Tengo hoy la alegría de presentar una obra extraordinaria de G. Haya, amigo y colaborador habitual de mi blog, que es también colaborador de otros foros digitales (como Atrio). No quiero decir nada sobre su persona, pues mis lectores le conocen bien.

Sólo quiero recordar que G. Haya escribió y defendió hace tiempo una extraordinaria tesis doctoral sobre el Espíritu de Dios, en la U. Gregoriana, bajo la dirección del Prof. I. de la Potterie. Aquella tesis (escrita en castellano) se editó en francés (en du Cerf, el año 1975).

Ahora ha sido traducida al inglés y editada en una prestigiosa editorial de USA. Con esta ocasión quiero presentar un largo post, para los amigos de G. Haya y para los estudiosos del tema de la Iglesia actual y del Espíritu Santo... esperando que un día, no lejano, pueda presentar esta obra en castellano. Han pasado 35 años, y no ha perdido actualidad, sino que la ha ganado. Entonces se decían cosas mejores sobre el Espíritu en la Iglesia; había más libertad en teología, había más esperanza y creatividad dne la Iglesia. Así lo verá quien siga leyendo Este post consta de tres partes.

a) Empiezo presentando un trabajo introductorio (actual) de G. Haya, sobre el Espíritu Santo y nosotros, que servirá para centrar el tema y mostrar su importancia. Gracias, Gonzalo, por lo que dices, por la forma en que te muestas, joven, esperanzado, creador.

a) Ofrezco después la recensión que yo mismo publiqué, presentando a los Lectores de Estudios Trinitarios la obra francesa de Gonzalo Haya, a quien yo entonces no conocía; pero conocí y compré su obra, porque la necesitaba para mis clases: yo enseñaba por entonces teología trinitaria en Salamanca (Más tarde le conocí a él y nos hicimos amigos, por su persona, más que por sus obras, que son muy importantes).

c) Ofrezco, finalmente, la presentación (índice, prólogo e introducción) de la edición inglesa de la obra (que esperamos que al fin, tras 35 años) pueda publicarse en castellano, pues tiene más actualidad que nunca. Gonzalo, tus amigos te emplazamos desde ahora. No queremos leerte en inglés ni en francés, queremos hacerlo en castellano.

1) TEMA BÁSICO

EL ESPÍRITU SANTO Y NOSOTROS (GONZALO HAYA)


Los cristianos no tenemos clara nuestra relación con el Espíritu Santo.

Tenemos clara la imagen del Padre: es el origen, de nosotros y del universo. En nuestra imaginación están el Dios creador de Miguel Ángel, que echa a rodar el mundo por los espacios siderales, y el Padre del hijo pródigo, tan vivamente descrito por Jesús. A Dios Padre lo invocamos frecuentemente con la oración que nos enseñó Jesús.

Tenemos clara la imagen del Hijo, porque es como nosotros: niño en Belén, profeta itinerante, apreciado y malinterpretado por unos y por otros, angustiado en el huerto de lo olivos, fiel y confiado en el Padre a pesar de sentirse abandonado y fracasado en la Cruz. Vemos en Jesús a nuestro Salvador.

La imagen del Espíritu Santo es difusa. ¿Qué es el Espíritu? Lo mismo se manifiesta como sombra que recubre a María, como paloma que desciende sobre Jesús, o lenguas de fuego sobre los apóstoles. ¿Cuál es su relación con nosotros? Nos sería difícil contestar con una sola palabra. El Padre es Creador; Jesús es Salvador: ¿El Espíritu? ¿Santificador? La salvación ya es santificación.

El espíritu lo es todo y termina siendo algo confuso. Es creador al sobrevolar las aguas del caos primordial; Veni Creator Spiritus, Ven espíritu creador. Es Palabra en los Profetas; es presencia de Dios en el Mesías; es el abogado, consejero, consolador, que envía Jesús a sus discípulos; es el don de Dios anunciado por el profeta Joel y reconocido por Pedro en Pentecostés.

Serlo todo es algo tan confuso, o tan habitual, que dejamos de apreciarlo, como el aire que respiramos. Lucas, en cambio, le atribuye una misión específica, de la que nos vendría muy bien acordarnos. Lucas descubre la actuación del espíritu en nuestra toma de decisiones y sobre todo en los momentos decisivos de la historia de la salvación; en las encrucijadas que cambian los planes de Dios o, mejor, los planes que los hombres hemos atribuimos a Dios.

Lucas describe estas intervenciones del Espíritu con una escenificación que entra por los sentidos: paloma o lenguas de fuego y ruido que desciende de lo alto, o incluso como irrupción física – “El Espíritu del Señor arrebató a Felipe”-; sin embargo se trata de experiencias internas. Según Marcos y Mateo fue Jesús quien vio la paloma y oyó la voz en el bautismo. Sólo Lucas narra el descenso del espíritu Santo en Pentecostés; Juan, mira a lo interior, y nos cuenta que Jesús, cuando se apareció a los discípulos en el cenáculo, “sopló y les dijo: recibid el Espíritu Santo”.

