Theology Papers

The Conflict Between Dispensationalism and Early Pentecostalism and the Emergence of the Latter Rain Motif by William Sloos

Abstract:

Confronting the early Pentecostal movement was dispensationalism, a prevailing fundamentalist theology that conflicted with Pentecostal ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives. Although early Pentecostals concurred with most dispensational teachings, their experience of Spirit-baptism prevented them from accepting two significant dispensationalist tenets: 1) spiritual gifts had ceased following the apostolic period and 2) the church age would end in apostasy. To early Pentecostals, the charismatic gifts were being restored to the church in preparation for a global end-times revival. This difference in ecclesiology and eschatology set the early Pentecostals at odds with the pessimistic nature of dispensational hermeneutics. Having difficulty explaining their charismatic experiences through dispensational language, Pentecostals would turn to the latter rain motif to articulate their emerging distinctives. This article examines the conflict between dispensationalism and early Pentecostalism and explores how early Pentecostals adopted the latter rain motif as an alternative theological framework to articulate their ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives.

 Introduction

Following the birth of the Pentecostal movement in the early twentieth century, Pentecostals were confronted with dispensationalism, a prevailing fundamentalist theology that conflicted with their emerging ecclesiastical and eschatological distinctives.{C}[1] Developed in the mid-nineteenth century by John Nelson Darby, dispensational theology was a system of interpreting biblical history as a series of successive dispensations culminating in a clearly defined eschatological framework.[2] Although early Pentecostals concurred with most dispensational hermeneutics, their experience of Spirit-baptism prevented them from accepting two significant dispensationalist tenets: 1) the gifts of the Holy Spirit had ceased following the apostolic period and 2) the church age would end in apostasy.[3] Clearly apparent to Pentecostals, the charismatic gifts had not ceased after the apostolic age, but were now being restored to the church through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.[4] Moreover, because of the restoration of the charismatic gifts, the church age would not end in apostasy, but rather the church will experience a global end-times revival prior to the imminent return of Christ. This significant difference in ecclesiology and eschatology set the early Pentecostals at odds with dispensationalism. Unable to explain the theological implications of their charismatic experience through dispensational theology, Pentecostals would turn their attention to the latter rain motif to articulate their emerging distinctives.[5] This paper examines the conflict between dispensationalism and early Pentecostalism and explores how early Pentecostals found an alternative theological framework to articulate their ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives.

The Origin and Nature of Dispensationalism

Although dispensational theology is not expressly covered in the ancient creeds of the church, throughout history theologians have endeavoured to map the divine timeline marked out in Scripture.[6] Emerging as a formal comprehensive system of biblical interpretation, dispensationalism was first developed by an early nineteenth century group of theological students in the early Brethren movement in Ireland.[7] John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a former Church of Ireland cleric, formally systemized the hermeneutical scheme and subsequently exported the highly eschatological interpretive methodology to North America during a time of heightened end-times expectations.[8] Helping to popularize Darby’s innovative exegesis, Rev. Dr. C. I. Scofield published the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) which intertwined dispensational teachings with prophetic and apocalyptic literature in the King James Version of the Bible.[9] Despite allegations regarding Scofield’s questionable financial dealings, bigamy, and falsifying a doctoral degree, he sold millions of copies and helped to firmly cement dispensational theology in the fundamentalist doctrines of early twentieth century evangelicalism.[10] For evangelicals, dispensational theology not only upheld the fundamental truths of Scripture that were under attack by the rising tide of Modernism, but also provided a fitting interpretive system to understand end times prophecy that appeared to be unfolding around them.

As a systematized concept of biblical interpretation, dispensational theology describes how God manages the affairs of humankind in specific time periods or dispensations throughout history.[11] Each dispensation is comprised of a unique governmental relationship between God and humanity and includes a particular responsibility placed upon humanity in accordance with each governing relationship. As well, each dispensation has its own requisite demands for faith and obedience according to God’s progressive revelation.[12] Beginning with creation and moving throughout history, each successive dispensational epoch is characterized by a common pattern consisting of a test of faith to determine whether people will choose to align themselves with God’s economy, followed by their inevitable failure and subsequent judgment for disobedience.

Based upon the consistent use of a normal, plain, or literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensational theology insists there are seven dispensations that can be deduced from the Scriptures.[13] The seven dispensations are as follows:

1. Innocence (between creation and the Fall, see Gen. 1:28)

2. Conscience or Moral Responsibility (between the Fall and Noah’s flood, see Gen. 3:7)

3. Human Government (from the flood to the call of Abraham, see Gen. 8:15)

4. Promise (from Abraham to Moses, see Gen. 12:1)

5. Law (from Moses to the death of Christ, see Ex. 19:1)

6. Church (from the resurrection to the present, see Acts 2:1)

7. The Kingdom or The Millennium (see Rev. 20:4).[14]

The church age, also known as the dispensation of grace, begins with the resurrection of Christ and ends with the rapture of the church, followed by a seven year tribulation period where God pours out his wrath on an unbelieving world and apostate church.[15] In addition to this complex dispensational system, there is also a clear distinction between Israel and the church.[16] Dispensational teachers have contended that, throughout history, God has pursued two separate soteriological programs, one program involving the church or the “heavenly people” and the other involving Israel or the “earthly people.”{C}[17] The church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile believers, is considered an independent program that does not advance or fulfil any of the biblical promises given to Israel. The present church age is regarded as a period in which Israel is temporarily set aside from the dispensational program, but when the church is raptured, God will then proceed with fulfilling his eschatological purposes for national Israel. The return of the Jews to Palestine in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries made many evangelicals especially receptive to the eschatological system of dispensational theology and aided in creating and sustaining an expectation that the church age was drawing to a close, the rapture was imminent, and God was about to turn his attention back to Israel.[18] 

An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology and Eschatology

Within this heightened eschatological context of the early twentieth century, the Pentecostal movement exploded onto the religious landscape with an emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues according to the biblical pattern of the first Pentecost in the book of Acts.[19] In North America, the epicentre of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the Apostolic Faith Mission at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, where people from all over the world came to seek the Lord for their personal Pentecost.[20] With three services a day, seven days a week, for forty-two months, thousands of seekers received an ecstatic spiritual experience that revived their faith and transformed their lives. In addition to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, people attending services at Azusa Street also reported experiencing conversions, healings, miracles, deliverances from addictions, and exorcisms. Arising from these experiences was a revitalized ecclesial praxis that centered upon the restoration of the charismatic gifts according to the apostolic paradigm. Illustrating the significance of this apostolic restoration, Seymour proclaims, “All along the ages men have been preaching a partial Gospel…He is now bringing back the Pentecostal baptism to the church.” With optimistic certainty, Seymour adds “The Lord is restoring all the gifts to His Church” and “it is heaven below.”[21] Unlike the pessimistic views of dispensationalism, early Pentecostals believed that they were experiencing the reclamation of all that had been lost through the centuries, the recovery of the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the reviving of the one true church of Christ. This new ecclesiology led Pentecostals to consider themselves, not merely another denomination, but rather a divinely initiated movement designed to restore the fullness of the Holy Spirit evidenced by miracles, healings, signs, and wonders.

In conjunction with the emerging Pentecostal ecclesiology, the restoration of the charismatic gifts also led to the development of a uniquely Pentecostal eschatology. Believing that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the fulfilment of Bible prophecy and signalled the arrival of the “last days,” Pentecostals were consumed with actively and urgently proclaiming the gospel prior to the imminent return of Christ.[22] This emotive end-times sentiment pervaded early Pentecostal communities and fuelled their homiletics, periodicals, and missionary endeavours. Emanating from Pentecostal pulpits, preachers urged listeners to ready themselves for Christ’s return. Early Pentecostal publications would also reverberate with the pressing message of the imminent return of Christ and the important task of witnessing to lost people before the end of the age. The impending eschaton also inspired many Pentecostals to serve on foreign mission fields with the conviction that every person must hear the gospel before Christ breaks through the clouds. Anderson states, “The significance of this teaching for Pentecostals was that their belief in the ‘soon’ coming of Christ with its impending doom for unbelievers lent urgency to the task of world evangelization.”{C}[23] Confident that the restoration of the apostolic church was a clear indicator of the shortness of time, Pentecostals made evangelism their primary concern and viewed themselves as participants in the global harvest. “This is a world-wide revival,” declares Seymour, “the last Pentecostal revival to bring our Jesus. The church is taking her last march to meet her beloved.” “We are expecting a wave of salvation go over this world…There is power in the full Gospel. Nothing can quench it.”{C}[24] Rather than the present dispensation ending in apostasy, Pentecostal expectations were charged with enthusiastic optimism that they were partners with Christ in the last days. Deeply rooted in charismatic experience, these ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives soon established themselves within the emerging Pentecostal community and became the pervading ethos that characterized the movement in its earliest years.{C}[25]

The Conflict between Dispensationalism and Pentecostal Distinctives

Conflicting with the developing ecclesiology and eschatology of the burgeoning Pentecostal movement was the prevailing dispensational doctrines dominating the current evangelical culture. Despite having an affinity with many elements of dispensational hermeneutics, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit created an obvious theological quandary for early Pentecostals.[26] Dispensational theology teaches that the Pentecostal experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and the sensational or sign gifts of the Spirit were not normative for the church age, but were only intended to inaugurate the church and terminated after the apostolic period. “Tongues and the sign gifts are to cease,” states Scofield’s commentary on spiritual gifts.[27]{C} Moreover, dispensational views also stipulate that each dispensation, including the church age, concludes in human failure and apostasy, setting any conception of an end-times revival at variance with the established dispensational paradigm. As Scofield emphasizes repeatedly throughout his text notes, “the predicted future of the visible Church is apostasy”[28] and “the only remedy for apostasy is judgment” and “catastrophic destruction.”[29] He adds, “The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.” Inherently pessimistic, dispensationalism presents a powerless church with a degenerating future. With Pentecostals enjoying the restoration of charismatic power and gifts along with increasing reports of global revival, dispensational theology became increasingly inconsistent with the Pentecostal experience. Alert to these variants, some outspoken dispensationalists judged the budding Pentecostal phenomenon as unbiblical and even sourced in the demonic; a theological wedge was widening between the two camps.[31]

Since early Pentecostalism had not formed a satisfactory explanation for their emerging distinctives, many early Pentecostal leaders tried to articulate their theological understanding by using various forms of familiar dispensational language. Evidence of these theological inconsistencies can be found scattered throughout early Pentecostal writings, highlighting the challenge Pentecostals had in defining their ecclesiology and eschatology against traditional dispensational theology. To illustrate, William Seymour comments about the restoration of Pentecost but then states that “we are living in the eventide of this dispensation.” Charles Parham borrowed much of his eschatology from dispensational theology despite the inherent conflicting ideas. Often attempting to merge the Pentecostal experience with dispensational hermeneutics, Parham teaches that the “last days” would be marked both by the restoration of the apostolic church and also by great apostasy.[34] This theological paradox continues with William Durham who also tried integrating Pentecostal restoration with dispensational theology stating, “In the end of the days the Lord has poured out His Spirit, as in the beginning of the dispensation, and has undertaken to restore to His own spiritual church all that she has lost through the failure and unbelief of man.”[35] Numerous early Pentecostal teachers employed dispensational language to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit despite the obvious inconsistencies. Without a suitable framework to interpret the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit, early Pentecostal leaders struggled to assimilate their charismatic distinctives with popular dispensationalism and began turning their attention to the latter rain motif.

The Latter Rain Motif

The concept of the latter rain motif did not originate with the birth of the Pentecostal movement, but was developed out of nineteenth century Wesleyan-Holiness teachings.[36] Nevertheless, the latter rain motif would become the prevailing theological methodology for framing the restorationist phenomena that pervaded early Pentecostal thought. Developed from a typological reading of some Scripture passages, the basis for the latter rain metaphor asserts that the chronology of the church spiritually parallels the rainfall patterns in early Palestine.[37] The term is initially found in Deuteronomy 11:10-15 where God promises the Israelites that, if they would serve him with all their heart and soul, he would give them the “early” and “latter” rain.[38] According to ancient Mediterranean agricultural customs, to produce a bountiful harvest, a farmer requires rain at two critical points in the growing cycle.[39] Following the planting, the first or “early rain” is needed to cause the seed to germinate. Additionally, just before the crop is harvested, a “latter rain” is needed so the grain will produce a high yield at harvest time. In Joel 2:23 and 28, this agricultural model is reconfigured as a prophetic metaphor to indicate the divine timeline for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the church age. The first outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, symbolizing the “early rain” that gave life to the church. Between the early and latter rains was the long, arid period of Christendom’s apostasy and corruption during the Middle Ages. When the second outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred at the dawn of the twentieth century, it was indicative of the “latter rain,” spiritually saturating the land in preparation for the great harvest of souls before the coming of the Lord. For early Pentecostals, the latter rain motif complemented their experience and affirmed the restorationist and revivalist ethos that defined the movement.[40] As opposed to dispensationalism, which rejected the possibility of an end-times outpouring of the Holy Spirit, adopting the latter rain motif provided biblical legitimacy to the emergent Pentecostal movement and affirmed the existing notion among early Pentecostals that they were part of God’s overall eschatological timetable.[41]

Embracing the latter rain motif gave the early Pentecostals a fitting theological framework to articulate their ecclesiology and eschatology. Although they never discarded the dispensational doctrines of salvation history and most elements of Bible prophecy, the latter rain motif became the primary apologetic for the Pentecostal movement and gave Pentecostal proponents a meaningful and emotive biblical apologetic to explain the restoration of the charismatic phenomenon. Reflecting on the emphasis early Pentecostals placed on the latter rain motif, Blumhofer states:

While they [early Pentecostals] unquestioningly embraced most of Darby’s view of history, early Pentecostals rejected his insistence that the “gifts” had been withdrawn. They introduced into his system their own dispensational setting where the gifts could again operate in the church. The device through which they legitimated those gifts was their teaching on the latter rain.[42] 

For early Pentecostals, the adoption of the latter rain motif seemed to remedy the theological impasse with dispensationalism- at least within the Pentecostal community. By superimposing the latter rain motif onto dispensational theology, Pentecostals retained a relatively functional framework for interpreting prophecy and enjoyed biblical support for their charismatic experience. Despite the inherent inconsistencies with merging these two theologies, the pragmatism of the early Pentecostals creatively negotiated between the conflicts and charted a new theological trajectory towards the development of a uniquely Pentecostal theology.[43]

The latter rain motif quickly took root in early Pentecostal publications throughout North American and came to define the ecclesiology and eschatology of the fledgling Pentecostal movement. Many started calling the Pentecostal revival the “Latter Rain Movement” after one of Parham’s published reports describing the beginning of the outpouring of the Spirit at the turn of the century.[44] Additionally, articles began circulating with titles such as, “The Promised Latter Rain Now Being Poured Out on God’s Humble People,” and “Gracious Pentecostal Showers Continue to Fall.”[45] Around the same time, a Pentecostal periodical out of Chicago assumed the banner “Latter Rain Evangel,” emphasizing the increasing popularity of the latter rain sentiment throughout the Pentecostal movement.[46] Seymour asserts that God “gave the former rain moderately at Pentecost, and He is going to send upon us in these last days the former and latter rain” (italics mine).[47] W. C. Stevens describes Pentecost as “saturating rains” marked by “atmospheric convulsions” breaking out “here and there in identical kind in various localities.”[48] David Wesley Myland, a Canadian-born Pentecostal pastor, wrote an influential book describing the early Pentecostal movement entitled “The Latter Rain Covenant (1910).”[49] Fused with “latter rain” thematic expressions, his book relates the prevailing eschatological ethos among early Pentecostals. Believing that they were living in the final “cloudburst” of Holy Ghost power, Myland wanted everyone to get “totally soaked” by the “latter rain” which was falling so copiously from heaven.[50] Although the latter rain metaphor had its limitations, early Pentecostals used it liberally to articulate their ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives and their favourable position within God’s plan of redemption history.

Despite the early Pentecostals’ innovative synthesis of the latter rain motif with dispensational theology, the fundamentalists were not amused. Already strongly disapproving of Pentecostal devotional ethics and restorationist claims, when the Pentecostals creatively modified dispensational theology to accommodate their charismatic experiences, a deep and long-lasting wedge was placed between the two religious groups. While Pentecostals treated the dispensational interpretive framework with value and even willingly promoted the sale of the Scofield Reference Bible, the fundamentalists were staunchly opposed to the “Pentecostal distortion.”[51] Blumhofer states:

Dispensationalism, as articulated by Scofield, understood the gifts of the Spirit to have been withdrawn from the Church. Rejecting the latter rain views by which Pentecostals legitimated their place in God’s plan, dispensationalists effectively eliminated the biblical basis for Pentecostal theology; and although Pentecostals embraced most of Scofield’s ideas…they remained irrevocably distanced from fundamentalists by their teaching on the place of spiritual gifts in the contemporary church.[52] 

Regardless of the opposing opinions between fundamentalists and Pentecostals, the early Pentecostals could not deny their experience. Whether their experience was accepted or rejected by fundamentalists was irrelevant; the emergence of the charismatic gifts were irrefutable proof that God was restoring his church. Driving the Pentecostal movement was not doctrines, creeds, or theological constructs, but an intense spirituality sustained by an equally intense conviction that what they were experiencing was not only biblical, but was also a prophetic fulfilment of God’s eschatological agenda.[53] Moreover, the ensuing division between fundamentalists and Pentecostals became a catalyst for furthering the development of a more defined Pentecostal ecclesiology and eschatology that went beyond the latter rain motif towards a more well-informed biblical and theological context in the following decades.[54] Although dispensational theology maintained its usage in Pentecostal circles throughout the twentieth century, the development of the latter rain motif enabled early Pentecostals to biblically support their unique distinctives in the midst of opposing theological viewpoints.

Conclusion

Within the heightened eschatological context of the early twentieth century, the Pentecostal movement burst onto the religious landscape. The emergence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the charismatic gifts signalled to Pentecostal believers that they were experiencing the end-times restoration of the apostolic church. Confronting the early Pentecostal movement was dispensationalism, a prevailing fundamentalist theology that conflicted with the emerging Pentecostal ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives. Dispensational hermeneutics insisted that the charismatic gifts had ceased following the apostolic age and the church age would end in apostasy prior to the return of Christ. To the early Pentecostals however, it was visibly evident that the Holy Spirit was empowering the church for a global end-times revival. Unable to explain the theological implications of their Pentecostal experience through dispensational theology, Pentecostals adopted the latter rain motif according to the prophecies in the book of Joel which anticipated a “last days” outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Believing the “early rain” to be the first Pentecost in the book of Acts, the early Pentecostals were certain they were now experiencing the “latter rain” of the Holy Spirit in preparation for a great harvest of souls prior to the imminent return of Christ. Although early Pentecostals retained most elements of dispensational theology, the latter rain motif became a dominant apologetic for the early Pentecostal movement and provided an adequate theological framework to articulate their emerging ecclesiological and eschatological distinctives. As the Pentecostal movement progressed, a more defined Pentecostal theology developed, but the latter rain motif remains an integral part of understanding early Pentecostal thought in the midst of conflicting theological opinions.

