Spirit (Acts 2:33); Pentecost shows the exalted Jesus to be the messianic receiver-giver of the Spirit. -- Richard Gaffin, "Pentecost: Before and After"

Inspiration is not via dictation

This answer to Brian got to be so long that I decided to post it here rather than in the comments section....

You've reached "rock bottom" of this entire discussion and debate... the ground zero of hermeneutics. If we do not agree here, there will be constant friction ad infinitem.... :-)

Rock bottom is inspiration. I firmly believe (as does Beale) that inspiration explains little, if any, of Christ's or the apostles exegesis. Inspiration controlled the final product (Holy Spirit guidance, making sure it was infallible), but not necessarily the exegetical endeavor itself. I have yet to see an example in the NT that cannot be explained from the OT. There is a great gulf between those who believe inspiration was by dictation (and various modifications of that theory, including the idea that Christ and the apostles not only had access to special information, but predominantly leaned on that information) and plenary verbal inspiration. Obviously, I believe the former is invalid.

Beale makes precisely that point (in the rest of the essay which I have not included here). He posits four or five (I'm in Ames, IA as I write this so I don't have access to the book) examples of so-called problems for an exegetical understanding of inspiration and then proceeds to dismantle them, though I think on one he says it's still possible there is special information involved. His point, though, was that the exceptions exist in spite of the rule (exegetical inspiration)... the exceptions don't negate or invalidate the rule.

(The one example that detractors tend to want to run to is Hebrews 11:8-10. The quick and dirty answer for that passage is that that thought can also be found in earlier rabbinical tradition and thus, the writer of Hebrews, is picking it up from an extant source. But then, one would still have the question as to where Jewish theologians got that thought… I believe -- and I think Beale would say this as well -- if we are correctly exegeting the OT, we would arrive at the same conclusion they did. In any event, it is better for our own exegetical endeavor to ask how they arrived at that exegesis and attempt to pattern our own after it, than to dismiss the passage in Hebrews as out of our reach in imitating the hermeneutic.)

And the point that Beale does makes in the previous post (through Moises Silva) to this thought is that if the dictation theory (including the idea that Christ and the apostles had access to special information and predominantly leaned on it) is true, then ALL exegesis is inaccessible to contemporary exegetical "wannabes". The hermeneutical endeavor itself is rendered a moot point by a dictation theory.

As to the allegory and "control", that argument has been made ad infinitem against redemptive historical biblical theology and it just doesn't hold. Origen allegorized because he didn't stick to the text. The text is the control. Further, literalism doesn't escape this same "flaw" (if indeed it is a flaw for biblical theology). Literalism has deluded itself into thinking it constitutes a "safe" and "controlled" exegetical process, when in fact it is neither... its validity, in the end, is only as good as the one doing the exegetical work; thus on this point, it is equal to, not superior, to biblical theology as exegesis. We need look no further than the 1000 different ways that literalists read the books of Daniel and Revelation to prove this point.

And as to why biblical theology is *not* allegory… Aaron Wilson asked the same thing earlier this year and I began an answer that became so long I parked it and have not returned to it. Maybe it’s time to dust off that word doc? :-) -- crb