Al Espíritu atribuye Lucas las decisiones que cambian el rumbo en la Historia de la salvación. El Espíritu desciende sobre María en la encarnación de Jesús; desciende sobre Jesús en el Jordán y le revela que es hijo de Dios; lo consagra en la sinagoga de Nazaret para que anuncie “el año de gracia del Señor”; desciende sobre unos discípulos acobardados y los impulsa a difundir por el mundo el mensaje de Jesús; y cuando esta difusión encalla en los preceptos de la Ley y la circuncisión, un centurión romano, pagano e invasor de la tierra prometida, recibe “el Espíritu Santo igual que nosotros” mostrando que Dios “no hace distinción de personas, sino que acepta al que le es fiel y obra correctamente, sea de la nación que sea”.

Podemos hacer diversas interpretaciones de este momento decisivo – al que algunos han llamado la Pentecostés de Cornelio- pero no hay duda de que Lucas vio en él una señal de Dios que avaló el cambio de rumbo de la naciente cristiandad, la superación de la Ley promulgada, y mantenida durante siglos, como la Ley de Dios.

Esta influencia del Espíritu en nuestras decisiones incomoda a la Jerarquía, que se siente segura como administradora de un mandato inalterable de Dios y desconfía de abrirse a nuevos horizontes. Algo así como los israelitas en el desierto, que desconfiaban del camino de Yahvé y se fabricaron un becerro de oro al que podían transportar a su gusto. Como el Gran Inquisidor de Dostoyewsky que rechazó la intromisión de Jesús en la catedral de Sevilla. Este aferrarse al pasado es ceguera ante las lecciones de la Historia y ante el misterio de un Dios inabarcable.

También incomoda a los hombres de nuestro tiempo, celosos de su autonomía. Imaginan al Espíritu como un agente exterior, como algo distinto de nosotros que interfiere en nuestra libertad. Conciben a Dios como un ser igual que nosotros, superior pero fundamentalmente igual, que se nos impone. Ya hemos dicho que la escenografía de Lucas sólo es una visualización de la realidad interior, que él mismo describe frecuentemente como plenitud: Bernabé “era hombre de bien, lleno de Espíritu Santo y de fe”. Su bonhomía era el Espíritu que le llenaba.

El Espíritu no desciende de arriba; está dentro, es energía (dynamis tou Zeou), forma y sustenta nuestra misma interioridad. Desde ella, desde nosotros mismos, nos impulsa a decidir en conciencia, libremente, conforme a los signos de los tiempos, conforme a nuestros nuevos conocimientos científicos o culturales. Nos impulsa a decidir incluso en contra de creencias muy arraigadas.

Pedro decidió bautizar a Cornelio igual que Pablo decidió bautizar a tantos paganos, igual que Santiago se resistía a bautizar a los incircuncisos. Santiago justificaba su decisión con la inalterable Ley divina, Lucas justificaba a Pedro con las manifestaciones del Espíritu, y Pablo interpretaba que la verdadera circuncisión es la del corazón. Cada uno fue libre de seguir o de resistir al Espíritu, que promovía la difusión universal del mensaje de Jesús.

Recordar que nuestros libros sagrados descubren la acción del Espíritu Santo en la evolución de nuestras creencias nos ayudaría a mantenernos atentos a los signos de los tiempos, a descubrir el proyecto de Dios que se nos va revelando según crece nuestra capacidad de comprensión.


2) Xabier Pikaza, recensión a original francés:

GONZALO HAYA PRATS, L’ESPRIT FORCE DE L’EGLISE (LECTIO DIVINA 81), DU CERF, PARIS 1975

Este libro, escrito originalmente en castellano, se subtitula « Naturaleza y actividad del Espíritu según el libro de los Hechos”. Se trata de una obra de investigación, extensa y documentada (218 págs de texto, 63 de bibliografía y notas 9, que estudia con toda precisión el sentido del Espíritu Santo y su influjo en la vida cristiana de la comunidad primitiva (cf. págs. 11-12). A lo largo de ella, el Espíritu aparece como “promotor de la historia de la salvación” y como fundamento de teología moral (pág. 14). Para mostrarlo, el autor ha tenido en cuenta no sólo las grandes obras que venimos comentando en esta bibliografía, sino también a los especialistas en el estudio de Lucas-Hechos (Conzelmann, Haenchen, Lohse etc). En ese sentido, esta obra resulta más actual y valiosa que las antes comentadas (sobre el sentido del Espíritu en el libro de los Hechos). Como elementos característicos de la obra, señalamos:

1) Siendo importante, el tema del Espíritu no constituye en Lucas algo absolutamente nuevo, pues la exposición de Lucas se mantiene en la línea del Antiguo Testamento y del mensaje de Jesús (21ss).

2) Aunque el Espíritu es también un don escatológico (expresión de que ha llegado la culminación de la historia), Lucas lo presenta ante todo como poder que actúa en el tiempo de la Iglesia, en el conjunto de la comunidad y en cada uno de los creyentes (experiencia de Pentecostés),

3) Hay en Lucas una distinción entre la primera parte de Hechos (Espíritu como don carismático, que llena a los creyentes, siempre, en cuanto forman la Iglesia) y la segunda, en donde presenta el ministerio de Pablo. En ese segundo momento el Espíritu parece intervenir de sobre todo en el despliegue de la misión critiana, rompiendo siempre las barreras que los hombres quieren poner al Evangelio.