The History of the Future: Examining the Historical Development of Eschatology in the PAOC by William Sloos

(Presented at PAOC General Conference, Saskatoon, April 2014)

Eschatology has been a central feature of our movement. More than simply a theological component in our doctrine, the expectation of the Second Coming of Christ has stirred our faith, captivated our hearts, lifted our worship, punctuated our preaching, and fueled our missions. Since the earliest days of Pentecostal ministry, the end times has seized the imagination, ethos, and enthusiasm of Pentecostal believers. [S3] In 1908, A. H. Argue proclaims that this “present outpouring of the Spirit…is the last call before Jesus comes again.”[1] R. E. McAlister motivates his readers, “The Latter Rain is falling. Jesus is coming soon. Get ready to meet Him!”[2] Convinced they were living in the eleventh hour, just minutes before the midnight call, Pentecostals separated themselves from the world, tarried at altars for power, and testified to signs, wonders, and miracles. As the century progressed, cultural, economic, and geo-political shifts influenced our attitudes toward eschatology. As well, our perspectives on biblical interpretation matured through rigorous theological study and dialogue. Despite these changes, our original doctrinal statement on eschatology has remained relatively unchanged since its inception in 1927, having only undergone one revision in 1984. Now thirty years later, we are reviewing our doctrine on eschatology again to ensure that our current statement is relevant to our ministries, empowering our leaders, and informing our parishioners.

Anchoring our session today is one key question for Pentecostal leaders to consider: Is our eschatological system, as seen in our Statement of Faith and Essential Truths, still serving us well? Our current statement is available at your table for your review. To assist in our discussion, I will briefly examine the historical development of the doctrine of eschatology within our movement- a history of the future, if you will. We will review the following:

a)     The Theological Roots of Pentecostal Eschatology

b)    Early Pentecostal Eschatological Thinking

c)     A Survey of PAOC Eschatological Doctrinal Changes

This brief historical reflection is intended to provide a necessary background and a proper context to engage in our dialogue today. Following this presentation, Dr. Van Johnson will return to guide our round-table discussions.

A. The Theological Roots of Pentecostal Eschatology

The roots of Pentecostal eschatology are found in dispensationalism- an innovative theological system crafted to map out the divine timeline marked out in Scripture. Emerging as a comprehensive scheme of biblical interpretation, dispensationalism was first developed in the early 1800’s by a group of theological students in the Brethren movement in Ireland.[4] John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a former Church of Ireland cleric, pieced together the hermeneutical system and exported the interpretive methodology to North America during a time of heightened end-times expectations: the American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution (1789), Napoleon’s march across Europe (1803-1815), the decay of the Ottoman Empire, the iniquities of the Roman Catholic Church, and the rise of nationalism, communism, and anarchy.[5] Helping to popularize Darby’s innovative exegesis, Rev. Dr. C. I. Scofield published the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) that intertwined dispensational teachings with prophetic and apocalyptic literature in the King James Version.[6] Despite allegations regarding Scofield’s questionable financial dealings, bigamy, and falsifying a doctoral degree, he sold millions of copies and helped to firmly cement dispensational theology in the fundamentalist doctrines of early twentieth century evangelicalism.[7] For evangelicals, dispensationalism not only upheld the fundamental truths of Scripture that were under attack by the rising tide of Modernism, but also provided a fitting interpretive system to understand end times prophecy that appeared to be unfolding around them.

As a system of biblical interpretation, dispensationalism describes how God manages the affairs of humankind in specific time periods or dispensations throughout history.[8] Based upon a literal reading of Scripture, dispensational theology insists there are seven dispensations that can be deduced from the Scriptures:[9]

1. Innocence (Creation to Fall, see Gen. 1:28)

2. Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Fall to Flood, see Gen. 3:7)

3. Human Government (Flood to Abraham, see Gen. 8:15)

4. Promise (Abraham to Moses, see Gen. 12:1)

5. Law (Moses to the Crucifixion of Christ, see Ex. 19:1)

6. Church (Resurrection of Christ to Rapture, see Acts 2:1)

7. The Kingdom or The Millennium (Rapture to Eternal State, see Rev. 20:4).[10] 

Beginning with creation and moving throughout history, each successive dispensation is characterized by a common pattern consisting of a test of faith to determine whether people will choose to align themselves with God’s economy, followed by their inevitable failure and subsequent judgment for disobedience. The Church Age, also known as the dispensation of grace, begins with the Resurrection of Christ and ends with the Rapture of the Church (a brand new concept in Christian theology at the time), followed by a seven-year Tribulation, the Second Coming of Christ, the Final Judgment, and the Eternal State of the Righteous.[11]

Since its inception to the present day, Darby’s dispensational eschatology has retained its popularity among evangelicals and Pentecostals alike. One reason for the popularity of dispensationalism is its thrilling and dramatic vision of the future, while remaining brilliantly and conveniently open-ended- enabling believers living in any generation to apply any end times signs into its system without it ever becoming outdated or irrelevant.[12] During the 1970’s, Hal Lindsey’s bestseller The Late Great Planet Earth and the movie A Thief in the Night proclaimed that the rapture was imminent based on world conditions. In 1995, dispensational eschatology was further popularized by Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series, which made it to the big screen in 2000. Although seldom studied by ordinary believers, dispensational ideas continue to percolate in the minds of evangelicals and Pentecostals today.

B. Early Pentecostal Eschatological Thinking

Despite having an affinity with many elements of dispensationalism, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit created an obvious theological quandary for early Pentecostals.{C}[13] Dispensational theology teaches that the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism, speaking in tongues, and the charismatic gifts were not normative for the church age, but were only intended to inaugurate the church and ceased after the apostolic period. “Tongues and the sign gifts are to cease,” states Scofield’s commentary on spiritual gifts.[14] Moreover, dispensational views also stipulate that each dispensation, including the church age, concludes in human failure and apostasy, making any idea of a global end times outpouring of the Spirit at odds with dispensationalism. As Scofield emphasizes repeatedly throughout his text notes, “the predicted future of the visible Church is apostasy”[15] and “the only remedy for apostasy is judgment” and “catastrophic destruction.”[16] Scofield adds, “The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.”[17] Inherently pessimistic, dispensationalism presents a powerless church with a degenerating future. With early Pentecostals enjoying the restoration of charismatic power and gifts along with increasing reports of global revival, dispensationalism became increasingly inconsistent with the Pentecostal experience. Alert to these variants, some outspoken dispensationalists judged the budding Pentecostal phenomenon as unbiblical and even sourced in the demonic; a theological wedge was widening between the two camps.[18]

Without a suitable eschatological framework to interpret the outpouring of the Spirit, early Pentecostal leaders began turning their attention to the idea of the latter rain. Originating out of nineteenth century Wesleyan-Holiness teachings, the concept of the latter rain would become the prevailing eschatological methodology for framing and validating the Pentecostal experience. Developed from a typological reading of some Scripture passages, the basis for the latter rain metaphor asserts that the chronology of the church spiritually parallels the rainfall patterns in early Palestine.[19] The term is initially found in Deuteronomy 11:10-15 where God promises the Israelites that, if they would serve him with all their heart and soul, he would give them the “early” and “latter” rain.[20]{C} According to ancient Mediterranean agricultural customs, to produce a bountiful harvest, a farmer requires rain at two critical points in the growing cycle: the early rain and the latter rain.[21] In Joel 2:23 and 28, this agricultural model is reconfigured as a prophetic metaphor to indicate the divine timeline for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the church age. The first outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, symbolizing the “early rain” that gave life to the church. Between the early and latter rains was the long, arid period of Christendom’s apostasy and corruption during the Middle Ages. When the second outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred at the dawn of the twentieth century, it was indicative of the “latter rain,” spiritually saturating the land in preparation for the great harvest of souls before the coming of the Lord. For early Pentecostals, the latter rain complemented their charismatic experience and affirmed the restorationist and revivalist ethos that defined the movement.[22] As opposed to dispensationalism, which rejected the possibility of an end-times outpouring of the Holy Spirit, adopting the latter rain idea provided biblical legitimacy to the Pentecostal movement and affirmed the increasing notion among early Pentecostals that they were unique participants in God’s overall eschatological timetable.[23]

Latter rain themes quickly took root in early Pentecostal publications throughout North American and came to define the eschatology of the Pentecostal movement. Many started calling the Pentecostal revival the “Latter Rain Movement”[24] and many articles began circulating with titles such as, “The Promised Latter Rain Now Being Poured Out on God’s Humble People,” and “Gracious Pentecostal Showers Continue to Fall.”[25] Seymour asserts that God “gave the former rain moderately at Pentecost, and He is going to send upon us in these last days the former and latter rain.”[26] W. C. Stevens describes Pentecost as “saturating rains” marked by “atmospheric convulsions” breaking out “here and there in various localities.”[27] Canadian pastor David Wesley Myland wrote an influential book describing the early Pentecostal movement entitled “The Latter Rain Covenant (1910).”[28] Fused with “latter rain” thematic expressions, his book relates the prevailing eschatological ethos among early Pentecostals. Believing that they were living in the final “cloudburst” of Holy Ghost power, Myland wanted everyone to get “totally soaked” by the “latter rain” which was falling so copiously from heaven.[29] Although the latter rain metaphor had its limitations, early Pentecostals used it liberally to articulate their charismatic experiences, eschatological distinctives, and their favourable position within God’s plan of redemption history.

Throughout the last century, dispensational eschatology has continued within Pentecostalism, albeit rather quietly and in the background.  The eschatological doctrines of Pentecostal denominations including the AG, Church of God (Cleveland), Pentecostal Holiness Church, and the PAOC are extracted directly from dispensational teaching, but they intentionally make no mention of the word “dispensationalism”. Moreover, the word “dispensation” is noticeably absent from many key Pentecostal textbooks on eschatology, notably Stanley Horton’s The Promise of His Coming (1967). Recognizing that strict adherence to dispensationalism invalidates the Pentecostal experience, Pentecostals consider dispensationalism merely as a “helpful aid” in understanding the end times and would rather focus on the latter rain to accommodate their charismatic experience and the end times outpouring of the Spirit.[30] Unfortunately, in the 1940’s-50’s, the phrase ‘latter rain’ became associated with a splinter group in Saskatchewan and has since lost its attraction and influence in our Pentecostal eschatology.

C. Survey of PAOC Eschatological Doctrinal Changes

The following is a brief review the development of our eschatological doctrine from our formation in 1919 to our current statement.

1. May 1919, PAOC Charter

When the founding members officially formed the PAOC in 1919, they were reluctant to set up another denomination, but did so in part to protect Pentecostal doctrine.[31] That said, the PREAMBLE of the first PAOC Constitution reads: “we disapprove of making a doctrinal statement on the basis of fellowship and cooperation but that we accept the Word of God in its entirety.”[32] From the outset, Pentecostals leaders were sending a message that all are welcome and no one should be excluded because differing doctrinal opinions. It didn’t last long.

2. November, 1920 Adoption of AG Constitution

            In November 1920, the PAOC joined the AG and, in doing so, adopted the statement of fundamental truths approved by the General Council of the Assemblies of God USA.[33] Within this statement are the following four eschatological doctrines:

13. Blessed Hope – The Resurrection of those who have fallen asleep in Christ, the rapture of believers which are alive and remain, and the translation of the true church, this is the blessed hope set before all believers (1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Rom. 8:23; Titus 2:13).

14. The Imminent Coming and Millenial Reign of Jesus – The premillennial and imminent coming of the Lord to gather His people unto Himself, and to judge the world in righteousness while reigning on the earth for a thousand years is the expectation of the true Church of Christ.

15. The Lake of Fire – The devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, and whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, and fearful and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters and all liars shall be consigned to everlasting punishment in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:1-15).

16. The New Heavens and New Earth – We look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21 and 22).

 3. September 1927, Made in Canada

In 1927, R. E. McAlister led the charge to develop a distinctly Made in Canada doctrinal statement “separate from…the General Council at Springfield.” Intended as a “basis of unity for ministry alone” and to cover “our present needs,”[34] our first official Statement of Fundamental Truths simply inserts the following addition to the AG statement:

The rapture, according to the Scriptures, takes place before what is known as the Great Tribulation. Thus, the Saints, who are raptured at Christ’s coming, do not go through the Great Tribulation.[35]

 The additional statement suggests that the General Conference wanted more clarification on the nature of the rapture than the AG statement offered.

4. August 1984, Major Revision

Changes to our current doctrinal statement were conceived on March 5, 1977 when the Standing Home Missions Committee appointed a seven-member commission to study the Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths. This initiative was in response to a growing number of credential holders who were having difficulty giving unqualified approval to the previous statement. The Doctrinal Statement Study Committee included the following church leaders and scholars: R. M. Argue, C. A. Ratz, J. H. Faught, R. A. N. Kydd, T. Johnstone, G. B. Griffin, and G. R. Upton. At the 1984 General Conference, the house approved the new statement on eschatology that you have in front of you:

1.     The Present State of the Dead

2.     The Rapture

3.     The Tribulation

4.     The Second Coming of Christ

5.     The Final Judgment

6.     The Eternal State of the Righteous

       Three Observations:

a)     The current statement is systematized into six segments that progress chronologically and reflects the same divisions within dispensational eschatology; although no mention of dispensationalism is stated, dispensationalism certainly informed the process.

 b)    As this 1984 revision was initiated to satisfy a growing number of credential holders who were having difficulty endorsing the previous statement, how does the current and emerging generation of Pentecostal credential holders feel about our current statement?

 c)     Our official eschatological statements (past and present) excludes any mention of our Pentecostal distinctives that characterized our early eschatology; should consideration be given to a more nuanced eschatology that emphasizes our charismatic distinctives and our understanding of the end times outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

No One Righteous: Understanding Augustinian and Pelagian Views of Original Sin and their Influence on Christian Faith by William Sloos

Introduction

 Cemented within church history is the renowned theological conflict between Augustine and Pelagius over the doctrine of original sin.[1] St. Augustine, considered the father of orthodox theology, taught that all humans are born contaminated by Adam’s sin, are inclined towards sinful behaviour, and are unable to obtain salvation outside of the free gift of the grace of God.[2]  Pelagius, a concurrent rival of Augustine, believed his doctrine of original sin had a negative and unfortunate effect upon human behaviour, contending that it eliminates free will and removes all motivation for living a righteous life.  To counteract Augustine’s teaching, he promoted the theology that humans were created free of any such determining influences and through their own righteous efforts are able to perfectly fulfil God’s commandments.  Pelagius’ teachings were condemned as heresy by the Council of Carthage in 418 C.E., but his doctrines remained part of the theological undercurrent of Western theology, promoting a philosophy claiming that people are essentially good and through good works they gain divine approval.[5]  In light of this historical theological conflict, the Pelagian and Augustinian views of the Adamic influence on humanity will be compared to highlight their contrasting perspectives and the impact each perspective has on Christian faith.

Pelagius and Augustine

 Pelagius, born in Britain in 354 C.E., was a monk, respected theologian and spiritual advisor who moved to Rome to teach traditional European theology.[6] Though he was not ordained by the church, he was a popular and much sought after lecturer who was greatly influenced by his classical education and his reading of the early fathers of Western theology.  He lived as an ascetic and was deeply preoccupied with various strands of eastern monastic literature which became increasingly evident in his teachings on Christian morality.  He advocated the responsibility, obligation and the ability of all people to obey the divine commandments of the Christian faith, arguing against the deterministic fatalism of the Manichees who at the time had a relatively small, but highly influential following. When Rome fell to Alaric and the Goths in 410 C.E., he escaped with other exiles to find safety across the Mediterranean, first in the Holy Land and then in North Africa.[8]  While in North Africa, Pelagius was introduced to the teachings of Augustine which led to an enduring theological confrontation.[9]

Augustine, regarded as one of antiquity’s greatest theologians, was born in 354 C.E., in Tagaste, North Africa.  Greatly influenced by the reading of Cicero’s Hortensius, he joined the Manichaean religion only to abandon their teachings in favour of scepticism.[10] Admittedly leading a carnal life during his time as a student, he was converted to Christianity and baptized by Bishop Ambrose in 387 C.E.  After years of retreat and study, he was ordained a priest at Hippo, North Africa and established a Catholic monastery.  He synthesized and systematized Christian theology and developed his doctrine of the original sin fifteen years prior to his confrontation with Pelagius.  Judging Augustine’s theories of original sin, Pelagius declared them harmful to the human endeavour of goodness which deeply disturbed Augustine and, though respectful of the virtuous monk, he set out to vigorously to defend his beliefs.[12]  Considering Pelagius’ doctrines as something “no pious heart could endure”, Augustine opposed him as a heretic and charged him as an enemy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the grace of God.[13]

Augustinian Doctrine of the Original Sin

Augustine’s theological construction of the doctrine of original sin or concupiscence (from the Latin word concupiscentia) is derived from a literal interpretation of Scripture and his past personal experiences of sinful behaviour.[14]He relates a story about a time he stole pears from a neighbouring orchard and suggests that his reason for sinning is derived from his corrupted human nature.[15]Recalling the sinful act, he contends that his motivation was not sensual pleasure or need, nor were the pears of unusually good quality, in fact, after stealing them, he merely threw them to the swine.  Concluding that his motivation was intrinsically evil, he states, “Our only pleasure in doing it was that it was forbidden.”  He analyzes the root and essence of his sin and recognizes an inescapably present interconnectedness with his sinful nature, consisting of an anterior absence of God coupled with a pride that hates the truth.[17]  In his transgression of the law of God, he realized that the same law that was intended to prevent sin became his primary motivation to commit sin, emphasizing his bent toward depravity.  The originating grounds for this motivation, he claimed, proceeded from his childhood, which proceeded from his condition in infancy, which in turn was inherited from his parents, who inherited it ultimately from Adam.[18]

According to Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, Augustine’s theological argument contends that humanity was originally created blameless and without any fault.[19]  Adam was created in the imago Dei, upright, and in a state of good; he was given the possibility of not sinning [posse non peccare], the possibility of not dying [posse non mori], and the possibility of not losing that state of good.[20]  In spite of such advantages, Adam could not persevere and chose to sin, transgressing the law of God and plunging all humanity into a new and tragic condition.[21]  Augustine writes, “Thus from a bad use of free choice, a sequence of misfortunes conducts the whole human race…from the original canker in its root to the devastation of a second and endless death.”  Indeed, Adam’s sin was so damnable that it resulted in the downfall of humankind, contaminating Adam’s progeny with a sinful nature from the moment of conception.  The imago Dei, once perfect and whole prior to the Fall, is darkened and disabled.  Human nature is under condemnation and is inclined toward evil, and non posse non peccare (not able not to sin).