4) De un modo global, en el conjunto de Hechos, el Espíritu aparece como don y ofrenda permanente de Dios a la Iglesia, don que posibilita su existencia y su camino misionero. El Espiritu es la "sorpresa" de Dios, la experiencia de su acción que se revela por medio de Jesús, superando todos los obstáculos que le ponen los hombres.


5) Suele hablarse del aspecto kerigmático y escatológico del Espíritu; pues bien, Lucas resalta más el primer plano, vinculando el Espíritu a la acción y testimonio evangelizador de los misioneros cristianos (105ss). Cieretamente, sigue abierto el fin de la historia, pero Lucas insiste más en la tarea que deben realizar los creyentes, caminanco con Pablo hasta el centro del mundo, que entonces era Roma, para abrir desde allí la Buena Nueva de Dios.

6) Según Lucas, el Espíritu no aparece sólo como fuerza santificadora (interior), sino, sobre todo, poder que actúa en el conjunto de la comunidad y el proceso de la historia de la salvación, a lo largo de sus diversas fases. El Espíritu es la victoria de Dios en el despliegue de la historia, al servicio de la nueva humanidad.


7) Según Lucas, el Espíritu no aparece, en un primer momento, como persona (en el sentido dogmático posterior de ese término); más aún, el mismo esquema dogmático-trinitario que suele distinguir el nivel de lo personal y de lo impersonal le resulta secundario. De todas formas, desde una perspectiva actual, teniendo en cuenta la historia posterior de la teología y de la iglesia, en la línea de lo que dice el Prof. Haya, el Espíritu actúa de un modo personal.

Éstas son las siete notas básicas del Espíritu en el libro del Prof Haya Pratas. A modo de conclusión, podemos decir que ésta es una de las mejores monografías que existen en la actualidad sobre el sentido y obra del Espíritu Santo en el despliegue y vida de la Iglesia. Conforme a este trabajo, Lucas presenta al Espíritu Santo como una expresión de la presencia constante, salvadora y liberadora, de Dios. El Espíritu se identifica con el mismo Dios de Jesús que actúa, poniendo en marcha el despliegue de la Iglesia, haciendo que los creyentes puedan actuar como portadores de la salvación de Dios.

Ésta no es una obra de dogmática trinitaria en el sentido posterior de la palabra, de manera que no se discuten en ella (ni pueden discutirse) los temas de la teología posterior (después de Nicea y Calcedonia), que se ha interesado por el constitutivo trinitario del Espíritu de Dios. Pero ella presenta y desarrolla un tema anterior, que es absolutamente necesario para conocer la presencia y acción del Espíritu de Dios en la Iglesia, desde la perspectiva del libro de los Hechos, donde encontramos algunos de los elementos básicos de la “historia liberadora” del Espíritu de Dios, tal como actúa en Pentecostés y en el despliegue de la Iglesia primitiva.
((Estudios Trinitarios 11 (1977) 217; = Bibliografía Trinitaria, Secretariado Trinitario, Salamanca 1978, 217)

3) Traducción inglesa


Gonzalo Haya-Prats,
Empowered Believers: The Holy Spirit in Acts, Edited by Paul Elbert, Translated by, Scott A. Ellington, ETS and SBL Atlanta, November 2010
Table of Contents

List of Illustrations
Foreword by Paul Elbert
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Preface

Part One: The Lukan Understanding of the Spirit

Chapter 1: “The Holy Spirit”—Establishing the Greek Term with the Double Article: to Pneuma ho hagion
1.1 Forerunners of the Lukan Expression
1.2 The Use of the Article
1.3 Conclusions

Chapter 2: The In-breaking of the Divine
2.1 The Spirit and the Power (dynamis)
2.2 The Holy Spirit and Angels
2.3 The Holy Spirit and the Interventions of Christ

Chapter 3: The Holy Spirit—Gift and Promise of God
3.1 The Gift of the Holy Spirit
3.2 Verbs of Gifting—The Predominant Aorist Tense and Others
3.3 Eschatological Gift—The Promise and the Kingdom

Chapter 4: The Holy Spirit’s Mode of Action
4.1 Invasive Irruptions and Complementary Influences
4.2 The Spirit in Circumstantial Expressions
4.3 Evidence of Diverse Concepts
4.4 Indications of a Proper Personality

Part Two: The Effects of the Holy Spirit

Chapter 5: Testimony and Evangelization
5.1 Presentation of the Theme
5.2 The Holy Spirit and Evangelism
5.3 Testimony Before Tribunals
5.4 The Unmediated Testimony of the Holy Spirit
5.5 Characteristics of the Unmediated Testimony of the Holy Spirit
5.6 Summary

Chapter 6: The Beginning of the Christian Life
6.1 Interpretations of the Exegetes
6.2 The Process of Conversion
6.3 Faith and the Holy Spirit
6.4 Baptism and the Holy Spirit