In this fallen and corrupted condition, salvation is a human impossibility.  The infectious nature of Adam’s sin has a disorienting force that captures the intentions of the heart, binding and bending the will away from God and all relative good.[24]  Unable to achieve righteousness by their merits, sinful humanity is entirely dependent on the free grace of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ.[25] Though the sin nature resists the offer of divine grace, God sovereignly draws to himself unregenerate humanity and through the means of faith, provides remission from the power and effects of sin.  Underpinning his argument with Scripture, Augustine states, “But God who is rich in mercy, on account of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead through our sins, raised us up to life with Christ, by whose grace we are saved.”[26]  Though humanity was incapable of saving themselves, the mercy of God provided the remedy for sin and the reward of eternal life for all who believe.

Those who are regenerated through faith and have received the gift of divine grace have a restored nature, no longer enslaved to the Adamic curse.  At one time unable to do good and obey the commands of God, they have been liberated from the confines of the original sin and are free to perform good works in accordance with the will of God.  The motivation to do good works becomes a response rather than an obligation, a willing desire to please God because of the impartation of his grace to an undeserving sinner.

Pelagian Rejection of Original Sin

 While Augustine was teaching his well constructed theology of original sin, Pelagius emerged on the scene with a radically different and controversial counter theology, strongly opposing Augustine’s doctrine of the Adamic influence upon humanity.  According to Carol Harrison, Pelagius overheard a bishop in Rome quote a passage from Augustine’s Confessions discussing humanity’s incapacity to do good without the grace of God.[28] Shocked by what he heard, he argued that this premise undermined the root of human integrity and threatened the universal responsibility and effort of every human being.  He reacted vehemently against this new understanding of the human nature and doctrine of divine grace, contending that this teaching served to weaken the call upon all Christians to take personal responsibility for righteous action and obedience to God’s laws.[29]

In his theological epistle to Demetrias, Pelagius asserts that God made humanity in his own image and though Adam sinned, human nature has remained essentially the same as before the Fall.[30] God has endowed each person with reason and wisdom and they possess a natural ability, not only to know what is good but actually do to it.[31]  Individual choice determines whether to use these God-given abilities for good or evil.  If they choose to do good, they will determine to follow the commands of God set out in Scripture and thereby achieve the purposes of God and gain his approval.  If they choose to do evil and disobey the commands of God, they will incur the wrath of God and his judgment.  In this way, every human being is without excuse, either on the grounds of ignorance or lack of ability since they know the good, understand it, and are able to do it, if they so will.[32]

Pelagius was utterly convinced that the will is free and there is no human defect or intrinsic evil within human nature that prevents one from choosing to do good and obey God.  To suggest that God would command humans to do something they were unable to do, was effectively accusing God of being ignorant of his creation and ignorant of his own commands. Why would God put his creation in a position to fail and be eternally condemned merely because they inherited a sinful nature?  To Pelagius, this would ascribe to God cruel and unrighteous attributes and make him out to be a punishment-seeker instead of a loving and holy God.  Pelagius considered it inconceivable that God would ask anything of humanity, unless humanity already had the ability to achieve it.[35]

Above all, Pelagius believed that a perfect, sinless life was within human grasp; God has made it possible through his creation of the human mind, endowing it with reason and understanding and the ability to live without sin.  Citing Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (NIV), he insisted that goodness, and even perfection is not only expected but achievable.[36]  If humans believe they have inherited a corrupt nature and are incapable of doing good without the regenerating grace of God, they will strive for nothing and abdicate any responsibility for their evil behaviour.  The idea of being born good and possessing self-determinate attributes would be the best incentive for humans to live virtuous lives and take the obligations and responsibilities of their divine purpose seriously.

As Pelagius developed his various theological tenets, there emerged the idea that human beings, by their own efforts, can fulfil all of God’s commands without committing sin.  According to Milliard Erickson, the Pelagian view of salvation is essentially achieved through good works, but that in itself is a misnomer since humanity is not bound by sin to begin with and is not in need of a salvific enterprise.  Salvation is, instead, a preservation or maintenance of righteousness, which is sustained through good works in accordance with the law of God.  Adam and Christ are thus antithetical types for the human race.  Adam, on one hand, is the prototypical example of choosing evil over good; he sinned and brought sin and death in to the world.[38]  Christ, on the other hand, is the example of choosing good over evil and demonstrating to humanity what their nature is capable of accomplishing and how the commandments of God can be fully obeyed.[39]  Thus, the significance of Christ is in Christ’s life, not his vicarious atonement.  The teachings and example of Christ provide humanity with the pattern of a perfect and completely righteous life to emulate.  If, by one’s choosing, they chose to follow the example of Christ over Adam, they would then enjoy the ultimate benefit of righteousness, eternal life.

Pelagius’ insistence on the adequacy of created human nature and the inherent ability to fulfil the will of God through good works compelled him to promote the highest moral and spiritual expectations.[41]  Considering Augustine’s theory of redemptive grace superfluous to living a holy life, Pelagius wrote letters encouraging and reprimanding vowed ascetics, virgins, widows, and recent converts on how they should go about being “authentic Christians”.[42]  He highlighted the importance of reading the Scriptures, keeping all the commandments, positively doing good works such as almsgiving, persevering in righteousness, preserving humility, and taking responsibility for one’s every action.[43]  To those who were wealthy, he reminded them that true nobility is a matter of the soul, not of social standing and exhorted them to give their wealth away to those in material need.  As an acetic himself, he led by example, observing modesty in dress, talk, food, and conduct.  However, for Pelagius, calling oneself a Christian simply by avoiding what the law forbids was woefully inadequate.  The true Christian is called to fulfil righteousness by actively performing good works.  He states, “If you depart from evil but fail to do good, you transgress the law, which is fulfilled not simply by abominating evil deeds but also by performing good works.”  In accordance to these lofty standards, human beings will be judged and either approved and welcomed into their heavenly rest or eternally condemned.

Though Pelagius’ moralist advisements sounded nothing like the work of a heresiarch, the theology that undergirded his morality was considered by others as being deconstructive to faith and godliness.  Instead of Augustine’s emphasis upon the pre-eminence of love by which the Spirit of Christ graciously inspires, Pelagian looked to the fear of punishment as a strong motivation for obedience to the divine law.  Motivated by fear, he contends, is a healthy motivation and leads to righteous actions.  However, Pelagius’ overemphasis on the performance of good works can lead to elitism and pride and also demands the question, “how much good work is enough?”  Without the promise of salvation offered in the atonement of Christ, good works alone will also inevitably lead to despair.  The futility of good works even confronted Pelagius who, when writing to Demetrias about the daunting task of living a chaste life for God, remarked, “The ordering of the perfect life is a formidable matter…that is why so many of us grow old in the pursuit of this vocation and yet fail to gain the objectives for the sake of which we came to it in the first place”.  Pelagius’ transparent admission demonstrates that even he, approaching the end of his life, wondered if all the good works he accomplished will result in the expected outcome.

Conclusion

The central and formative principle of Pelagianism lies in the assumption of the plenary ability of human beings.  According to Benjamin Warfield, its conception brought forth an essential deism centering not on the working out of one’s salvation, but the working out of one’s perfection.[48]  In the quest for perfection however, Pelagius failed to perceive the precariousness of the human condition and the effect of habit on nature itself.[49]  He conceived good and evil behaviour as a series of unconnected choices absent of any continuity of life.  After each act of the will, there was another act, and another, in an endless and hopeless cycle of virtue or vice.[50] Through the centuries, Pelagius’ teaching was neither uniform nor united, but it did evolve and the label “Pelagian” has become a term often loosely used to describe any doctrine deemed threatening to the primacy of grace, faith and spiritual regeneration over human ability, good works, and moral endeavour.[51]  His essential philosophies remain an irresistible ideology and continue to undergird contemporary post-modern religious thinking.[52]

Augustine’s theological clash with Pelagius over the doctrine of original sin gained him the title, doctor gratiae as the teacher-defender of grace against the inimici gratiae, the “enemies of grace”.[53]  The outcome of the controversy was the canonizing of the heart of Augustine’s teaching in the centuries that followed.[54] Though some elements of Augustinian’s theological system has been called into question over time (i.e. divine election, the transmission of original sin, original guilt, paedobaptism and Platonic dualism), his teachings are undeniably regarded as the theological axis around which Western theology revolves.[55]  Affirmed by Calvin, Luther, and later by Wesley, his view of the doctrine of original sin has been generally received as an effective and defendable biblical treatise and remains a persuasive and influential doctrine of the contemporary Protestant and Catholic church.[56]  The theological conflict between Augustine and Pelagius was not in vain, but served to sharpen the axe of biblical theology and elevate the grace of God through the cross of Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bloesch, Donald G.  Essentials in Evangelical Theology.  New York: HarperCollins, 1978. De Bruyn, Theodore S. “Pelagius’s Interpretation of Rom. 5:12-21: Exegesis within Limits of Polemic.”  Toronto Journal of Theology 4 (1988): 30-39. Elwell, Walter A., ed.  Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984. Erickson, Millard J.  Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985. Ferguson, Sinclair B., Wright, David F. and Packer, J. I., eds.  New Dictionary of Theology.  Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988. Harrison, Carol.  “Truth in a Heresy?”  The Expository Times 112 (2000): 78-82. Hastings, Adrian, ed.  The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought.  Oxford: Oxford Press, 2000.  Lacoste, Jean-Yves, ed.  Encyclopedia of Christian Theology.  Vol. 3.  New York: Routledge, 2005. McGrath, Alister E., ed.  The Christian Theology Reader.  Third Edition.  Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2007. Melloni, Alberto, ed.  Movements in the Church.  London: SCM Press, 2003. Murray, John.  The Imputation of Adam’s Sin.  Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1979. Rigby, Paul.  Original Sin in Augustine’s Confessions.  Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1987. Smith, David, L.  With Wilful Intent: A Theology of Sin.  Wheaton: Victor Books, 1994. Warfield, Benjamin B.  Studies in Tertullian and Augustine.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1930.

Christ as Healer in Pentecostal Theology by William Sloos (Published under the title "Christ, Our Healer" in Authentically Pentecostal ©2010)

Introduction

As the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) approaches a centenary of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation throughout Canada and the world, there is a mutual desire to rediscover its unique theological identity. Central to the shared identity of our movement is the conviction of Christ as Healer. Alongside the other four-fold theological markers of Christ as Saviour, Baptizer, and Coming King, divine healing remains an enduring, vibrant, and revitalizing feature of authentic Pentecostal faith and ministry. As we embark on this journey of rediscovering our shared identity, it appears that divine healing remains a theological staple within the emerging Pentecostal community. While discussing the shifting landscape of Pentecostal theology at the Communities of Practice (COP) at National Conference in Edmonton in 2010, the belief and practice of divine healing was identified as a defining feature of the contemporary Canadian Pentecostal church.[1] Moreover, while vigorous debate surfaced concerning other aspects of our doctrinal distinctives, divine healing continues to yield widespread incontrovertible affirmation within our fellowship.[2] Nevertheless, despite the favourable mood among Pentecostal practitioners in their ongoing support of divine healing, there remain a number of significant issues with the theology of divine healing that require our attention. Following a brief historical reflection of divine healing in early Pentecost, we will examine three critical issues: 1) the double atonement healing theology, 2) the relationship between medical science and divine healing, and 3) the nature and function of the gift of healing. Intended to further our national conversation about divine healing within the Canadian Pentecostal context, this paper will conclude by proposing a way forward in our shared theological journey.

Historical Reflection

To sufficiently grapple with our Pentecostal identity as a movement, it is essential that we listen to the voices of our early pioneers and learn from our past. Grant Wacker, in his seminal monograph on the social context of early Pentecostals, declares, “if tongues defined the movement, healing gave it life.”[3] In his assessment, divine healing was the dramatic visible manifestation of Christ’s conquest over the enemy. While testimonies of Spirit-baptism were relatively analogous, divine healing testimonies tallied in the thousands and ranged from “runny noses dried up to dead bodies raised to life – and everything in between.”[4] Testimonies were proclaimed with the vividness of New Testament vocabulary or the simple prose of a medical report, yet all were punctuated with unspeakable joy and enthusiasm for the modern-day restoration of the apostolic gifts. “Canes, crutches, medicine bottles, and glasses are being thrown aside as God heals,” proclaims William Seymour.[5] Ellen Hebden writes, “Cases of asthma, fever, rheumatism, lung troubles, drug habits and other diseases that are common to all humanity have been cured by divine power.”[6] “Jesus is our family doctor” claims Zelma Argue, “No case is either too small or too difficult for Him.”{C}[7] So persuaded that Christ was able to heal every sickness and disease, early Pentecostal periodicals repeatedly exhorted believers to decline all medical means and “take the Lord as your healer.”[8]

Within this spiritually-charged atmosphere, divine healing became one of the central underpinnings of the embryonic Pentecostal movement. Through these early years, a prevailing narrative began to emerge that outlined the increasingly familiar testimonial pattern of the lives of Pentecostal believers: “converted,” “sanctified,”[9] “healed,” “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” and “has a call to a foreign field.” By the 1920’s, divine healing became entrenched within the Pentecostal consciousness as one of four-fold doctrinal pillars of the faith. Popularized by Canadian Aimee Semple McPherson, the slogan, “Four Square Gospel,” first appeared on the cover of The Bridal Call in September 1922, declaring Jesus as Divine Healer.[10] By April 1930, the cover of The Pentecostal Testimony began declaring “Jesus, Saviour, Baptizer in the Spirit, Divine Healer, Coming Lord.”[11] By the end of the decade, editor D.N. Buntain added this motto under the banner of the Testimony: “Carrying the Testimony of Salvation from Sin, Healing for the Body, Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the Return of Our Lord.”[12] The concept of Christ as Healer was thoroughly cemented in the hearts and minds of Pentecostal people and, despite the diversity within the contemporary ecclesial context, divine healing continues to characterize the prevailing theological and devotional ethics of Canadian Pentecostalism.

Current Challenges

a) The Double Atonement Healing Theology

Despite the faith and fervour among early Pentecostals that proclaimed Christ as Healer, the theology of divine healing has had an unattractive underside that has persisted to this day. Adopted by early Pentecostals was the soteriological notion that salvation and divine healing is assured in the atonement of Christ – a supposed double atonement.{C}[13] Key biblical texts supporting this doctrine were Is. 53:4-5, “by his stripes we are healed,” and Mt. 8:14-17 “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”{C}[14] Advocates contended that these texts connected the act of healing to the efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross; that through Christ’s death, He triumphed over Satan and conquered sin and sickness, thereby making salvation and healing equally and universally available to all believers. Leaving little room for the sovereignty of God, the natural laws of nature, or the reality that we live in a fallen world, the appropriation of salvation and healing was completely dependent on believers to exercise sufficient faith in Christ’s atonement. Those who were unable to receive their healing were largely considered to have inadequate faith to apprehend what Christ had already secured for them at Calvary.{C}[15]

Embracing such a rigid healing theology generated considerable tension among those who failed to find relief from their suffering. Articles would surface that would fault suffering believers for their existing ailments and handicaps, such as a 1936 article in The Pentecostal Evangel entitled “Why Many are Not Healed,” which outlines numerous reasons why suffering believers fail to apprehend their healing.[16] Regrettably, the article ran again twenty years later, only this time it included a picture of a man languishing in a wheelchair- his physical disability persisting due of his lack of faith.[17] Reprinting articles was not uncommon in Pentecostal periodicals, reprinting this article simply demonstrates the enduring preoccupation with this flawed theory. This theology also generated tension among Pentecostal missionary families who reached foreign shores trusting in Christ’s atonement to protect them from sickness and disease. When their loved ones died from malaria and other diseases, missionaries struggled to explain such devastating circumstances, often insisting that their loss must have been the will of God.[18] Furthermore, when early Pentecostal preachers and teachers of this double atonement theology later suffered age-related illnesses and diseases, propagation of their once triumphant healing theology suddenly grew silent.[19] Unfortunately, remnants of the double atonement theology persist today and some Pentecostal believers continue to maintain that Christ has already secured their healing at Calvary- all that is required is to claim their healing through the exercise of sufficient faith (for some, even to the exclusion of medical means). Although we believe that every good gift from God is mediated to us by virtue of Christ’s work on the cross, we cannot ignore the fact that we live between two ages – the present evil age and the age to come. Mystery exists between the brokenness of a fallen world and the in-breaking of God’s future full redemption. In the words of William Menzies, “divine healing is but a foretaste of the ultimate transformation we await.”[20]

b) The Relationship between Divine Healing and Medical Science

Emerging from our shared Pentecostal history has been a persistent suspicion concerning the role of medical science in the lives of believers. The rousing tune “Who’s report do you believe? We shall believe the report of the Lord,” is often interpreted to triumphantly declare God’s good report over and against the dire report of our family physician. Some Pentecostals have embraced the romantic notion that the early believers were so faith-filled that they rejected all doctors and drugs and simply believed for their miracle. Largely overlooked is the fact that during the early days, medical science was exceedingly primitive. A round of the calomel (currently used as an insecticide) and a dose of castor oil along with some orange juice was given for stomach aches.[21] A remedy for arthritic pain was a total dental extraction on the mistaken premise that debilitating illness lurked in the mouth. If this was unsuccessful, doctors would recommend gold injections or bee stings. If you were unfortunate enough to have a skin infection, the physician may advise the application of a freshly killed chicken since cow manure was too messy. The same medical needles and syringes to treat livestock were also used to inoculate children, occasionally resulting in their deafness (likely due to the antibiotic streptomycin which can cause hearing loss). During an epidemic of diphtheria in New York in the nineteenth century, two out of three patients treated by a physician died, in contrast to only two of nine patients treated only with “ice packs and prayer.”[22] Too often we are ignorant to the harsh realities of the early years and simply admire the faith of early Pentecostals when in fact many likely recuperated from their illnesses by simply avoiding the doctor. In the contemporary context, we have been exceedingly privileged to live in a technologically advanced society dedicated to health and wellness. As we exalt Christ as Healer and pray for the sick and suffering, we recognize that divine healing is not in conflict with medical science but functions cooperatively, manifesting through prayer and the wisdom and skill of medical practitioners.