Chapter 7: The Development of the Christian Life
7.1 “Filled with the Holy Spirit”—The Election of the Seven
7.2 Religious Life According to the Summaries of Luke
7.3 Resisting the Holy Spirit
7.4 Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 8: The Prophetic Direction of the People of God
8.1 The Spirit and the Prophets—The Prophetic Gift
8.2 The Spirit and the Messiah
8.3 The Spirit and the Church—Hierarchical and Charismatic Guidance
8.4 The Spirit and the Church—Separation from the Law
8.5 The Spirit in the Structure of Luke’s Work
8.6 Conclusions

Chapter 9: Conclusions
9.1 General Synthesis
9.2 The Contemporary Message of the Lukan Concept

Appendix
Bibliography
Indices

FOREWORD

While the important thesis in Spanish at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, by Gonzalo Haya-Prats, S. J., was given a French translation by Romero and Faes some thirty-five years ago (G. Haya-Prats, L’Esprit Force de l’Église: Sa nature et son activité d’apre[set grave accent over e]s les Actes des Apôtres, trans. J. J. Romero and H. Faes; LD 81; Paris: Cerf, 1975) the present translation allows Haya-Prats’ many theological, pneumatological, and exegetical insights to be more widely available. When this thesis was advanced in the late sixties there already was an increasing awareness among many in the major sectors of Christendom and within biblical scholarship in particular that the activities of the Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament were underexplored areas of investigation. Today, this appraisal has not abated (1) and Haya-Prats’ contribution to our understanding of the work of the Spirit in the book of Acts is as timely as ever.
Regarding the nature of Spirit activities and functions described in Luke-Acts, new discoveries have continued to emerge in the interpretive methodology of Haya-Prats that are taking on fresh relevance, (2) hence the appropriateness of revisiting an exploration of their thematic origins as originally advanced by Haya-Prats. In addition to the initial insights of I. de la Potterie, (3) to which Haya-Prats is obviously indebted, we would particularly like to draw attention in these introductory remarks to several complementary studies that both support and illustrate the contemporary relevance of Haya-Prats’ exegetical work. Perhaps the following observations might whet appetites anew for the heuristic content of this English version.
For example, H. Mühlen reflects that Spirit-reception demonstrates that “The Holy Spirit is One Person in many persons.” (4) Y. Congar concludes that “The Renewal can open the way to a different kind of Christian practice which is especially valuable in communicating faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” (5) F. Martin finds that John the Baptist’s prophecy as recorded by the Evangelists (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7–8; Luke 3:16; John 1:27, 33) is in continuity with New Testament tradition and that “the substantive form of the expression accentuates the aspect of a personal moment of grace,” (6) and R. Stronstad finds that this personal moment of grace “is that prophetical, vocational, charismatic experience which the disciples, themselves, received on the day of Pentecost.” (7) There is a growing realization that Luke’s narrative-rhetorical interest in the Holy Spirit and the resurrected Jesus’ charge to disciple-believer-witnesses at Acts 1:8 should be further explored. The contextual injunction that “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” is testimony that should not be marginalized, but rather be incorporated into the experience of the historic Christian faith. As W. Kurz reminds us, “Jesus’ promise and call of his disciples to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8) retains its significance for contemporary Christians.” (8) R. Cantalamessa also argues that “The Holy Spirit is the soul of the tradition. If it is removed or forgotten, what remains of the tradition is only the dead ‘letter.’” (9) Cantalamessa stresses that we must not demand that “he adapt to our truth, instead of we to his.”
All would agree, we believe, that in order to be submissive our reason must be purified by the critical agency of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, it would certainly not be amiss to suspect that a balanced consideration of Haya-Prats’ historically significant but often neglected thesis should assist such adaptation to truth mediated by the Spirit of Jesus.
It is a privilege then to serve as the editor of this heuristic thesis which is worthy of fresh attention. Like all human endeavor, scholarship is a creature of its time. It reaches back into the work of others in the past which we may have overlooked and need to revisit, stimulates the discoveries of the present, and looks forward eagerly to the relevancy of future investigations. Gonzalo Haya-Prats, under the supervision of Professor Ignace de la Potterie, offers us herewith this opportunity to so explore. Without intruding into the text, some additional relevant documentation via some additional footnotes will occasionally be introduced along the way. This editorial material, along with citations in this Foreword, will hopefully serve to assist readers as to investigative contexts and pertinent points of scholarship that are especially germane to arguments and analysis as advanced by Haya-Prats himself. These will all be added to the Bibliography.
Paul Elbert Pentecostal Theological Seminary Cleveland, Tennessee

Acknowledgements

The 2006 Conference of the Society for Pentecostal Studies had ended, and I was enjoying Sunday breakfast at the Hilton Pasadena with Pentecostal scholars Paul Elbert and David Reed when I turned the conversation to an unusual name that I had come across a number of times in the past few years—Gonzalo Haya-Prats. Whether in books or articles related to the role of the Holy Spirit in Acts, it seemed that Haya-Prats’ name kept surfacing. Robert Menzies interacted with him extensively in Empowered for Witness (1994), agreeing with him much of the time. Max Turner, in Power from on High (1996), also interacted with him extensively, occasionally finding points of agreement. Matthias Wenk, in the introduction to his Community-Forming Power (2000), summarized the theses of eleven scholars, allotting more space to Haya-Prats than to any other, including Gunkel, von Baer, Büchsel, Schweizer, Menzies, and Turner.
My perusal of the literature related to the Holy Spirit in Acts brought the name of Haya-Prats into sharp relief. His work, however, was written in Castilian Spanish (as a doctoral dissertation at the Gregorian University of Rome in 1967) and translated only into French, L’Esprit, force de l’église (1975; now out of print). As such, it was inaccessible to the person who reads only English, and I was convinced that it was too important a work to languish unreadable to such a large sector of Christendom.
So as I enjoyed the breakfast that Sunday morning with Paul and David, I turned the conversation to Haya-Prats. I was eager to hear their opinion about the idea of having the Foundation sponsor the translation of his dissertation into English. Paul, a Lukan scholar who had read Haya-Prats in Cerf’s French edition and had cited it on occasion, thought the idea had merit. We would discuss it at greater length on our flight back to Atlanta. David, more the historical theologian, agreed that such a project was worthwhile on the grounds that there was great interest in the Holy Spirit in the church and that the work filled a gap in scholarly writing on the Holy Spirit. Thus was birthed the book now resting in your hands.
In July of 2006, the Foundation gratefully received Haya-Prats’ permission to translate his dissertation into English; the same year, we contracted with Scott A. Ellington, to perform the translation (he also translated most of the German quotations). In 2007, Scott delivered the literal translation I had requested, which I then copyedited and delivered to Paul for his pertinent scholarly notes that update the work to the current year.
It should be noted that this monograph is a translation of the complete, original Spanish dissertation, not a translation of Cerf’s French edition, which omitted Chapter 1 and part of another. And to make the work more accessible to the non-scholar, all contemporary foreign language quotations in the text have been translated into English, but for the scholar, the original language follows in the footnotes (excepting TWNT); where page citations of an English translation occur, the page citations of the original edition usually follow.
Along this journey, a few individuals contributed unselfishly toward the completion of this project, not the least of whom was Paul, who accepted no remuneration for the contribution of his Foreword and notes and for his many hours of editorial work, and this on top of his work as the founding editor of the Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research; the Foundation echoes his gratitude to the administration and colleagues at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary (Cleveland, Tenn.) for the supportive and cordial atmosphere which they provided as friends of scholarship. Stéphanie Bélanger, kindly translated passages from the French scholars. Steve Gossett, who serves on the Foundation’s Board of Directors along with C. Scott Johnson, kindly provided the graphic of the final illustration. I am grateful to all of these individuals for their support of this project.

—Robert W. Graves, President
The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship
Pentecost Sunday 2010