c) The Nature and Function of the Gift of Healing

 Another area of discussion within the theology of divine healing is the notion that someone can possess the “gift” of healing. According to Paul, some are given the gifts of healing (1 Cor. 12:9), indicating that some believers seem to receive a greater proclivity to heal the sick. With this in mind however, Ronald Kydd makes several insightful observations about the nature and function of the gift of healing.[23] First, the gift of divine healing flows out of the mystery of God and can not be formulated, categorized, and marketed. Jesus himself did not follow any set blueprint or formula- the only evidential pattern in Jesus’ healings was the presence of Jesus Himself. Those who possess the gift of healing and claim to comprehend its mysteries are misguided at best. Second, the stereotypical healer does not exist. From the high energy of Oral Roberts to the soft spoken William Branham, from the flamboyant Kathryn Kuhlman to the former jazz musician John Wimber, there is not one like the other. Modelling a healing ministry after a personality is undoubtedly freighted with pitfalls. Third, despite the claims of healers and their supporters, reports of divine healings are often overstated. Many people have a difficult time controlling their enthusiasm, especially in the midst of an atmosphere supercharged with faith. Proper medical verification and reporting are rare and even rarer are those who admit they were not healed, creating confusion between genuine healing and what may be merely pleasing to the imagination. Finally, possessing the gift of healing is not necessarily reflective of doctrinal correctness. Advocates of divine healing have often treaded on the fringes of orthodoxy with extra biblical claims and behaviours. Within this seemingly precarious milieu of divine healing, possessing the gift requires a considerable measure of maturity, responsibility, and humility. However, as the gift is appropriately exercised and evaluated within the Body of Christ, excesses are minimized, and doctrinal soundness is maintained, the operation of the gift of healing can be a catalyst for the rediscovery of the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the local church. Moreover, as healing ministries within the charismatic movement have demonstrated, the gift of healing is not just confined to physical healing, but also provides inner healing, deliverance from emotional suffering, and the restoration of the whole person.[24]

A Way Forward

To further our national conversation about divine healing within the Canadian Pentecostal context, there are three things I would like to propose for consideration. First, there is a need for the development of a thorough and practical theology of suffering. Within our churches, a prevailing narrative of triumphalism exists that minimizes the harsh realities of sickness and suffering. Largely neglected by Pentecostals who have traditionally viewed suffering and the Spirit-filled life as incompatible, the Luke-Acts paradigm paints an entirely different picture. A consistent Christological and apostolic theme, suffering was an ever present reality in the early church and an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. Within the contemporary context, emphasis on the triumph over suffering resonates from songs and sermons but there is little room for prayerful dialogue concerning the mystery of suffering. As the Holy Spirit relates to miracles, signs, and wonders, the Spirit also relates to suffering and weakness; living in the shadow of the cross and in the power of the Spirit is not mutually exclusive but is rather the actualization of more complete representation of the presence of Christ in the lives of believers.[25]

Second, the theology and practice of divine healing must remain centred on Christ. According to Francis MacNutt, the existing practice of divine healing centres far too much on the individual.[26] For nineteenth century Lutheran theologian Johann Christoph Blumhardt, locating divine healing solely on the person of Christ was essential to his ground-breaking healing ministry.[27] After praying unsuccessfully for two years for the deliverance of a demon possessed woman, Blumhardt began to fast in accordance with the instructions of Jesus that some demonic forces can only come out by prayer and fasting. One night, while interceding for the woman, she suddenly shrieked, “Jesus is victor! Jesus is victor!” and she immediately received complete deliverance.[28] For Blumhardt, this experience demonstrated that the all-encompassing work of Christ was sufficient for healing. While this dramatic deliverance launched Blumhardt into the spotlight of the emerging divine healing movement, he never held a healing service, never prayed for lines of waiting people, never looked for instantaneous healing, never hesitated to recommend a physician, and never felt that he had to prove anything about himself or his ministry. For Blumhardt, Jesus was the source, means, and victor over all manifestations of evil and is completely capable of dealing decisively with sin and its consequences. In the contemporary Pentecostal context where gifted personalities are routinely elevated and celebrated, Blumhardt’s Christocentric healing theology and praxis is worthy of further study.

Finally, recovering the missional nature of divine healing is essential to fulfilling our mandate as a national fellowship. For Jesus, the locus of divine healing was not confined to the temple or synagogue, but abundantly disseminated among the populace. An essential feature of His mission was the physical healing of sick and suffering people. Describing the missional nature of Jesus’ healing ministry, distinguished church historian Adolph von Harnack writes:

The first three gospels depict him as the physician of soul and body, as the Saviour or healer of men. Jesus says very little about sickness; he cures it. He does not explain that sickness is health; he calls it by its proper name, and is sorry for the sick person. There is nothing sentimental or subtle about Jesus; he draws no fine distinctions, he utters no sophistries about healthy people being really sick and sick people really healthy. He sees himself surrounded by crowds of sick folk; he attracts them, and his one impulse is to help them.[29]

For Jesus, divine healing was inherently missional and an essential component in his Spirit-empowered assignment to proclaim kingdom of God. However, in our contemporary seeker-sensitive ministry settings, divine healing has often been concealed from seekers in our attempt to shield them from some of the more charismatic eruptions of our traditional praxis. Recapturing the notion that divine healing is intrinsically missional and is intended for the purpose of gospel proclamation realigns our ministry template to embrace divine healing as a vital means to reach people with the transforming message of the gospel. Rather than seeker-sensitive services, we need seeker-sensitive believers who are willing to take divine healing to the street corner, coffee shop, and next-door neighbour. If it is true that divine healing remains an enduring, vibrant, and revitalizing feature of authentic Pentecostal faith and ministry, it must become fastened to our shared mission of gospel proclamation and extend beyond the walls of the church. As fellow Spirit-filled sojourners consumed by the call of mission, we not only preach the gospel to the poor, but we also heal the broken-hearted and bring recovery of sight to the blind. As we dialogue about our shared identity, we are reminded that we are partners with Christ to bring healing to a broken world. To the current and emerging Canadian Pentecostal practitioners and parishioners, we affirm, proclaim, and exalt Christ the Healer- it is what we see.

Bibliography: Argue, Zelma. What Meaneth This? Winnipeg, 1924. Baugh, Edith, Misc. Notes, The Latter Rain Evangel, Jan. (1913): 13. Buntain, D. N. ed., The Pentecostal Testimony, July 15 (1939): 1 (cover page). Burgess, Stanley M., ed. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Curtis, Heather. Faith in the Great Physician. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2007. Hebden, Ellen K., “Testimony of Sister Bessier Hird,” The Promise, May (1907): 4. _______, Ellen K., “The Pentecostal Work in Toronto,” The Promise, February (1909): 2. Hunter, Harold D., and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., eds. The Suffering Body. Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 2006. Kydd, Ronald A. N. Healing through the Centuries. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. MacNutt, Francis. Healing. Altamonte Springs: Creation House, 1988. McAlister, R.E., ed., The Pentecostal Testimony, April (1930): 1 (cover page). McPherson, Aimee Semple, The Bridal Call, September (1922): 1 (cover page). Menzies, William W. and Robert P. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Mittelstadt, Martin William. The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Opp, James. The Lord for the Body. Montreal: McGill, 2005. Parham, Robert L. Selected Sermons of the late Charles F. Parham Sarah E. Parham. Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1941. Richey, Raymond T. “Why Many Are Not Healed,” The Pentecostal Evangel Sept. 9 (1956): 4-5. ______, Raymond T. “Why Many Are Not Healed,” The Pentecostal Evangel Oct. 24 (1936): 4. Seymour, William, ed. The Azusa Street Papers: A Reprint of The Apostolic Faith Mission Publications Los Angeles, California (1906-1908). Foley, AL: Together    in Harvest Publications, 1997. Sloos, William, Minutes from COP Dialogue, Edmonton, AB, 12 May 2010. “Standing on the Promises,” Healing and Revival, http://healingandrevival.com/BioRKCarter.htm (accessed Aug. 17, 2010). Steele, Volney, M.D. Bleed, Blister, and Purge: A History of Medicine on the American           Frontier. Missoula, MN: Mountain Press, 2005. von Harnack, Adolf. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Online Edition, trans. and ed. James Moffatt; London; Williams &            Norgate, 1908, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/mission.iv.ii.html (accessed August 19, 2010). Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

The Five Points of Arminian Theology: A Review and Critique by William Sloos

Introduction

 Though traditionally associated with the soteriological doctrines of Calvinism,[1] the phrase “the five points” did not originate with the Calvinists but was rather conceived and developed within Arminian circles.[2] To combat the charges of heresy and effectively differentiate the issues of theological contention between the followers of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, the adherents of Arminian theology presented a Remonstrance, or a formal statement of grievances, to the States General of Holland.[3] This Remonstrance contained five articles outlining the essential doctrines of Arminian theology and are summarized as follows: 1) Conditional Election, 2) Universal Atonement, 3) Total Depravity, 4) Resistible Grace, and 5) Conditional Preservation.[4] This paper will review and critique the five points of Arminianism against the doctrines of Calvinism and conclude by briefly assessing the theological and practical implications of Arminian theology.  To assist in understanding the context of the five points, a brief synopsis of its development in history will begin the study.

Arminian Theology in Context

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) was born in the Netherlands town of Oudewater during the closing years of John Calvin’s life in Switzerland. After studying under Calvin’s disciple and successor, Theodore Beza, he served as pastor in Amsterdam, where his preaching aroused the suspicions of some Calvinists who judged him to be placing too much emphasis on human freedom in the process of belief and repentance.[6]  In 1603, as professor of theology at the University of Leiden, Arminius openly rejected some of the doctrines of Calvinist theology, especially the concept of predestination, which contends that God has predetermined the eternal destiny of all humankind; some elected to salvation while others to eternal damnation.  Arminius argued that such teachings lessen the gracious love of God, are devastating to the exercise of religion, and are not affirmed by any of the ecumenical creeds of the ancient Church.[8] Salvation, he taught, certainly depends solely on God’s grace, but God has also given people the freedom to receive this grace or reject it.  His opponents accused him of doctrinal error and criticized his theology as Pelagian.[10]  Despite the accusations, Arminius never denied the doctrine of predestination, but rather challenged the fatalistic nature of Calvinist theology according to his interpretation of the Bible.[11]

Following Arminius’ death, forty-six advocates of Arminius’ theology met in the city of Gouda to solicit protection of the state from Reformed clerics who were seeking their suppression.[12] The assembly drafted a short Remonstrance designed to respond to the charges of heresy from the Calvinists and clearly set out the issues of theological disagreement.  The brief document, set in the form of a traditional confession of faith, was divided into five points and was thus referred to as The Five Arminian Articles.  These five articles defined Arminius’ views of predestination and, though the Calvinists defeated the Remonstrance at Synod of Dort (1618-1619), the five articles remain the central tenets of Arminian theology.[15]

The Five Points of Arminian Theology

1. Conditional Election

The first article expresses the concept that God elects those who believe in the gospel of Christ and persevere in faith and obedience to the end.[16] Contrary to the Calvinist position which regards election as unconditional, or that salvation is not based on any foreseen merit, quality, or achievement by the individual but is solely according to the purposes of God, Arminius understood the doctrine of election to be conditional based on those who believe in Jesus Christ.[17]  The essential idea of predestination is maintained, however its frame of reference is radically altered.  Enunciating the sentiments of St. Augustine, Arminius states in his Apology Against Thirty-One Theological Articles, “The grace sufficient for salvation is conferred on the Elect, and the Non-Elect; that, if they will, they may believe or not believe, may be saved or not saved.”[18]  For Arminius, though God foreknows every person’s ultimate and final decision regarding Jesus Christ, God does not predetermine people for either salvation or damnation outside of their choosing to accept or resist his grace.[19]

Though Arminius insisted that the faith that God foresees in people is not meritorious, Calvinist theologians contend that Arminius’ doctrine of election cannot fully escape the allegation that merit is intrinsic to his understanding of salvation. Arminian theology wants to have it both ways, suggesting that faith has no merit, yet faith somehow motivates God to respond with salvation; that God chooses people on the basis of people choosing God.[21]  However, Arminius emphasized that faith should not be thought of as a work, an earning of salvation in some way, or some kind of cooperative process between God and humans, where God does his part and humans do their part.[22] Instead, faith is enabled by grace and is a response to grace.  Thus, while faith is the condition for being elected to salvation, God alone is the cause of the election and the one who moves people to respond in faith.[24] Within the initiative of divine grace, cooperation of the human will is necessary because the free agent decides whether the grace proffered is accepted or rejected.[25] Thus, for Arminius, election is solely dependent on the grace of God, but is only effectual when received by the recipient, making it clear that the foundation of election is God’s grace at work within people and not human effort.[26]

2. Universal Atonement

Specifically aimed at the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement or the notion that Christ died only for the elect, the second article of Arminian theology asserts that the atonement of Christ is efficient for all people. According to the Remonstrance, Christ suffered and died for all and, in his death, merited reconciliation and forgiveness of sin for all. Though only believers actually enjoy the forgiveness of sins, it is the will of God that all people would believe in Christ for their salvation.[29] Arminius, rejecting the Calvinist theory that the atonement was only effectual for those whom God predestined for election, expounded on numerous Scripture passages that explicitly express the universal scope of Christ’s redemption.  He also argued that the universal character of many of God’s commands and exhortations profoundly illustrates his sincere and earnest desire for the salvation of the entire human race.[30]

His opponents interpreted Arminius’ doctrine of universal atonement to inevitably lead to universal salvation because if Christ paid the penalty or suffered the punishment for every person, then every person must be saved.[31]  Calvinist theologian Edwin Palmer, echoing an historical criticism of the Arminian view of the atonement, expresses that if Christ died for all, then no one is lost but all are reconciled and redeemed.[32]  However, Arminius was careful not to imply that redemption is applied or communicated universally but clearly articulates that though Christ died for every person, “God has by a peremptory decree resolved that believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption.”[33]  Aligned with his argument for conditional election, Arminius maintained that Christ’s death on the cross provides possible salvation for everyone, but it is actualized only when humans accept it through repentance and faith.[34]

3. Total Depravity

The third article of Arminian theology finds agreement with the Calvinist position on the condition of human nature, yet further ignites debate over the issue of human liberty.  The Remonstrance asserts the pervasive depravity of the human being, explaining that, due to Adam’s Fall, humankind is in a state of apostasy, bound by sin and incapable to think, will, or do what is right.[35]  In a disputation entitled “On The First Sin of the First Man,” Arminius states:

Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity so that all men…are devoid of that original righteousness and holiness.  With these evils they would remain oppressed forever, unless they were liberated by Christ Jesus.[36]

The main point for both Arminius and the Remonstrants is that humankind is totally depraved and completely incapable of salvation within themselves.  Only through God’s initiation of redemption can they be delivered from sin and enabled to fulfil God’s demand for obedience.  Though Calvinists agree with the Arminian doctrine of total depravity, they question how it can correspond with Arminius’ optimistic view of human free will and his synergistic view of redemption which insists that acceptance of the gospel is a necessary condition for regeneration. Since humans are completely in bondage to Adam’s sin, how can they choose to follow God or accept salvation?  The solution to this question, presented in the next article, is the centre of Arminian theology and the primary issue of division between the two theological systems.[39]

4. Resistible Grace

The fourth article states that humans cannot exercise saving faith apart from the prevenient grace of God, yet this grace is not irresistible, meaning that people can choose to accept or reject the grace offered by God for salvation.[40]  Essentially, divine grace operates to draw sinful humans to salvation, but salvation is only achieved when it is freely received.  For Arminius, the work of salvation cannot be effectual without two parties, the grace of God and human free will.  In a disputation entitled “On The Free Will of Man and Its Powers,” he states, “Take away free will and nothing will be left to be saved, take away grace and nothing will be left as the source of salvation” and quoting thirteenth century theologian Bernardus, he states, “No one, except God, is able to bestow salvation and nothing except free will is capable of receiving it.”[41] Thus, divine grace, functioning preveniently, is completely sufficient for salvation, but can be received or resisted by those to whom it has been offered.[42]

Calvinists accuse Arminianists with the charge that they treat the grace of God as inefficacious for salvation and unable to fully accomplish redemption in the sinner.[43]  Instead of divine grace being causal in nature, they regard Arminian’s view of divine grace to be merely persuasive and dependent upon the response of the recipient, making the decisive factor in salvation the meritorious initiative of fallen human beings.  For the Calvinist, God does not merely initiate redemption; he effects it entirety and, completely independent of the recipient, brings the sinner into the company of the redeemed.[45]However, Arminius emphasized that prevenient grace is more than merely persuasive, it is thoroughly regenerative in nature.[46]  Prevenient grace is effectual for salvation in that it liberates the will so that the person can for the first time exercise their liberty toward God in repentance and faith. Thus, the decisive factor in salvation is not the sinners’ mere acceptance of redemption, but is the grace of God from beginning to end.[48]

5. Conditional Preservation

Following the Arminian argument that contends that humans have the freedom to respond to divine grace, the fifth and final article states that those who have been redeemed, may, through their own negligence, fall away from their salvation.[49] Though careful not be dogmatic about the matter, the Remonstrance indicates that believers may not be beyond the possibility of turning away from grace.[50] Arminius, in his article “On The Perseverance of the Saints,” states, “That [opinion] which affirms it possible for believers to fall away from the faith, has always had more supporters in the church of Christ, than that which denies its possibility or its actually occurring.” The Calvinist position is unsurprisingly critical, contending that this article, as with the previous four, illustrates how Arminian theology is based on the achievements and the strivings of humans, denigrating even the preserving nature of the grace of God.  However, despite the accusations, Arminius never considered divine grace insufficient for the preservation or security of believers, but only suggested that through a deliberate and intentional act of the human will, can a person turn away from or abjure redeeming grace.  To support his claim, he respectfully admitted that there are several passages of Scripture which appear to suggest such a conclusion and seem to be affirmed by the writings of several early Church fathers.[53]

Implications of Arminian Theology

The soteriological tension between these two schools of thought has centred on those who contemplate God’s love and humanity’s free will, and those who prefer to emphasize God’s dominance and humanity’s helplessness.  However, in comparing the two theological systems, the Arminian position seems to offer a more optimistic picture of the salvific plan of God to rescue and redeem fallen humanity.  Contrary to the Calvinist position, which depicts God as an arbitrary deity who only elects those he has chosen for salvation, Arminianism recognizes that God desires all people to be saved, expressing his genuine love for humankind and his desire to be in mutual fellowship.[54]  Though Adam’s Fall has bound all humanity in sin, God has provided universal atonement through Christ and administered prevenient grace to all people with the invitation to respond to his offer in repentance and faith.  This not only illustrates God’s justice and mercy toward humankind, but reflects his impartiality and respect for the autonomy of the human being, who is created in his image.  Furthermore, since humanity has the freedom to accept divine grace and live according to Scripture, God must also consider the exercise of faith significant and beneficial.  Unlike the pre-determinative doctrine of Calvinism, where there is little impulse for ethical living, maturing in the faith, or evangelizing the lost, Arminian theology inspires believers to an active faith.[55] Though both Arminian and Calvinist doctrines, taken to extremes, will obviously impair a proper biblical understanding of soteriology, the optimism of Arminian theology seems to be more palatable to understanding the nature of God and the plan of salvation.

Bibliography: Arminius, James.  The Works of James Arminius.  Volume 2.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986. Bloesch, Donald G.  Essentials of Evangelical Theology.  Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1978. Cairns, Earle E.  Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981. Elwell, Walter A, ed.  Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984. Erickson, Millard J.  Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985. Heron, Alasdair I. C.  The Encyclopedia of Christianity Vol. 1.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999. MacCulloch, Diarmaid, “Arminius and the Arminians,” History Today 39 (1989), 27-34. McGrath, Alister E.  Christian Theology: An Introduction.  Fourth Edition.  Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Muller Richard A.  God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. Olson, Roger E.  Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Olson, Roger E., “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian,” Christianity Today 43 (1999), 87-90, 92-94. Peterson, Robert A. and Williams, Michael D.  Why I Am Not An Arminian.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Pinnock, Clark H., ed.  The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989. Williams, Michael D., “The Five Points of Arminianism,” Presbyterion 30.01 (2004), 11-36. Wood, Skevington A., “The Declaration of Sentiments: The Theological Testament of Arminius,” Evangelical Quarterly 65:2 (1993), 111-129.

The Eschatological Status of the Faithful Departed 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 by William Sloos

Introduction

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul responds to the Thessalonian church’s concern over the eschatological status of the faithful departed with a consolatory teaching about the hope of Christian believers in the Parousia (Keck, 723). Despite their knowledge about the second coming of Christ, the Thessalonian saints were uncertain as to how the faithful departed will participate in the eschaton (Keck 723). Since several members of their faith community had died, the church was grieving their loss and concerned that their departed loved ones had been excluded from the glorious hope of the anticipated Parousia (DeSilva, 539). Recognizing their grief, Paul reassures the believers that those who have died in Christ have not been separated from the blessings and promises of God, but instead will be resurrected and reunited with the living at Christ’s return (Bruce, 104). Their departed loved ones have not suffered any disadvantage by dying before the Advent, but all believers will share in the final triumph of God together (DeSilva, 539). The following study will examine Paul’s teaching on the eschatological status of the faithful departed based on an exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

After prayerfully reading the text from a variety of translations, the passage will be analyzed and evaluated according to a multi-dimensional interpretive process. The historical context of the passage will be researched, followed by a micro-level examination of key literary elements, a meso-level exploration of the main themes, and a macro-level review of the text’s broader theological implications and how they relate to the larger Canon of Scripture. The contemporary significance of the text will also be considered in addition to how the passage applies to both the community of faith as well as on a personal level.

Compositional History

Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians has been historically affirmed by the ancient canons of Marcion and Muratori, who place the epistle among Paul’s works (Gaebelein, 232). Early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all acknowledge the apostle Paul as the author of 1 Thessalonians (Gaebelein, 232). Additionally, Canonicity of 1 Thessalonians was recognized early throughout Christendom, attested by its inclusion in the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament (Gaebelein, 232). As well, given biblical and secular evidence, it is largely affirmed that Paul composed 1 Thessalonians from the city of Corinth some time during the spring of A.D. 50 (Acts 18:5; 1 Thess 3:6) (Gaebelein, 233). Informed of the condition of the Thessalonian church by Timothy (1 Thess. 3:6-7), Paul wrote the letter to the Thessalonian believers to encourage them in the face of persecution, affirm his apostolic authority, address some areas of individual and community life that required upgrading, and respond to their concerns about the eschatological status of the faithful departed (Gaebelein, 233).

Genre and Structure

The literary genre of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 follows a typical pattern for ancient letter writing and includes elements of didactic response, consolation, and encouragement (DeSilva, 531). For the purpose of this study, the structure of the passage will be broken down according to the following divisions (Gillman, 272):

Verse 13          Opening Words

Verse 14          Kerygma and Implications

a)     Jesus died and rose again

b)    The dead with Jesus

Verse 15-17     Description of the Parousia and Implications

a)     Series of end time events

b)    The living and the dead with the Lord

Verse 18          Closing Words

Historical Context or Sitz im Leben

At the time of Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians, the city of Thessalonica was a thriving commercial port city along the Aegean Sea (DeSilva, 528). Despite being ruled by Rome, the city preserved much of its Greek political, cultural, and spiritual identity, including the worship of idols (1 Thess. 1:9-10) (DeSilva, 528). In the late 40’s C.E., a church had been conceived in Thessalonica when Paul travelled there and preached in the synagogue (DeSilva, 528). After a group of converts was formed consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, the fledgling church located to Jason’s house where they could worship together, grow in their faith, and await the return of Christ (DeSilva, 528). Within this new faith community, many of the converts encountered strong opposition from their family and friends, causing them considerable internal distress (1 Thess. 1:6; 3:3-4) (DeSilva, 528). Realizing the strain on the new converts, Paul sent Timothy to encourage them in the midst of their afflictions (1 Thess. 3:1-5) (DeSilva, 528). After receiving a positive report from Timothy on the Thessalonian believers’ ongoing steadfastness in the face of hostility, Paul pens his first epistle to them, exhorting them to remain strong in the faith and instructing them on several matters that concerned them, especially the eschatological status of the faithful departed in light of the return of Christ (1 Thess. 3:7; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) (DeSilva, 528).

Literary Context and Canonical Placement

The 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 passage is part of the last large unit of the epistle (4:1-5:22) that centres on the theme of faithful and ethical living in light of the imminent return of Christ (Keck, 723). The passage also fits into the larger theme of the epistle which primarily focuses on renewing the bond of friendship between Paul and the Thessalonian church, encouraging them in their commitment to Christ, and addressing some of their personal concerns (DeSilva, 539). Additionally, the passage is also consistent with other Pauline epistles and the latter half of the New Testament Canon which supports emerging communities of faith throughout Asia Minor (DeSilva, 475).

Literary Analysis of the Text

Opening Words (Verse 13)

Introducing a new topic in his epistle, Paul begins by saying, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant,” a common Pauline locution that is generally used to politely capture the attention of his hearers (4:13, NIV) (Morris, 135). Following his preface, he launches into the issue that was concerning the Thessalonians, specifically the eschatological status of the faithful departed (Morris, 135). Apparently the Thessalonian believers had some knowledge about the Parousia, a term used in classical Greek meaning “arrival” or “coming” and frequently applied in Hellenistic literature to describe the official visit of a sovereign or epiphany of a deity (McArthur, 658). Within the Christian tradition, the concept of the Parousia of Christ was mostly likely derived from the Olivet discourse in the Synoptic Gospels, especially in the Matthaean corpus which speaks of an imminent, dramatic, visible return of Christ to usher in the millennial age (Bruce, 95, McArthur, 659). Despite their knowledge of the Parousia of Christ, the Thessalonian believers were uncertain as to how deceased members of their faith community figured into the eschatological scheme (Bruce, 95). Since the believers were under the impression that the Parousia would occur within their lifetime, they were puzzled as to the status of those who died in advance of Christ’s return (Morris, 135). Realizing their grief and concern, Paul proceeds to clarify the matter and illuminate the believers to the true eschatological status of their departed loved ones (Bruce, 96).

Following Paul’s opening statement, he shares with the Thessalonian church that those who have died have merely fallen “asleep” (κοιμάω) and that they should not grieve “like the rest of men, who have no hope” (4:13). Although many religions speak of death in terms of sleeping, the metaphor is most applicable in a Christian context (Morris, 136). For Christians, death is no longer the adversary; since the risen Lord has overcome death, believers who die in the present age merely await their resurrection at the dawn of the next age (Morris, 136). Knowing that those who have died in the faith will receive the promised resurrection, Paul exhorts the believers not to grieve like other people, who considered death simply as the cessation of life with little hope for the future (Ascough, 522). For the Christian however, there is no reason for despair because those who have died have simply “fallen asleep” and will wake up with Christ in the Parousia (Morris, 137).

The Kerygma and Implications (Verse 14)

a) Jesus died and rose again

After exhorting the Thessalonians not to despair over the faithful departed, Paul presents his theological teaching on the eschatological status of believers who have died prior to the Parousia (Gillman, 272). First, he gives the kerygma, or gospel proclamation, stating “We believe that Jesus died and rose again,” a primitive confession of faith reflecting the essence of the gospel message that Christ has triumphed over death (4:14a) (Gillman, 272, Bruce 97, Witherington, 115). For Paul, this definitive declaration of the death and resurrection of Jesus is not based on some philosophical speculation or elaborate religious myth, but rests on sure historical foundation (Morris, 138). Having set forth the basis for his eschatological argument, Paul then proceeds to illustrate how the resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of eschatological hope for every believer and especially for the departed faithful (Morris, 139).

b) The dead with Jesus

 Due to the indisputable nature of Jesus’ victory over death, Paul is able to cast the entire phrase in the form of a conditional statement, arguing that because Christ died and rose again, “God will bring with Jesus those have fallen asleep in him” (4:14b) (Bruce, 97). Although the exact meaning of the phrase has been disputed, with scholars debating about whether the deceased Christians will be brought with Jesus from heaven or simply brought back from the dead, the message to the Thessalonian believers was simple: those who have died in Christ will not be excluded from the Parousia (Witherington, 115). Rather than being excluded, the faithful departed of the Thessalonian church will be resurrected to new life when Christ returns (Witherington, 115).

Description of the Parousia and Implications (Verses 15-17)

a)     The end time events

Continuing his teaching on the eschatological status of the deceased members of the Thessalonian church, Paul now begins to graphically illustrate how these departed loved ones are involved in the Parousia of Christ (Plevnik, 281). First, Paul states that “the Lord himself will come down from heaven,” emphasizing it will not be an angel or any other divine messenger that will descend from heaven, but Christ alone will be responsible for bringing the present age to a close (4:16a) (Morris, 142). Second, the coming of the Lord will be inaugurated with great majesty and honour, similar to the celebratory arrival of a reigning sovereign (Morris, 142). He will appear with a “loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God,” all audible sounds that suppose the coming of the Lord is not a secret or silent event, but a visual and audible experience (4:16b) (Witherington, 119). Third, Paul states that “the dead in Christ will rise first,” indicating to the Thessalonian believers that not only will their departed faithful be included in the Parousia, but they will rise prior to the living saints, suggesting a position of privilege (4:16c) (Plevnik, 281-282). The believers’ loved ones who have died waiting for the coming of the Lord will not be excluded, but instead will be the initial recipients of resurrection life at the spectacular and glorious coming of the Lord (Keck, 724).

b) The living and the dead with the Lord

After the departed faithful have been raised, Paul informs the Thessalonian saints that those who are still alive will be “caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (4:17a). The verb “caught up” (ἁρπάζω) is one that means “to seize” or “to carry off by force,” implying a sudden swoop or rapture that cannot be resisted (Bruce, 102). Suggesting a type of bodily assumption, the living believers will be supernaturally “snatched away” and brought into the exalted world of the living Christ (Plevnik, 282). Thus, not only will the departed faithful be raised with Christ in the eschaton, but the grieving Thessalonian believers will also be reunited with their loved ones and miraculously assembled together to meet the Lord in the sky (Morris, 144).

Closing Words (Verse 18)

Recognizing that the Thessalonian church was grieving over the loss of their loved ones and uncertain of their eschatological status, Paul now exhorts the believers to “encourage each other with these words” (4:18). Given the truth about the resurrection of the departed faithful in the eschaton, the believers can console one another and continue their expectant hope of the soon return of Christ (Keck, 725).

Main Themes and Theological Message

The main theme of Paul’s consolatory word about the eschatological status of the departed faithful focuses on Christian hope (Keck, 725). The Thessalonian church was grieving the loss of their loved ones and unsure of their participation in the anticipated Parousia of Christ. Concerned that their deceased loved ones may have been excluded from the blessings and benefits of the return of Christ, they receive a teaching from Paul informing them that, because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, their faithful departed will fully participate in the glorious eschaton (Keck, 725). Contrary to the unbelieving community who have no hope for the future, the Thessalonian saints have hope beyond the grave (Ascough, 522). Death is not their final destination, but merely a prelude to a glorious resurrection and a permanent reunion with their loved ones (Witherington, 123).

The theological message of Paul’s teaching on the eschatological status of the faithful departed contributes to the broader understanding of the nature and scope of the Parousia of Christ (Witherington, 130). Using vivid imagery to describe the ancient arrival of a reigning sovereign, the coming of the Lord will be heralded with a “loud command,” the “voice of the archangel,” and the “trumpet call of God” (4:16). Arriving in his travelling party will be the faithful departed, now resurrected to new life and awaiting their grand reunion with the living believers (Witherington, 122). Resembling a greeting committee who goes forth from a city to meet the arriving sovereign, the living believers will be “caught up” in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (4:17) (Witherington, 123). A dramatic depiction of future events, Paul’s teaching provides believers with a framework to understand how Christ will return for his church and usher in the new age (Witherington, 123).

Theological Implications and Applications

            Within contemporary evangelicalism, there is a popular school of thought that uses 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to endorse a secret rapture theory, where believers mysteriously disappear from the earth prior to the Parousia of Christ (Morris, 145). Despite the widely held belief however, it is very difficult to fit a secret rapture theory into this passage (Morris, 145). Paul was clear that when the Lord returns, he will descend with “a loud command,” the “voice of an archangel,” and the “trumpet of God.” Though some suggest that the sounds will only be audible to believers, there is no support for such a claim in the text (Morris, 145). Moreover, this passage is the only place in the New Testament that speaks unambiguously of a rapture of believers (Morris, 145). With no other clear texts supporting a secret rapture theory in the Scriptures, it is difficult to consider this passage relating to anything but a description of the Parousia of Christ (Witherington, 130). Theologian Ben Witherington III contends that the secret rapture theory is an unacceptable interpretation of the text which promotes a false sense of security among believers, giving them the impression that Christ will clandestinely rapture them before the re-emergence of global persecution and martyrdom. He states:

There will be no ‘beam me up Scotty’ effect for the last generation of Christians. Rather there will be suffering and martyrdom, just as there was in the time when John wrote Revelation (Witherington, 130).

Rather than a secret rapture, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 describes the triumphant return of the living Christ. His coming will not only be majestic and spectacular, but will also be visible to the entire world. Like the Thessalonian church, the contemporary church may also have to endure persecution and martyrdom as the present age draws to a close, but the church has a firm hope in the anticipated Parousia of Christ and looks forward to the resurrection of the saints to eternal life.

Finally, Paul’s consolatory teaching to the Thessalonians about the eschatological status of their deceased loved ones remains a source of comfort for the contemporary church (Keck, 725). Though grief is a natural response to the loss of a loved one, the community of faith does not grieve like those who have no hope (Keck 725). Distinguished from the unbelieving world, Christian hope is founded on the death and resurrection of Jesus and anticipates the Parousia where Christ will return to unite all believers in eternal life (Morris, 146). As I personally officiated at funerals for both believing and unbelieving families, the difference in grief is significant. When a Christian dies, though family and friends grieve their loss, they are confident that one day they will be reunited again. Knowing that separation is temporary, there is comfort and consolation in the midst of sorrow. Conversely, unbelieving families experience profound hopelessness and despair; uncertain of any eschatological future, they are without any assurance of seeing their loved one again. Paul’s message to the Thessalonian saints about hope beyond the grave is a message that must be declared again to the current culture, illuminating people to the promise of resurrection through faith in Christ.

Bibliography: Ascough, Richard S. “A question of death: Paul's community-building language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 123 no 3 Fall (2004), 509-530. Bruce, F. F. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1982. DeSilva, David, A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2004. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Gillman, John. “Signals of transformation in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 no 2 Ap (1985), 263-281. Keck, Leander E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible XI. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000. McArthur, H. K. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encylopedia. K-Q. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962. Morris, Leon, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991. Plevnik, Joseph. “The taking up of the faithful and the resurrection of the dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 no 2 Ap (1984), 274-283.The NIV Study Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. Witherington III, Ben. The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism. Baylor University Press: Waco, 2005.

Suffering as an Expected Consequence of Spirit-Empowered Gospel Proclamation: A Lukan Paradigm by William Sloos

With Pentecostal scholarship largely preoccupied with securing a sound biblical theology of Spirit-baptism within the broader evangelical community, examining the relationship between Spirit and suffering remains a critical issue for contemporary Pentecostals, especially those living in the Western or Minority World. Recent trends in Pentecostalism within the Minority World have embraced a devotional ethic that pursues the benefits and blessings of God instead of exemplifying a life of Spirit-empowered witness. Rather than sharing in the sufferings of Christ to reach a lost and sinful world, Pentecostals have been increasingly lured into accepting the myth that Christ came primarily for their health, wealth, and inherent right to personal happiness.[1] Resembling the dominant worldviews of Western culture and privilege, Pentecostal spirituality has become increasingly focussed on self and less focussed on modelling the mission of Christ to liberate and redeem fallen humanity. The Holy Spirit is no longer considered the one who empowers for witness, but has been redefined as the source for stimulating sensory and spiritual experiences that have little to do with the world outside of the church. This pneumatological reorientation has not only separated contemporary Minority World Pentecostals from their siblings in the Majority World who continue to embrace a Spirit-empowered missional teleology,[2] but has also detached them from their historical roots and the missionary impetus that defined the movement in its early years.