Preface
This study is intended to contribute to the development of biblical moral theology, which, it has been accurately observed, is a new label that as yet lacks a definite meaning. It is clear, though, that it should be understood as that part of biblical theology that pertains particularly to the moral aspect of the message. Currently, there is a growing desire and hope that biblical theology will contribute a primary elaboration of the biblical facts to the renewal of moral theology, as it is already doing with dogmatic theology. Pious XII, in the “Divino afflante Spiritu,” reminded exegetes of the need to expound on the moral sense of the various sacred books. The Second Vatican Council asserted in the “Dei Verbum” that a study of the Holy Scripture “is . . . the soul of sacred theology” (num. 24) and, in the decree concerning priestly formation (“Optatam Totius”), recommended that “Special care must be given to the perfecting of moral theology. Its scientific exposition, nourished more on the teaching of the Bible, should shed light on the loftiness of the calling of the faithful in Christ and the obligation that is theirs of bearing fruit in charity for the life of the world” (num. 16).
The present work is limited to the concept of the Holy Spirit and its influence in the Christian life of the primitive community according to the book of Acts. This certainly touches, in part, on an aspect of moral theology, although perhaps it is tempting to consider it secondary or even entirely outside the scope of moral theology. If moral theology wishes to distinguish itself from philosophical ethics, though, it must receive from revelation not only its specific objective but also the light of its principles. The action of the Holy Spirit may pass by a psychologist or a philosopher unnoticed, but it cannot be ignored by moral theology.
The fearlessness of Peter before the Sanhedrin can be a manifestation of his integrity or heroism, according to his ethic, but a moral theology cannot ignore the fact that this event describes a human action that takes place within the fullness of the Holy Spirit. The object of moral theology is not human action in an exclusively anthropologic sense, but rather it is seen in the light of revelation, and by revelation we know that no Christian action exists that does not involve the participation of God. Christian action is not merely conformity to human nature or right reasoning but to the dynamism of the kingdom of God, as an expression of divine charity and filial devotion. The fearlessness of Peter, the wisdom of Stephen, and the joy of the disciples: these are human behaviors, but they are also the result of an intervention by the Holy Spirit. The moral theology that forgets this intervention of the Spirit would cease to be either theological or Christian.
Looking ahead, ethics will be able to demand integrity of a person, but only moral theology will be able to promise the presence of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, moral theology demands integrity—the first duty of a Christian is to allow the presence of God to invade his or her own activities.
The intervention of God is discovered through the light of revelation, and to forget this would be to reduce moral theology to a judicial code or a philosophical ethic. Even in the Holy Scripture, observation confirms that the Spirit (Ruach) rarely appears in the legal texts. The study of the Holy Spirit in Acts renders an important service to moral theology, even if it only modifies the pagan hero archetype by adding the notion of the “man full of the Holy Spirit,” which Acts inherited from biblical tradition.
The second limitation of this study is its narrow focus on the book of Acts. It was necessary to confine the study to a single biblical author in order to present a homogeneous consideration of the topic in all its richness, without corrupting it with modern interpretations or diluting it by drawing on other biblical authors. The selection of Acts presents both advantages and disadvantages for a study of the action of the Spirit with a particular concern for its application to moral theology. The first advantage is to deal with the book that could be called, even though the expression is not an entirely satisfactory one, The Gospel of the Holy Spirit. Another motive for giving preference to Acts is the limited development that the theology of this book has achieved since the commencement of the study of each individual sacred writer. Grässer and Guthrie, in their annotated bibliographies, have noted this lack of study of the theology of Acts. With respect to the understanding of the Holy Spirit that we find in Acts, it is common to see it interpreted from the perspective of other New Testament authors, thus diluting this book’s unique message. One may, for example, see the interpretation of Pentecost in the few allusions found in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964 (num. 4.19.24) and the more comprehensive mention made in Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church (“Ad Gentes,”), n. 4. One could also call attention to the scant use of Acts in developing the themes of the charismatic gifts and of the church as the people of God.
A third advantage of studying Acts is its contribution to a theology both ancient, with respect to its origins, and modern, through comparisons with the Synoptics and with a large part of the Epistles. The difficultly that this presents from the very beginning is that Acts did not develop an understanding of the Holy Spirit as sanctifier such as we find in the writings of Paul and John. Many authors maintain that Acts simply carries on the notion of the prophetic gift found in the Old Testament, while others attribute to the Pentecostal gift the life of the community described in the Lukan summaries in Acts. The disharmony among these authors spurred me to undertake this work. An initial reflection over the diverse references to the Spirit in Acts will expose a type of Spirit-influence on moral order, even though it concentrates on marginal facts with no exact reference to a sanctifying effect. In chs. 6, 7, and 8, I will describe and analyze this problem, which could be called the nucleus around which this work has developed.
The need to think about Acts within its own context, and not in light of our own current issues, obligates us to study first of all how Luke perceived the Spirit. We may then examine the Spirit’s effects according to the importance they have in Acts and not according to the issues with which we ourselves are preoccupied.
The results of this study confirm the Holy Spirit’s influence in the extraordinary empowering of the Christian life, even though one could not call this a sanctifying action, nor does sanctifying action occupy an important place in the Lukan concept of the Spirit. A more important contribution to moral theology could be reevaluating the concept of the Holy Spirit as a promoter of the history of salvation—more important, at least, for a moral theology that wishes to renew itself “by means of a more vivid contact with . . . the history of salvation” (Vatican II). This study reveals that Acts, always through its narrative style, teaches us of the existence of the Spirit’s action, of the need to immerse ourselves in the Spirit, and of the means by which we recognize the Spirit.
The bibliography that deals specifically with the Holy Spirit in Acts is very scant and in fact could be reduced to the following works: the monograph by von Baer, Der Heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften (The Holy Spirit in the writings of Luke), published in 1926; the section that Schweizer dedicates to the study of Luke and Acts in the TDNT article, “pneu~ma, ktl,” and a rather general article by Lampe on the Holy Spirit in Luke’s writings.
From Mattill’s bibliography I have learned of various theses written on the same theme and defended in various universities in the United States, but I have encountered no other description or mention of such works. I give the full citation of these materials in the Bibliography, where I also gather the excursions that several commentaries devote to an all-embracing vision of the Holy Spirit in Acts. Also, a number of encyclopedias and biblical theologies published in recent years dedicate a section to the Holy Spirit in Acts. Previously, it was customary to deal with Acts together with the Synoptics or combined with other themes from the Epistles, such as the concept of the primitive community. Much more important have been both comprehensive and partial observations concerning the Holy Spirit in Acts that we find in studies of either the overall structure of Luke’s work or of certain specific passages. However, commentaries and articles frequently examine various technical questions in such passages while failing to interpret the activities of the Spirit. Pentecost is naturally the primary topic to be examined, but attention is frequently diverted to descriptive details.
I should give special recognition for the direction that has been given, with respect to its content or methodology, to the works of Dupont, de la Potterie, Trocmé, Menoud, Dibelius, Haenchen, and Lohse.
The method of interpretation should never overshadow what Luke wanted to communicate to his readers. To that end, I have always had before me all the passages in Luke-Acts that mention the Holy Spirit (or the particular theme dealt with in each section). To the extent possible in a book like Acts, I have tried to look for an interpretation that is valid for all the passages in Luke-Acts, or at least an interpretation that can provide a coherent meaning for the majority of passages, accompanied by an explanation for any aberrant passages. Along side of this all-embracing vision, I have analyzed each passage to determine its sense, starting with the particular meaning of its vocabulary, then the construction of each phrase or sentence, the structure of the paragraph, and the way that it is integrated in the unity of the larger narrative and of the overall work. Vocabulary is always the starting point and the guiding thread of my study. In the investigative scheme, a Lukan term always acts as an epigraph or key term for each section, even though I may shift later to a more harmonized development and presentation.
It has been through all the analysis of the structures and the comparison of the parallels that I have been able to penetrate more deeply into the intentions of Luke. I employed this method especially to study the episode of Cornelius and, more particularly, the triple narration of the coming of the Holy Spirit, using it as a filter to examine the Cornelius episode until it was reduced to its essential meaning in the Jerusalem Council.
I acknowledge in particular P. Ignace de la Potterie for guiding me in the methodology of this work and for other valuable observations.

Actualización bibliográfica.

R. B. Hays, in a paper given at the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology at Duke Divinity School on “Preaching, Teaching, and Living the Bible” suggested several components of valid interpretative practice which are capable of producing such fresh and authorial attentive readings. An essential faculty for this work is a “Spirit-led imagination, an imagination converted by the word” (R. B. Hays, “Reading the Bible with Eyes of Faith: The Practice of Theological Exegesis,” JTI 1/1 [2007]: 15).
In our view, this sober quality of interpretation is amply demonstrated both by Haya-Prats’ thesis and by the work of his thesis supervisor, I. de la Potterie (see, for example, the latter’s La vérité dans Saint Jean [AnBib 74, 75; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977] and “Le sens spiritual de l’Écriture,” Greg 78 [1997]: 627–45). Professor de la Potterie is remembered for his loyalty to the Church and profound apostolic endeavor, as well as for being a devoted and strict director of more than thirty dissertations (J. Lambrecht, “In Memoriam: R. P. Ignace de la Potterie, S. J.,” Bib 84 [2003]: 592–93) of which Haya-Prats’ thesis is one.

Beginning decidedly in 1974, shortly after Haya-Prats undertook the methodological challenge of an interpretive strategy unfettered by the imposition of arbitrary and artificial temporal intervals upon the text of Luke-Acts as previously employed in a thesis from the Reformed tradition at the University of Greifswald by an Estonian Lutheran pastor, H. von Baer’s Geist Der Heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften (BWANT 3/3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), new exegetical works of fresh relevance and interpretive energy have continued to emerge. These biblical efforts engage in various ways with the topical analyses and attempted narrative sensitivity similarly advanced by Haya-Prats and perhaps might be briefly illustrated by the following studies: J. Giblet, “Baptism in the Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles,” OC 10 (1974): 162–71; F. A. Sullivan, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Catholic Interpretation of the Pentecostal Experience,” Greg 55 (1974): 54–61; F. A. Sullivan, Wolfgang Wörner, and Norbert Baumert, Die charismatische Erneuerung: die biblische und theologische Grundlagen (Graz: Styria, 1986); O. Mainville, L’Esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc (HP 45; Montreal: Éditions Fides, 1991); R. P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 54: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); R. Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (JPTSup 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); J. B. Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991; repr., Eugene, Oreg,: Wipf & Stock, 2000); H.-S. Kim, Die Geisttaufe des Messias: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem Leitmotiv des lukanischen Doppelwerks. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie und Intention des Lukas (SklPhil 81; Frankfort am Main: Lang, 1993); G. T. Montague, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994); N. Baumert, Charisma, Taufe, Geisttaufe, I: Entflechtung einersemantischen Verwirrung; II, Normativität und persönliche Berufung (Würzburg: Echter, 2001); J. Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 211; London: T&T Clark, 2004); and Y. H. Kim, “A Narrative Preaching of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts” (PhD. diss., University of Wales, Lampeter, 2008).

A portion of this important pioneering work is available to English readers in I. de la Potterie and S. Lyonnet, The Christian Lives by the Spirit (Preface by Y. Congar; trans. J. Morriss; Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1971), a portion of which appeared previously in de la Potterie’s “L’onction du chrétien par la foi,” Bib 40 (1959): 12–69, and in his La vie selon l’Esprit. Condition du chrétien (Paris: Cerf, 1965).
W. Vondey, Heribert Mühlen: His Theology and Praxis, A New Profile of the Church (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2004), 307. See too, H. Mühlen, “Der Beginn einer neuen Epoche der Geschichte des Glaubens,” TGl 64(1974): 28–45; idem, “The Renewal of the Church,” in his A Charismatic Theology: Initiation in the Spirit (trans. E. Quinn and T. Linton; London: Burns & Oates/New York: Paulist, 1978), 347–60, and also H. Mühlen, “The Person of the Holy Spirit,” in The Holy Spirit and Power (ed. K. McDonnell; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 11–33 (McDonnell’s ET of “Die epochale Notwendigkeit eines penumatologischen Ansatzes der Gotteslehre,” Wort und Wahrheit 18 [1973]: 275–87).