Cognizant among early Azusa-era Pentecostals was a conviction that suffering would be an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. In his book Thinking in the Spirit, Jacobsen demonstrates how a number of prominent early Pentecostal theologians linked the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the likelihood of experiencing occasions of suffering.[3] Early twentieth century holiness Pentecostal George Floyd Taylor believed that being Spirit-filled would provoke intense opposition and predicted that “as soon as many receive the gifts of the Spirit, persecutions will arise that will scatter us to every corner of the earth.”[4] Pentecostal evangelist William Durham asserted that the emergence of a Spirit-baptized church would incite a global satanic-inspired persecution and ominously declared that “it would only be a short time before Pentecostal martyrs would be lying dead in the streets.”[5] Richard Spurling, following his Spirit-baptism near Camp Creek, North Carolina, in the mid-1880’s, described how Spirit-empowered witness would inevitably lead to persecution at the hands of unbelievers and religious people alike. Echoing the apostolic exhortations to encourage faithfulness despite the risks of Spirit-empowered proclamation, Spurling writes:

they will persecute us, they will mock and say that we are a band of cranks and are fanatic, and say all manner of evil against us falsely for Christ’s sake. Not because they love God or holiness or the church but because they love honor, money, division, a great name and greeting in the markets, chief seats in the council, conferences, and associations; but some will persecute us because of their honest zeal, believing they are right. But I trust the Lord will give all my brethren spirit and light to see the truth and enough love for God to accept it, at any cost. Moses like, Christ like, Paul like, Luther like, in fact, like every one who would do God’s holy will and not the will of man.[6]

Largely neglected by contemporary Pentecostals, these intense yet biblically reflective sentiments infused early Pentecostal thinking and inspired many Spirit-baptized believers to preach the gospel at home and abroad despite the risk of persecution and suffering. Recognizing some of the pneumatological and missiological parallels between Luke-Acts and early Pentecostalism, there is a current need to re-examine the role of Spirit and suffering within the Lukan narratives to assist in the rehabilitation of a more biblically balanced missional pneumatology that revives the passion for Spirit-empowered proclamation within the contemporary context.

Objective

A traditional favourite among Pentecostals, Luke-Acts has been the most important biblical template for the development of a Pentecostal distinctive of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Although the broader evangelical community has been recently introduced to an increasing number of excellent scholarly works promoting a Pentecostal hermeneutic for Luke-Acts, Luke’s theology of the Holy Spirit in relation to suffering has received comparatively minor attention. Within the past decade, only a few books have examined this subject from a Pentecostal perspective. William and Robert Menzies’ book, Spirit and Power, includes a chapter on suffering that argues that Pentecostals have a theology of glory, but have an inadequate theology of the cross and have subsequently failed to appreciate the full range of God’s providential care.[7] Harold Hunter and Cecil Roebeck’s book, The Suffering Body, contains a short survey of a charismatic theology of suffering from a Lukan perspective and asserts that the Holy Spirit has a central role in the lives of suffering believers.[8] Easily the most influential work by a Pentecostal scholar to date concerning a Lukan theology of the Spirit and suffering is Martin Mittelstadt’s recent monograph, The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts.[9] Mittelstadt persuasively argues that Spirit-inspired ministry consistently encounters acceptance and rejection throughout the Lukan narratives. Rejection to Spirit-inspired ministry results in suffering and opposition, but serves to advance the gospel and is ultimately part of God’s plan. Although Mittelstadt’s seminal work will influence this study, I will be narrowing the focus to specifically concentrate on how Luke presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

To substantiate this argument, this study will examine the following main characters in Luke-Acts: John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul. Although each of these characters has a unique missional journey, their experiences share common elements that generate a singular message: suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation. What is more, the stories of these characters collectively span Luke’s entire two-volume narrative, illustrating one of Luke’s overarching intentions to present his readers with examples of Spirit-filled prophets who courageously proclaimed the gospel despite being aware that their actions would lead to occasions of suffering. Since the Lukan community was encountering outbreaks of persecution within their own context, learning about these suffering charismatic prophets served to comfort and strengthen the church and encourage them to persevere in the midst of their own suffering.[10] As Luke’s readers patiently waited for the triumphant return of Christ, these examples also informed them that their suffering was not exclusive to their particular situation but was an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation within the broader Christian narrative.

Through literary analysis, this study will examine John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul from four components to construct an analogous trajectory of suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation. The first component explores the vocational assignment of each of the characters to demonstrate how they all receive the task of proclaiming the gospel. Paralleling the Old Testament prophets who were divinely assigned to boldly declare the word of God, these suffering charismatic prophets are all given the mission of proclaiming the gospel within their own contexts. Although there are nuances and variations to their particular vocational assignment of gospel proclamation, Luke demonstrates to his readers that gospel proclamation is an essential part of the discipleship journey. The second component investigates how the Holy Spirit empowers each character to fulfil their vocational assignment of gospel proclamation. Luke’s consistent portrayal of the Spirit as the source of prophetic inspiration which empowers these characters for effective service emphasizes the importance of the Spirit in gospel proclamation.[11] Building on the common elements of the previous two components, the third component researches the data within the narratives to identify how suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation. For each of the characters, Luke provides hints within the text to suggest that each character will not be immune to the prospect of suffering as they perform their vocational assignments. Through the verbal and physical abuse of the local community, religious authorities, or political leaders, each character is expected to encounter occasions of suffering, even suffering unto death. To confirm Luke’s expectations that suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation, the fourth and final component studies the actualization of suffering in each of the characters. Repeatedly violent and disturbing, these experiences of suffering confirm Luke’s earlier warnings and notify Luke’s readers that their suffering is not exclusive to their particular context but is a normative experience for all believers who participate in proclaiming the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. Through these four components, an analogous trajectory will emerge that supports the claim that suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. Concluding the study, I will synthesize the material and present a challenge for the contemporary Pentecostal context.

John the Baptist

a) Vocational Assignment

Prior to his birth, John’s vocational assignment was prophetically articulated by Gabriel to Zacharias while he was performing his priestly duties in the sanctuary. Zacharias is informed that his son, though yet to be conceived, has been divinely appointed for a specific task:

he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Lk. 1:16-17, NASB).

During an era in Israel’s history when there was little prophetic activity, John was divinely assigned a prophetic assignment to “turn” people back to the Lord. Fulfilling the expectations of the prophet Malachi (Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6), this pre-conception commissioning to “turn” was freighted with the understanding that an essential feature of John’s vocation would involve gospel proclamation. According to Marshall, the verb ἐπιστρέφω (“to turn”) can also be translated “to convert” and is employed later in Luke-Acts in reference to Christian conversion in response to gospel proclamation.[12] When Peter proclaimed a paralytic healed in the name of Jesus, “all who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord” (Acts 9:35, italics mine). When defending himself before Agrippa, Paul described his vocation as a divinely appointed witness to “turn [the Gentiles] from darkness to light” (Acts 26:18, italics mine). Thus for Luke, “turning” people to God was inexorably linked to gospel proclamation and would become a defining feature in John’s upcoming vocational assignment to restore and revive Israel’s relationship with God. Furthermore, Luke reports that John would be enabled to minister “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Although the prophet Elijah functioned both as a miracle worker and preacher, his primary role was undeniably proclamation. As Elijah boldly proclaimed the word of God (1 Ki. 18:20-40), Luke informs his readers that John’s vocational assignment would also involve the task of prophetic proclamation in advance of the Messiah (cf. Lk. 1:76; 3:18).

b) Spirit-empowerment

Contained within the birth announcement, Luke informs his readers that John will be “filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb” (Lk. 1:15). Contrary to Turner and Fitzmyer, who argue that John is a transitional figure and his charismatic experience is confined to a particular epoch unrelated to the church age, John’s Spirit-infilling is instead part of an emerging pattern of charismatic activity that is unfolding in the Lukan narratives.[13] Although John’s intrauterine Spirit-filling is unique in the Lukan corpus, Luke’s readers are discovering that the infancy narratives are overflowing with occurrences of charismatic activity that inspire prophetic proclamations within the devotional community. Not only is John filled with the Holy Spirit, but Elizabeth (Lk. 1:42-44), Mary (Lk. 1:48-55), Zacharias (Lk. 1:68-79), Simeon (Lk. 2:29), and Anna (Lk. 2:36-38) each experience charismatic activity that produces a restoration of prophetic discourse.[14] Since prophecy had ceased in Israel up to this point, this charismatic outburst within the infancy narratives strongly indicates that Joel’s prophecy that the Spirit would be poured out upon all flesh is becoming a reality (Joel 2:28).[15] Moreover, this renewed charismatic activity corresponded with Judaic theological expectations that believed that prophecy would be restored with the coming of the Messiah and herald the dawning of the last days.[16] With the emergence of this charismatic activity within the infancy narratives, followed by the bestowal of the Spirit on Christ at his baptism (Lk. 3:22) and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:4), it is apparent that John’s Spirit-filling is not associated with a transitional age within salvation history, but is emerging as a normative experience for the prophetic agents of God.

Within this atmosphere of charismatic activity, John’s prenatal reception of the Holy Spirit empowers him to fulfil his vocational assignment of gospel proclamation. Employing the expression, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” Luke introduces his readers to a phrase he uses another nine times in his narratives and is directly associated with Spirit-enabled prophetic proclamation (Lk. 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 7:55; 9:17; 13:9; 13:52). Apart from John’s Spirit-filling which occurred in his mother’s womb, every other episode where Luke describes people as being “filled with the Spirit” they subsequently engage in various Spirit-inspired prophetic speech patterns.[17] By using this expression, Luke is intending to demonstrate that the infilling of the Holy Spirit is inextricably related to the function of prophetic phenomena.[18] Furthermore, John’s preparatory Spirit-infilling becomes a programmic event in the lives of Christ and his followers prior to the commencement of their own mission of gospel proclamation. Thus when John is born and later appears as an adult in the Jordan wilderness, Luke has made his readers aware that John’s Spirit-filling has empowered him to fulfill his vocational assignment of gospel proclamation to “turn” people back to God in the spirit and power of Elijah.

c) Vocational Risks

Although Gabriel informs Zacharias that John’s birth was an answer to their prayers and would bring them “joy and gladness” (Lk. 1:14), John’s divine mission of Spirit-empowered proclamation contains some risks that would invariably lead to occasions of suffering. First, as noted earlier, John functioned “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” This typological correspondence would cause Luke’s readers to recall that Elijah, though powerfully used by God, frequently encountered occasions of suffering related to his prophetic ministry (i.e. hunger, persecution, threats of death, criticism, rejection, displacement, fear, loneliness, and depression; cf. 1 Kings 17-19).[19] Aligning John with Elijah would alert Luke’s readers that John may also encounter occasions of suffering related to his prophetic ministry. In fact, any alignment with the prophets of Israel’s history would spoil any notion that John would enjoy a long and prosperous life.[20] Second, Gabriel informed Zacharias that John would only turn back “many,” but not all, suggesting that his message will be opposed and rejected by some (Lk. 1:16). Thus, despite receiving an angelic visitation informing Zacharias that his son would be “great in the sight of the Lord” (Lk. 1:15), it is clear that John’s mission will be fraught with risks and that he will most likely encounter suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

In the actualization of his prenatal appointment, John’s public ministry emerges when he is found in Jordan wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Lk. 3:1-20). Again, Luke provides hints that John’s message may encounter opposition. First, as a harbinger of future events, Luke opens the narrative by listing the names of the current local Roman governmental officials highlighting the potentially hostile socio-political climate within which John is ministering (Lk. 3:1). According to Green, Luke’s mention of these leaders, especially Pilate, Herod, Annas, and Caiaphas, are identified as people who will play important roles in opposing current and future messages of gospel proclamation.[21] Second, despite being a herald of good news, the nature of John’s preaching was severe.  Punctuated with Semitisms (“brood of vipers” Lk. 3:7), John criticizes the Jews for thinking they will escape the eschatological judgement merely by the virtue of their racial heritage.[22] Like the Old Testament prophets who proclaimed the word of God without restraint, John’s harsh tone suggests that his message might offend some people enough to take exception to his message. Coupled with the warnings inferred from his birth announcement, these cautionary tones all serve to underscore how Luke presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

d) Experience of Suffering

Expectations concerning John’s experience of suffering as a Spirit-empowered prophet do not materialize immediately. Despite his reprimandatory language concerning the people’s empty religiosity and perceived privileged status as children of Abraham, Luke portrays John’s ministry as largely acceptable by the diverse crowd. Even tax collectors, who were renowned for their dishonesty and exploitation, respond favourably to John’s preaching and receive water baptism. Emphasizing the widespread effectiveness of his gospel proclamation, Luke reports that “all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he might be the Christ” (Lk. 3:15). Although Jesus later reports that the Jewish religious authorities criticized John by saying “He has a demon!” (Lk. 7:33), for the most part, John’s message generated a widespread restoration and revival of faith among the people.

Following a largely successful wilderness campaign where many people repented and were baptized in water, Luke abruptly concludes the pericope by informing his readers that John is about to encounter opposition. Expectations of John’s suffering materialize when he aggressively reproves Herod for his inappropriate relationship with his brother’s wife and other “wicked things” (Lk. 3:19). Contrary to the general attitude of the multitudes who largely accepted John’s stern message of repentance, Herod rejected his rebuke and “locked John up in prison” (Lk. 3:20). According to Josephus, John was imprisoned in Herod’s palace at Machaerus and, given Herod’s vicious and barbaric inclinations, it can be assumed that John’s detention was likely served under harsh conditions.[23] For John, the experience of imprisonment paralleled the experience of many Old Testament prophets. The prophet Micaiah was imprisoned for proclaiming the word of the Lord while the false prophets spoke freely to king Ahab (1 Kings 22:27). Jeremiah was falsely accused, beaten, and “put in the cistern house, in the cells, and remained there many days” (Jer. 37:15-16). Consistent with Luke’s typological framework, not only would John preach prophetically as an Old Testament prophet, but he would also suffer as an Old Testament prophet. Although Luke turns his attention to Jesus immediately after John was imprisoned, later in the narrative Luke notes that Herod had John beheaded (Lk. 9:7-9), affirming for Luke’s readers how John’s vocational assignment ultimately cost him his life. Yet, John’s suffering was not in vain, for Luke records Jesus’ commendatory words to the multitudes concerning John: “I say to you, among those born of women, there is no one greater than John” (Lk. 7:28).

Summary

Establishing the paradigm of suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation, John is introduced to Luke’s readers as a divinely appointed messenger to prepare the people for the coming of the Messiah. Before his birth, John is given the vocational assignment of gospel proclamation to turn people back to God in the spirit and power of Elijah. To empower him to fulfil his vocational assignment, he is filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb. Despite being filled with the Holy Spirit for his divinely appointed task, Luke provides clues in the text that suggest that John will likely suffer for his Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation: John is aligned with Elijah who experienced suffering as a prophet of God (Lk. 1:17); John’s message will be accepted by many, but not all (Lk. 1:16); John ministers in a hostile political environment that includes leaders who will oppose the gospel (Lk. 3:1); and John’s message is severe, suggesting that some may be offended at his condemnatory message (Lk. 3:7-9). Luke’s warnings materialize when John reproves Herod for his iniquitous behaviour and is consequently imprisoned and later martyred. For Luke’s readers, John the Baptist’s story initializes a developing paradigm within the Lukan narratives that presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation.

Jesus

a) Vocational Assignment

Despite the angelic announcements of the miraculous birth of Jesus in the infancy narratives, Luke waits to explicitly disclose Jesus’ distinctive vocational assignment until the commencement of his adult ministry. While attending his hometown synagogue, Jesus stands and reads from the Isaiah scroll: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favourable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19; Is. 61:1-2; 58:6, italics mine). As Jesus subsequently applies the Isaiahic prophecy to himself, Luke informs his readers that a central feature of Jesus’ forthcoming ministry will be gospel proclamation. First, Jesus states that he will εὐαγγελίζω (“preach”), emphasizing his role as a preacher of the gospel to the marginalized and those neglected by the socially and economically privileged. Second, Jesus asserts repeatedly that he will κηρύσσω (“proclaim”), asserting his role of liberator-proclaimer to deliver, heal, release, and herald the favourable year of the Lord. Throughout the narratives, Luke interchanges these two terms along with διδάσκω (“teaching,” cf. Lk. 4:31) to underscore the importance of the spoken word of God to Jesus’ overall ministry.[24] Although Jesus will also perform many miracles, healings, and wonders, Menzies states that the Isaiahic passage “undeniably emphasizes preaching as the most prominent dimension of Jesus’ mission.”[25] Just as Isaiah functioned as a Spirit-anointed prophet, so Jesus will fulfil his vocational assignment through Spirit-empowered proclamation.

b) Spirit-empowerment

Empowering Jesus to fulfil his vocational assignment of gospel proclamation, Luke reports that the Holy Spirit came upon him following his water baptism. While Jesus was praying, “heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove” (Lk. 3:21-22). Although Luke does not reveal what effect the descent of the Spirit had on Jesus at the time, the occasion fulfils the Old Testament promise that God would put his Spirit “upon” his servant (Is. 42:1).[26] Later in the text, when Jesus emerges at the Nazarethean synagogue, he publically declares himself to be Spirit-anointed (Lk. 4:18), confirming to Luke’s readers that the descent of the Spirit at his baptism was in fact his anointing in preparation for his prophetic-messianic office (cf. Acts 4:27; 10:38).[27] Moreover, Jesus’ application of the term “anointing,” places him in continuity with the Old Testament prophets who were also anointed and empowered by the Spirit to proclaim the word of God (1 Sam. 10:10; 16:12-13; 1 Ki. 19:16; 2 Ki. 2:15).[28] Thus, with the Spirit descending upon him at his water baptism, Jesus became the Anointed One and the exclusive bearer of the Spirit to fulfil his vocational assignment of gospel proclamation.

Resulting from Jesus’ anointing, two things can be observed as it relates Jesus’ journey as a suffering charismatic prophet. First, Jesus’ anointing preceded the inauguration of his vocational assignment. Just as John was “filled with the Spirit” prior to the commencement of his public ministry, Jesus’ anointing was a necessary prerequisite that empowered him for prophetic proclamation. Talbert states:

It is noteworthy that in the plot of the Third Gospel Jesus found it necessary to receive an empowering for ministry before he embarked on his public career. He had been conceived by the Holy Spirit; he had been dedicated to God by his parents as a babe; he had personally identified with his parents’ decisions about him and consciously assumed the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. Yet none of these could substitute for the necessary anointing-empowering given him after his baptism. What is needed for adequate ministry in the Lukan understanding is a prior empowering by God’s Spirit.[29]

Although Jesus was the Son of God and the presumptive Messiah-King, even he required the anointing of the Holy Spirit before he assumed his messianic mission. Emerging as a vocational-charismatic blueprint within the Lukan narratives, Luke is demonstrating to his readers that Spirit-empowerment is essential for proclamation.