Y. Congar, “The Positive Contribution of the ‘Charismatic Renewal’ to the Church,” in his I Believe in the Holy Spirit (trans. D. Smith; 3 vols. in 1; New York: Crossroad, 2005), 2:155. Just five years after Haya-Prats’ thesis at Pontifical Gregorian University, Congar published the following two ground-breaking theological observations: “Actualité renouvelée du Saint-Esprit,” LumVit 27 (1972): 543–60 and “La pneumatology et théologie catholique,” RSPT 51 (1972): 250–58. This background underpinned the famous work by Cardinal L. J. Suenens, A New Pentecost? (trans. F. Martin; New York: Seabury, 1975).
F. Martin, Baptism in the Spirit: A Scriptural Foundation (Steubenville, Ohio: Franciscan University Press, 1986), 54–55. This is a revised version of his “Le baptême dans l’Esprit; tradition du Nouveau Testament et vie de l’Eglise,” NRTh 106 (1984): 23–58.
R. Stronstad, “On Being Baptized in the Holy Spirit: A Lukan Emphasis,” in Trajectories in the Book of Acts: Essays in Honor of John Wesley Wyckoff (ed. P. Alexander, J. D. May, and R. G. Reid; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 186.
W. S. Kurz, “From the Servant Isaiah to Jesus and the Apostles in Luke-Acts to Christians Today: Spirit-Filled Witness to the Ends of the Earth,” in Between Experience and Interpretation: Engaging the Writings of the New Testament, FS Luke Timothy Johnson (ed. M. F. Foskett and O. W. Allen, Jr.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2008), 193.
R. Cantalamessa, The Mystery of Pentecost (trans. G. S. Davis; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2001), 43.


With regard to this acknowledgement of methodological guidance from his distinguished dissertation director, Prof. Dr. I. de la Potterie, S. J., perhaps it may be helpful at the outset of reading Haya-Prats’ thesis to underscore two significant points that he makes in his Preface about message dilution due to imported and imposed perspectives, which he particularly seeks to avoid throughout. First, while Haya-Prats mentions his occasional justifiable indebtedness to von Baer’s thesis, Heilige Geist, done a half-century earlier, he does not at all follow or employ the interpretive method of that thesis. This is consistent with Haya-Prats’ stated desire that a method of interpretation should never overshadow or obliterate the original communicative intention. On the other hand, von Baer, an Estonian Lutheran pastor, invokes and imposes artificial periodizations or epochs on the text of Luke-Acts as an arbitrary interpretive technique. Neither Luther nor Calvin employed this pseudo-epochal tactic. Von Baer is apparently the originator of this narratively destructive interpretive imposition within the Reformed tradition. His artificially divisive temporal epochs are rightly perceived as an ineffective and misleading interpretive tool that obliterates the original rhetorical intention. They lead dogmatically to claims about Lukan characters and events that fit the Protestant theology of some. Haya-Prats does not imitate this approach. He avoids it.
For example, following von Baer’s epochal imagination, it is claimed, ignoring substantial narrative evidence, that no characters in Jesus’ earthly ministry experienced lasting faith, forgiveness, repentance, or salvation since the terms of salvation were supposedly not met until another salvific epoch arrived at the first Jerusalem Pentecost. The deleterious effects of continuing to employ and embellish this artificial methodology, which Haya-Prats does not do, are especially to be avoided. To Haya-Prats’credit and contextual objectivity, he does not adopt or import von Baer’s simplistic and naratively distortive methodology of epochal imposition, probably under the wise and guiding influence of his director. In de la Potterie’s many preeminent studies on the Fourth Gospel one never encounters such narratively disruptive epochal impositions employed as an interpretive technique. Such pseudo-narratival impositions could be used there in order to make extraordinary claims, similar to how they have been employed to overshadow the communicative intent of Luke-Acts, namely that none of the characters in the Fourth Gospel who believe in Jesus experienced salvation during the earthy ministry of Jesus and that John 20:22 was salvific for all these characters, or that even if faith and salvation did occur in Jesus’ ministry it was destined to fade away without the special Spirit-reception event for selected characters. Neither de la Potterie nor Haya-Prats employs this interpretive method.
Second, the other significant point Haya-Prats makes in his Preface about message dilution is equally astute. He rightly observes that when Luke-Acts is interpreted through a filtered perspective deduced from another NT writer, proper interpretive methodology is not achieved. Interpretations attuned to this or that understanding of Paul have often been used to impose a false perspective onto Luke-Acts without adequate narrative reflection, supposedly then making Luke distinctive or diverse from Paul. The idea that the activities of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts are “distinct” from Pauline pneumatology and theology appears to be a long-standing a priori notion. Pressing beyond common expressions for Christian experience, an extreme notion of “distinctness” is then dovetailed in some Protestant scholarship with an uncritical imitation and embellishment of von Baer’s anti-narrational periodizations.
In many respects then the thesis of Haya-Prats is a quite refreshing, heuristic, and independent counter-balance both to quick and dogmatic impositions of snippets from other NT writers upon Luke-Acts and to overshadowing claims and embellishments controlled by an artificial and narratively divisive epochal scheme that are long overdue for retirement. Of great worthiness, Haya-Prats’ thesis is relatively unencumbered by these particular imported perspectives. Accordingly, Haya-Prats allows us to much more freely and critically become engaged in a journey of progress toward what W. C. van Unnik called a “living contact with Luke’s world” where we may “walk with him along his roads, to see and hear with his eyes and those of his contemporaries” (“Luke’s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, redaction, théologie [ed. J. Kremer; BETL 48; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979], 60).––Ed.]