Second, Jesus’ Spirit-anointing was programmic for his entire ministry. Following his anointing, Luke’s readers are repeatedly informed that Jesus is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. When he enters the wilderness, Luke records that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” and “led about by the Spirit” (Lk. 4:1). When Jesus returned to Galilee, he came in the “power of the Spirit” (Lk. 4:14). Jesus also experienced the joy of the Spirit (Lk. 10:21) and the inspiration of the Spirit (Acts 1:2). As Luke narrates Jesus’ public ministry, he frequently uses the terms “power” (δύναμις) and “authority” (ἐξουσία) to describe the enduring anointing of the Spirit in his life (Lk. 4:14, 32, 36; 5:17, 24; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; 10:13, 19; 19:37; 20:8; Acts 2:22). Moreover, Jesus teaches about the Spirit (Lk. 11:13; 12:10; 21:15) and promises the gift of the Spirit to his disciples (Lk. 12:11-12; Acts 1:4-5, 8). Retrospectively, Peter reports to the Gentiles: “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10: 38). From Jesus’ water baptism until the day of Pentecost, Jesus’ anointing functioned as a continuous flow of the Spirit’s power throughout his public ministry, empowering him to fulfil his divinely commissioned task of gospel proclamation.[30]

c) Vocational Risks

Despite Jesus’ triumphant declaration in the synagogue, Luke has already indicated that Jesus’ vocational assignment of proclamation will contain some risks that will most likely lead to occasions of suffering. Climaxing the Lukan infancy narratives, Simeon’s second oracle introduces Luke’s readers to the first hint of impending trouble and conflict in the story of Jesus.[31] Contrasting the optimistic tone of the first oracle where Simeon praises God for the privilege of seeing the promised salvation in the form of the Christ child, his second oracle contains a sobering prophecy announcing that the emerging mission of Christ will be met with considerable human resistance.[32] Serving as a preview of the upcoming conflict between Jesus and the people of Israel, Simeon addresses Mary saying: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed- and a sword will pierce even your own soul- to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed” (Lk. 2:34-35). Simeon’s Spirit-inspired words inform Luke’s readers that Jesus will cause a diametrically opposed pattern of response among the people of Israel that could potentially lead to occasions of suffering within the unfolding of Jesus’ vocational assignment of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation.

Conditioning Luke’s readers for what is about to be fulfilled in the narrative, Simeon’s programmic prophecy contains three components that anticipate Jesus’ rejection and potential for suffering.[33] First, Simeon states that the child will cause “the fall and rise of many,” indicating that people will be divided in their response to Jesus, some accepting him and others rejecting him (Lk. 2:34a). Second, Jesus will be “a sign to be opposed,” implying that those in the emerging community who incorrectly interpret the sign of Jesus are those who reject him and stand in opposition to him (Lk. 2:34b). Third, Jesus will reveal the “thoughts from many hearts,” referring to Jesus’ exposure of the hidden thoughts and negative attitudes of those who accept and reject him (Lk. 2:35a). Combining these elements, Simeon’s prophecy indicates that Jesus’ career will be full of conflict, hostility, and rejection. Cunningham rightly observes that Simeon’s prophecy institutes a persecution theme of promise and fulfilment that involves the suffering of the Messiah and the partial rejection of Jesus.[34] With the promise of rejection and persecution assured as an anticipated pattern in the unfolding story of Jesus, Luke’s readers are coming to grips with the reality that Jesus will most certainly encounter occasions of suffering as an expected consequence of his Spirit-empowered proclamation.

d) Suffering Experienced

Although many people respond favourably to Jesus, Simeon’s ominous prophetic forecast prepares Luke’s readers to view the subsequent unfolding of the narrative with the expectation that Jesus will endure significant opposition and even suffering by those who reject him.[35] First, Jesus’ own local community misunderstands the nature and scope of his announced mission; they respond with rage and “drive him out of the town” and attempt to “throw him down the cliff” (Lk. 4:29). Second, Jesus faces opposition from the Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, captains, elders, rulers, and Sadducees who all view him as a threat to their social, religious, and political agendas and their pursuit of governing God’s people. Kingsbury states that these religious leaders regarded Jesus as a false messiah “who undermines their authority, misleads the people, and violates the law, traditional values, and temple cult.”[36] To protect their valued interests and preserve their shared perception of nationhood, they oppose Jesus and reject his Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. Early in his ministry, the scribes, Pharisees, and other religious leaders question the source of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins (Lk. 5:21), his association with tax collectors and sinners (Lk. 5:30), and his provocative determination to heal people on the Sabbath (Lk. 6:7). After Jesus performs a healing on the Sabbath, the scribes and Pharisees are furious and “discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus” (Lk. 6:11). As Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem, opposition towards him intensifies and the religious leaders scheme together to eliminate him. Though many people in the crowd accept him, the chief priests and the teachers of the law attempt to trap him (Lk. 20:1-8). At Jesus’ trial, the entire Sanhedric council falsely accuses him saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king” (Lk. 23:2). Third, in concert with Jesus’ local community and the Jewish religious leaders, the local political authorities also reject Jesus and initiate his suffering and death. The Roman leaders berate Jesus and treat him with contempt. The soldiers heap insults upon him and members of King Herod’s guards ridicule and mock him by dressing him in a stately robe before sending him back to Pilate to be crucified (Lk. 23:11). The extent of Simeon’s prophecy is blatantly obvious in the narrative, alerting Luke’s readers that even Jesus is not immune to the prospect of suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

Summary

Following the paradigm of suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation, Jesus is introduced to Luke’s readers as the long-awaited Messiah who has come to liberate and redeem fallen humanity. While attending his native synagogue, Jesus identifies his vocational assignment as gospel proclamation in fulfilment of the Isaiahic prophecy. Empowering him to fulfil his vocational assignment, Jesus receives his Spirit-anointing following his water baptism. However, as Luke’s readers have already witnessed in John the Baptist, they discover that suffering is also an expected consequence of Jesus’ Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. As predicted by Simeon’s second oracle, Jesus encounters rejection and opposition throughout his ministry. Verbally and physically harassed and abused by his native community, the religious authorities, and the political leaders, Jesus is eventually arrested, tortured, and crucified.[37] Although his messiahship, missional appointment to fulfil Scripture, and resurrection distinguish Jesus from the other suffering charismatic prophets in Luke-Acts, Jesus’ example is an integral part of the Lukan paradigm that presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation.

The Disciples

a) Vocational Assignment

Differing from John’s and Jesus’ disclosure of their vocational assignment, the disciples’ vocational assignment of gospel proclamation is progressively revealed. First, Jesus models gospel proclamation to the apprenticing disciples (Lk. 5:12-8:56). Second, Jesus sends the disciples on their own short-term missionary journey of gospel proclamation to the surrounding villages (Lk. 9:1-12). As a precursor to the commissioning of the disciples following Jesus’ resurrection, Luke reports that Jesus “called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons, and to heal diseases. And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, and to perform healing” (Lk. 9:1-2, italic mine). As an extension of Jesus’ vocation, the disciples are directed to κηρύσσω (“proclaim,” cf. Lk. 4:18-19) the message of the kingdom of God to all who will listen. Following Jesus’ death and resurrection, he reappears to the disciples and commissions them with the task of proclaiming the gospel to all people.[38] Luke states:

Then he [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem’” (Lk. 24:45-47, italics mine).

Since the disciples have been mentored by Jesus, have observed his death and can attest to his resurrection, Jesus appoints them as witnesses (μάρτυς, see Lk. 11:48; Acts 1:8) to both Jews and Gentiles beginning in Jerusalem (Lk. 24:48).[39] Although the disciples are instructed to wait for their Spirit-empowerment, it is apparent that an essential component of their forthcoming vocational assignment will involve gospel proclamation (Lk. 24:49).

b) Spirit-empowerment

As a foretaste of their Spirit-empowerment at Pentecost, Jesus provisionally endues the disciples with δύναμις (“power”) and ἐξουσία (“authority”) to fulfil their vocational assignment of gospel proclamation for their short-term missionary journey to the surrounding villages (Lk. 9:1-2; cf. Lk. 4:36).[40] Their immersion in the Spirit occurs on the day of Pentecostal when Jesus baptizes the disciples in the Holy Spirit. Following Jesus death and resurrection, Christ appears to the disciples to inform them that they will be “baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” in fulfilment of John the Baptist’s prophecy (Acts 1:5; cf. Lk. 3:16). Shortly thereafter, while the disciples were praying, they “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance” (Acts 2:4). According to Stronstad, “By juxtaposing the narrative about John’s prophecy that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5) and the Pentecostal narrative (Acts 2:1-21), Luke makes it plain that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples was their being, ‘baptized in the Holy Spirit.’”[41] Furthermore, Stronstad argues that, based on the paradigm of Jesus’ own anointing with the Spirit, the baptism in the Holy Spirit that the disciples experience is their anointing for ministry.[42] Other scholars disagree with this argument. Dunn maintains there is an epochal significance for the Pentecost episode which enables the disciples to enter into the “kingdom of God” or “salvation” during the turn of the ages.[43] Turner argues that the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit “is the chief means of the disciples’ ongoing and deepening experience of salvation.”[44] However these views fail to recognize the established vocational-charismatic blueprint already established in the Lukan narratives which clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is given to empower people for gospel proclamation. Just as John was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Lk. 1:15) and Jesus was “anointed” with the Spirit (Lk. 3:22; 4:18) before they embarked on their respective missions, the disciples also receive the gift of the Spirit in advance of their mission to witness to the resurrected Christ. Moreover, Jesus himself defined the purpose of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit when he explained to the disciples: “you shall receive δύναμις when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses” (Acts 1:8). Rather than viewing Spirit-baptism as soteriological, Luke continually demonstrates to his readers that Spirit-baptism is to empower the disciples to fulfil their vocational assignment of gospel proclamation.[45] Green correctly observes that “Luke understands Jesus to operate throughout his ministry in the sphere of the Spirit’s direction and power. And he understands that those who will continue Jesus’ mission, the divine project, must also receive the Spirit and move forward under the Spirit’s influence.”[46] As the narrative unfolds, it becomes apparent that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is programmic and paradigmatic for the early church and continually empowers believers to boldly proclaim the gospel to the nations (cf. Acts 4:8, 31; 5:32; 6:10; 8:25; 9:27; 13:46; 14:1, 25; 16:32; 18:25; 19:6, 8).

c) Vocational Risks

In Luke 12:1-12, long before their Spirit-empowerment at Pentecost, Jesus alerts the novice disciples to the fact that suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.[47] First, Jesus identifies the Pharisees as their antagonists and stresses that they cannot be trusted: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1). The word “hypocrisy” in contemporary language suggests that the Pharisee’s were merely dishonest or insincere, but according to Green, this view is unsupported by the Lukan narratives. “Hypocrisy” is a transliteration of the Greek term ὑπόκρισις and is used in the Septuagint for “a person whose conduct is not determined by God and is thus godless.”[48] That Jesus had recently encountered rejection by the Pharisees fuels this perception and indicates to the disciples that they can also expect godless treatment and harsh resistance from the Pharisees. Jesus’ second warning shifts the focus away from the Pharisees and directly addresses how the disciples should respond to threats of persecution. “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more than they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!” (Lk. 12:4-5). With these ominous words, Jesus notifies his disciples that suffering, even martyrdom, is a likely event in their prospective ministry as Spirit-empowered prophets. Despite these threats, they are not to fear their persecutors, but are to remain steadfast in their loyalty to God.[49] Furthering these warnings, Jesus concludes the didactic episode by presenting the disciples with an interrogation scenario that they will certainly encounter. “And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not become anxious about how or what you should speak in your defence, or what you should say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Lk. 12:11-12). As expected, Jesus predicts that the same group of religious authorities that persistently threaten his life will also threaten the disciples’ lives. Although the disciples will have the Holy Spirit to help them during their time of need, Mittelstadt is correct when he states: “this passage is programmic for it prepares Jesus’ disciples for the future – when they will meet with hostility and be subject to persecution.”[50] Aligning the disciples with John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ experience as suffering charismatic prophets, the disciples discover that the Pharisees cannot be trusted, suffering- even martyrdom is expected, and they share the same opponents- the Jewish religious authorities. Through Jesus’ early warnings to the disciples, Luke’s readers are reminded that suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation.

 d) Experience of Suffering

Shortly after the disciples are baptized in the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ prophetic warnings of opposition and suffering are fulfilled. When Peter and John heal the lame man at the temple and garner an audience to proclaim the gospel, Luke records that “the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in jail” (Acts 4:1-3, italics mine). Noticeable from this initial episode of persecution is how Luke presents the disciples in continuity with John the Baptist and Jesus. Both John the Baptist and the disciples are imprisoned; both Jesus and the disciples are opposed by the religious authorities. Although Peter and John are released unharmed from this encounter, they brazenly inform the religious leaders that they “cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard,” indicating to Luke’s readers that the pattern of suffering due to Spirit-inspired speech will not only continue but likely intensify (Acts 4:20).

Suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation continues for the disciples when the high priest and his associates are filled with jealousy and lay “hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail” (Acts 5:1-18). When an angel miraculously releases them from their captors, the angel expressly orders the disciples to persist in proclaiming the gospel, saying “stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life” (Acts 5:20, italics mine). Obedient to the angel’s instructions, the disciples are found proclaiming the gospel when they are recaptured and interrogated before the Sanhedrin who intend to “slay them” for their seditious behaviour (Acts 5:33). Flogged and commanded to “speak no more in the name of Jesus,” the disciples are released and rejoice, not because their lives were spared, but because “they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name” (Acts 5:42). The disciples’ confession not only highlights their profound identification with the suffering of Christ but also demonstrates to Luke’s readers that proclamation and suffering are inseparable elements of the discipleship journey. Shortly thereafter, a great persecution emerges against the church. Stephen is stoned to death because of his Spirit-empowered discourse to the Jews (Acts 7:54-60).[51] Saul begins “ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison” (Acts 8:3). Cunningham notes that Luke’s description of Saul as “ravaging” (λυμαίνομαι) the church is a very graphic term used in the Septuagint relating to wild animals tearing at raw flesh.[52] As the persecution against the believers broadens, Luke reintroduces political figures who incarcerate, abuse, and murder the disciples (cf. Lk. 3:1). Herod mistreats the disciples and has “James the brother of John put to death with a sword” and proceeds to “arrest Peter also” (Acts 12:2-3).[53] Evident in these vivid and violent episodes, Luke interweaves a pattern of proclamation and suffering throughout the narratives, emphasizing how suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation.

Summary

Building on the Lukan paradigm of the suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation, the disciples follow the established trajectories of John the Baptist and Jesus. As an extension of Jesus’ vocation, the disciples are assigned the task of gospel proclamation, first to the surrounding villages in Israel, then to all people in all nations. To enable them to fulfil their vocational assignment, Jesus provisionally endues them with power and authority and then later baptizes them in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. However, Jesus clearly forewarns the disciples that their future careers as Spirit-empowered prophets will be met with opposition and suffering. Jesus cautions the disciples to be alert to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Lk. 12:1), counsels them not to fear their persecutors who may execute them (Lk. 12:4-5), and advises them to depend on the Holy Spirit when they are interrogated before the Jewish religious authorities (Lk. 12:11-12). Jesus’ words prove accurate when the disciples are arrested, imprisoned, threatened with death, interrogated, flogged, stoned, abducted from their homes, abused, and stabbed; Stephen and James are martyred for their Spirit-empowered witness. Despite their maltreatment at the hands of the religious and political leaders, the disciples consider themselves privileged to share in the sufferings of Christ. Like John the Baptist and Jesus before them, the disciples are part of the Lukan paradigm that presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

Paul

a) Vocational Assignment

While Paul, then Saul, was staying at Judas’ house, still blind from his vision of the risen Christ, Ananias receives a divine message concerning Paul’s vocational assignment. Through a vision, Jesus informs Ananias that Saul “is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15, italics mine). Unique in the Lukan narratives, the phrase “to bear My name” (βαστάζω ὄνομα) conveys the idea of carrying a message.[54] According to Cunningham, when interpreted in the context of Paul’s larger vocational assignment, the phase undoubtedly contains a missiological thrust that implies gospel proclamation.[55] Confirming this claim, Bruce observes that this passage suggests that Paul will function as a “messenger who would proclaim the good news in Jesus name.”[56] This assertion is confirmed when Paul, following his healing and Spirit-empowerment, immediately begins to “proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God’” (Acts 9:20, italics mine). When Paul’s mission is inaugurated in Acts 13, he preaches first to Jews and then to Gentiles, establishing a pattern of gospel proclamation throughout his missionary journeys.[57] Later when Paul is giving a defense of his faith before Agrippa, Paul reaffirms his vocational assignment saying that Jesus appointed him as a “minister and a witness” to testify to the Jews and Gentiles (Acts 26:16-17). Programmic for his life and ministry, Paul’s vocational appointment of gospel proclamation continues to the conclusion of the Lukan accounts when he is found in Rome “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered” (Acts 28:30).[58]

b) Spirit-empowerment

Corresponding with the vocational-charismatic blueprint in the Lukan narratives, Paul receives the empowerment of the Holy Spirit prior to embarking on his vocational assignment of gospel proclamation. When Ananias arrived at the house where Paul, then Saul, was staying, Ananias laid his hands on him and said: “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled (πλήθω) with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). Since Luke makes no mention of the inception of the Spirit or of the manifestation of any prototypical charismata, Turner claims that “the laying on of hands was for healing alone,” and not for Paul’s Spirit empowerment.[59] Contrary to Turner’s assessment, it is more likely that Luke never felt any obligation to repeat the specifics of Spirit-empowerment in every single episode of this two-volume corpus. Luke’s readers were already familiar with the pattern of Spirit-filling (John the Baptist, Lk. 1:15), Spirit-anointing (Jesus, Lk. 3:22), and Spirit-baptism (the disciples, Acts 2:4); repeating the details was presumably unnecessary. According to Stronstad, “Luke’s silence makes it clear that he can be quite indifferent to both the timing and the phenomena associated with the gift of the Spirit. It is equally evident that Luke’s primary concern is with the fact of God’s calling and equipping.”[60] Affirming Stronstad’s position that this episode was in fact Paul’s Spirit-empowerment, Bruce states:

Ananias laid his hands on Saul, but it was the power of Christ that in the same moment enlightened his eyes and filled him with the Holy Spirit. Such filling with the Spirit was the indispensable qualification for the prophetic and apostolic service mapped out for Saul in the Lord’s words of v. 15; henceforth Saul performed this service as one endowed with heavenly power.[61]

Paralleling the experiences of John, Jesus, and the disciples, Paul receives the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that enables him to fulfil his forthcoming vocational assignment of gospel proclamation.

c) Vocational Risks

Concentrated in a single phrase, Luke explicitly discloses to his readers that suffering is an expected consequence of Paul’s vocational assignment of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. Within the same vision that informed Ananias of Paul’s prophetic appointment, Jesus announces the following programmic words to Ananias: “I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:16, italics mine). Much to Ananias’ astonishment, the persecutor is about to become the persecuted. To describe the difficult experiences that Paul will encounter on his missional journey, Luke states that Paul will “suffer” (πάσχω), a term occurring ten times in the Lukan narratives. Notably, eight of the ten times Luke employs the word πάσχω, he refers explicitly to Jesus’ passion (Lk. 9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 28:5), placing Paul in continuity with the path of suffering experienced by Christ. Additionally, Luke reports that Paul will suffer because of the “name” of Christ (i.e. “suffer for My name’s sake,” Acts 9:16). According to Cunningham, associating Paul with the “name” incorporates him into the line of those who have already suffered for the “name” and perpetuates the warnings made by Jesus to his disciples that they will be hated, arrested, and persecuted “on account of my name” (Lk. 21:12-17).[62] As Luke narrates Paul’s journey of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation, one thing is certain: suffering is not only expected, it is assured.

d) Experience of Suffering

Immediately following Paul’s vocational assignment and Spirit-empowerment, Jesus’ foreboding forecast becomes perceptible when Paul is found proclaiming the gospel in the synagogues in Damascus. Emerging again as the primary antagonists in the Lukan narratives, the religious authorities conspire to murder Paul, leading to his rather unceremonious escape through a whole in the city wall (Acts 9:24-25). The pattern of proclamation and suffering resumes when Paul appears later in Jerusalem and was “speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord,” but the Jews were “attempting to put him to death” (Acts 9: 28-29). When Paul becomes the principal character in the latter portion of the Acts narratives, it becomes apparent that suffering manifests actively and persistently wherever he proclaims the gospel. The list of various kinds of persecution suffered by Paul as a result of his gospel proclamation include: trials (Acts 16:20-21; 18:12-16; 22:30-23:9; 24:1-22; 25:7-12; 25:24-26:29); imprisonment/captivity (16:23-24; 21:33-28:31); beating (16:22); plots/conspiracy (9:23, 29; 13:50; 14:4-5; 14:19-20; 17:5-9; 20:3, 19; 23:12-15, 20-21, 30; riots (16:22; 17:5-8, 13; 19:29; 21:27-32; 23:10; 26:21); forced exodus (13:50; 14:6, 19-20; 16:39-40; 17:10, 14, 33; 20:1); mocking (17:32); stoning (14:19); left for dead (14:19).[63] Although threats against his life and verbal and physical attacks continue throughout his missionary journeys, Paul confidently declares to the disciples, “I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13-14). Confident in the sovereignty of God and committed to the cause of Christ, Paul continues to fulfil his vocational assignment of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation despite the enduring onslaught of persecution and suffering.

As Luke narrates the Pauline missional journey, Luke’s readers are alerted to the fact that Paul considers proclamation and suffering as essential components of following Christ. His perspective is detected on many occasions, two of which will be highlighted here. First, after having suffered persecution by the Jews in Antioch and Iconium, Paul encourages the disciples to persevere despite the consequences saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14: 22; cf. Lk. 24:46). Cunningham observes that the word “tribulations” (θλίψις) does not refer to the general troubles and hardships common to humankind, but specifically relates to identifying with Christ in the mission of gospel proclamation. As a result, Paul views his sufferings as an anticipated and necessary reality in his vocational assignment and hopes to rally the disciples’ courage to continue proclaiming the gospel despite the cost.[64] A second example is found when Paul farewells the Ephesian believers saying:

“the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:23-24).

Rather than exclusively presenting the Holy Spirit as the one who empowers, Luke also presents the Holy Spirit as the one who informs Paul about his imminent sufferings. That the Holy Spirit is informant as well as the source of spiritual empowerment demonstrates to Luke’s readers that suffering is an unavoidable reality in their discipleship journey. For Paul did not consider suffering as an isolated possibility, an unfortunate risk that might be avoided, or as something that the Holy Spirit would always deliver him from, but he viewed suffering as inexorably interlocked with the mission of Christ in the world. According to House, Paul’s ministry was an example to Luke’s readers because he “served Christ by embodying the suffering of Jesus.” [65] In other words, Paul’s suffering was an essential part of his ontology of discipleship and was considered a normative experience for all believers who actively follow Christ in gospel proclamation.

Summary

An essential component of the Lukan paradigm of suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation, Paul follows the trajectories established by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples. Divinely appointed to “bear” the name of the Christ to Jews and Gentiles, Paul is charged with the vocational assignment of gospel proclamation (Acts 9:15). Empowering him to fulfil his vocational assignment, Ananias lays his hands on Paul and he is “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). Within the same episode however, Luke reveals that Paul’s forthcoming mission will be characterized by suffering- placing him in continuity with the path of suffering experienced by Christ (Acts 9:16). As Paul’s mission unfolds, it becomes unmistakably evident that hostility, opposition, and persecution follow Paul wherever he proclaims the gospel. Nevertheless, through his sufferings, Paul confesses his identification with the sufferings of Christ and exhorts the disciples to persevere in proclaiming the gospel despite the consequences (Acts 14:22; 21:13-14; 20:23-24). For Luke’s readers, Paul completes the paradigm within the Lukan narratives that presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

Synthesis and Challenge

Through the examination of the missional trajectories of John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul, it is apparent that Luke presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. As suffering charismatic prophets, the characters are divinely appointed the task of gospel proclamation and are subsequently empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfil their vocational assignment. However, despite their prophetic commissioning, Luke informs his readers that each of the characters’ missional journeys contain risks that could invariably lead to occasions of suffering. First, Luke aligns John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah, who frequently encountered occasions of suffering related to his prophetic ministry. Moreover, Luke reports that John would turn back “many,” but not all, suggesting that his message will be greeted with opposition and rejection. Luke’s implicit warnings are fulfilled when Herod imprisons John and later has him beheaded. Second, Luke warns his readers through Simeon’s second oracle that Jesus’ mission will be met with considerable human resistance that will likely lead to occasions of suffering. The extent of Simeon’s prophecy saturates the narratives as Jesus suffers persistent verbal and physical abuse at the hands of the local community, religious authorities, and political leaders, culminating in his crucifixion. Third, Luke alerts his readers that Jesus’ disciples will also encounter suffering for their Spirit-empowered proclamation. Jesus warns his disciples about the godlessness of the Pharisees, the threat of martyrdom, and the certainty of being interrogated by the religious authorities. As Luke’s readers discover, Jesus’ ominous forecast is proven accurate when the disciples encounter each of these elements throughout their missional journey. Fourth, Luke discloses to his readers that Paul will “suffer” for his ministry of gospel proclamation. Punctuating the remaining portion of the Acts narratives, Paul endures hostility, opposition, and persecution wherever he proclaims the gospel. Collectively, these suffering charismatic prophets illustrate a paradigm within the Lukan narratives that presents suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered proclamation.

As the Lukan community endures outbreaks of persecution within their own oppressive and antagonistic environment, discovering how suffering was expected in the missional trajectories of John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples and Paul informs their own journey of discipleship. First, Luke’s readers learn that the expectation of suffering is normative for all believers. If the Lukan community considered their experience of expected or actualized suffering exclusive to their own situation, Luke’s narratives would counteract this belief and assure them that their experiences are consistent with the suffering of the charismatic prophets in Luke-Acts. Second, Luke’s readers realize that the expectation and actualization of suffering follows the path of suffering established by Christ.[66] Cunningham observes, “the persecution Jesus experienced continues on in the experience of those who bear his name, continue his work and witness to who he is.”[67] As the Lukan community persists in proclaiming the resurrected Lord, they place themselves on the continuum with Christ and the journey of his passion. Third, Luke’s readers discover that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is essential to cope with the threat of suffering.[68] A constant presence in the Lukan narratives, the Holy Spirit is portrayed as one who fills, anoints, empowers, helps, and informs believers throughout their treacherous mission of gospel proclamation. Since the gift of the Holy Spirit is not confined to the suffering charismatic prophets of the Lukan narratives but is universally available, the vocational-charismatic blueprint of Spirit-empowerment depicted in the Lukan narratives serves to persuade the Lukan community to regularly seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit in advance of further outbreaks of opposition and persecution. Fourth, Luke’s readers learn that suffering is to be expected wherever the gospel is publically declared. According to House, “suffering is a major force in the gospel’s expansion. It is a rare thing for the Way to spread without it.”[69] Established as a pattern in Luke-Acts, suffering follows Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. As Luke’s readers endeavour to proclaim the gospel within their own hostile context, they will experience what the Lukan characters had previously experienced: that the gospel moves, but never without pain.[70] Fifth, Luke’s readers realize that, although the expectation of suffering is disheartening, the promise of resurrection awaits.[71] Luke has informed them that Jesus has conquered death, ascended into heaven, and reigns at the right hand of God. As Stephen’s stoning demonstrated to the Lukan community, those who face martyrdom can be assured the resurrected Christ will receive them into their eternal dwelling (Acts 7:56-59).

Within the minds of contemporary Western or Minority World Pentecostals, applying the Lukan paradigm of suffering as an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation has its challenges. Currently, Minority World Pentecostals are benefitting from an age of peace, prosperity, freedom, and religious tolerance that scarcely resembles the world of Luke-Acts. Rather than models for contemporary faith and practice, the Lukan narratives serve more as emotive anecdotes that hark back to a distant generation of courageous believers. The expected or actualized suffering of the Lukan characters is more accurately reflected in the experiences of believers in many nations of the Majority World where opposition to Christ remains an ever-present reality. Menzies recounts the opinion of a Chinese house church leader who apply stated, “when Chinese believers read the book of Acts, we see in it our own experience; when foreign Christians read the book of Acts, they see in it inspiring stories.”[72] Nevertheless, for contemporary Pentecostals in the Minority World, the Lukan paradigm that suffering is an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation is a stark reminder that there is a cost to following Christ. Just as John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul proclaimed the gospel despite the consequences, it is critical that Pentecostals rediscover the role of Spirit and suffering within the Lukan narratives to reflect a more biblically balanced missional pneumatology that revives the passion for Spirit-empowered proclamation within their own context.

Bibliography: Bovon, Francois. Luke The Theologian. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Bradley, James E. “Miracles and Martyrdom in the Early Church: Some Theological and Ethical Implications.” Pneuma 13:1 (1991): 65-81. Bruce, F. F., ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. Cunningham, Scott. ‘Through Many Tribulations’: The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Green, Joel B. New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Green, Joel B. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.  Horton, Stanley, M. What The Bible Says About The Holy Spirit. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1976. House, Paul R. “Suffering and the Purpose of Acts.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:3 (1990): 317-330. Hunter, Harold D. and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., eds. The Suffering Body: Responding to the Persecution of Christians. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2006. Jacobsen, Douglas, ed. A Reader in Pentecostal Theology: Voices from the First Generation. Indiana University Press: Indianapolis: 2006.  Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2003. Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Juel, Donald. Luke-Acts: The Promise of History. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1983.  Karris, Robert J. “Luke 23:47 and the Lukan View of Jesus’ Death.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105/1 (1986): 65-74.  Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Marshall, Howard I. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978. Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Menzies, Robert P. “A Review of The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology by Martin Mittelstadt.” Evangelical Quarterly 78.2 (2006): 174-176. Menzies, William W. and Robert P. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000. Mittelstadt, Martin William. The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology. T&T Clark International: London, 2004. Moessner, David P. “The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on The Jesus- Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts.” Novum Testamentum 28:3 (1986), 220-256. Neyrey, Jerome H. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Robeck, Cecil Jr. “The Dark Side of the Gospel.” Pneuma 11:1 (1989): 1-2. Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. Stronstad, Roger. “The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke Revisited (Special Emphasis upon Being Baptized in the Holy Spirit).” McMaster Theological Studies Series 1 (2008): 101-122. Stronstrad, Roger. The Prophethood of All Believers. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Talbert, Charles H. “The Way of the Lukan Jesus: Dimensions of Lukan Spirituality.” Perspectives on Religious Studies 9:3 (1982): 237-249. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts 1: A Literary Interpretation.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.  Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts 2: A Literary Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Turner, Max. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Warrington, Keith. “Healing and Suffering In The Bible.” International Review of Mission 95:576/577 (2006): 154-164. Wigoder, Geoffrey, ed. Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: G. G. The Jerusalem Publishing House, 1986.

Defining Pentecostal Identity: Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals by William Sloos

Introduction

As the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) approaches a centenary of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation throughout Canada and the world, there is a mutual desire to rediscover its unique theological identity. Throughout its storied history, the PAOC has encountered a number of pentecostal-like charismatic movements that have challenged Canadian Pentecostals to re-examine their sense of self within the highly pluralistic Canadian religious landscape. One of the most significant and influential movements to challenge the identity of Canadian Pentecostals has been the Charismatic Movement. Dubbed “the new Pentecost” by Donald Gee, this mid-twentieth century North American religious movement experienced distinctively pentecostal blessings and phenomena, yet remained outside any denominational framework or shared confession of faith.[1] Within the contemporary context, the next generation of the Charismatic Movement, known also as the neo-charismatic movement or the “Third Wave,” is advancing its pentecostal-like theology and practice among post-denominational and independent churches throughout the world.[2] Now considered to actually outnumber all Pentecostals in numbers and in annual converts worldwide, the Charismatic Movement has little traditional Pentecostal ties but is a prime mover in the pentecostalization of the global Church.[3] From the house-church movement in China to the indigenous churches in Africa to the Toronto Blessing, the Charismatic Movement continues to experience remarkable growth.[4] With its burgeoning religious popularity, the Charismatic Movement appears to have blurred the theological lines that classical Pentecostalism once struggled to establish. “It is often impossible now to distinguish between ‘Pentecostals’ and ‘Charismatics,’ states Allen Anderson.[5] Whereas Classical Pentecostals had historically defined the parameters outlining the doctrine and experience of pentecostal spirituality, the Charismatic Movement has proposed a far more inclusive, open-ended, and multi-dimensional approach to the work of the Holy Spirit. Stemming from this emerging theological diversification is what appears to be an erosion of Classical Pentecostal identity. Has the third wave overcome the first wave? Are there any discernable differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals? P. D. Hocken’s article “Charismatic Movement” compares the Charismatic Movement with Classical Pentecostalism and identifies nine key differences between the two movements.[6] This paper will examine Hocken’s theses to understand the differences and propose a way forward in defining PAOC identity within the global pentecostal/charismatic family.

Differences between Charismatics and Classical Pentecostals

1. Origins

Hocken argues that the naissance of the Charismatic Movement was far more diverse than that of the Pentecostal Movement. Highlighting how the Charismatic Movement never had an Azusa Street as a geographical point of genesis, people under the umbrella of the Charismatic Movement received Spirit-baptism through a variety of connections and influences:

·      direct contact with Pentecostals or charismatics already baptized in the Spirit

·      growing experience of spiritual gifts following the rediscovery divine healing

·      outbreaks of glossolalia in circles praying for revival (more in Europe than America)

·      bible studies (especially in the book of Acts)

·      divine interventions among people who knew nothing of the Pentecostal blessing[7]

Although many of these influences were also part of the early Pentecostal experience, the majority of early Pentecostals came into the movement though revival meetings that were erupting throughout North America. The Charismatic Movement however, attracted followers through a variety of diverse pathways, some of which were made possible by the pioneering efforts of early Pentecostals.

2. Missions

One of the defining characteristics of early Pentecostals was their missionary impetus. When believers were filled with the Spirit, many of them would set their sights and focus their energies on evangelism- often on a global scale. Not only was Pentecostalism birthed on the heels of the foreign missionary movement of the late nineteenth century, but Pentecostals also equated their baptism in the Spirit with power to witness.[8] Within the Charismatic Movement however, their missional aims were largely consigned to sharing Spirit-baptism with fellow church members. According to Menzies, Charismatics tended to “see their role as a revitalizing influence within their own tradition.”{C}[9] Although the Charismatic Movement’s missionary impulse has increased over the years, especially among restorationist, non-denominational, and para-church groups, classical Pentecostalism has consistently upheld world missions and gospel proclamation as a central component of their theology of Spirit-baptism and consequently their pentecostal identity and mission.[10]

3. Holiness

Historically an emotive flashpoint for Pentecostals and Charismatics, differences in their perspectives of holiness has been a defining feature of these two movements. According to Hocken, this division in devotional and moral ethics largely stems from the socio-religious context of each movement.[11] When Pentecostalism was birthed in the early twentieth century, not only did many Pentecostal pioneers have Holiness backgrounds, but holiness codes were part and parcel of the fundamentalist/evangelical religious culture.[12] When the Charismatic Movement emerged however, it was a different generation and culture where holiness inclinations were not as passionate and concentrated; charismatic practitioners were also from a multiplicity of confessional backgrounds that did not reflect a Pentecostal holiness framework.{C}[13] When people received Spirit-baptism within the Charismatic Movement, Pentecostals expected that their reception of the Spirit would birth a pentecostal-like transformation towards holiness. When this did not occur, Hocken notes that Pentecostals became increasingly suspicious about the authenticity of their experience in the Spirit.[14] Furthermore, this persisting moral variance between Pentecostals and Charismatics also influenced how each group understood how seekers received Spirit-baptism. Whereas Pentecostals would “tarry for the baptism” with much soul-searching, contrition, and confession, Charismatics would simply pray for people to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit without a concerted insistence on personal repentance and particular modes of religious propriety.[15]

4. Ecclesiology

Unlike Pentecostals, who traditionally viewed Spirit-baptism as a highly individual event designed to empower believers to fulfil their unique God-ordained purposes in the world, the Charismatic Movement has a more corporate view of the work of the Spirit.[16] For Charismatics, the Holy Spirit is given to renew the existing Church as a whole.[17] These sentiments have been strongest within the sacramental-liturgical traditions, where Spirit-filled believers have remained within their denominations and have contributed to the rediscovery of covenant relationships and spiritual gifts within the corporate body.[18] It is interesting to note that the Charismatic Movement’s pneumatological framework is more inclined towards the Pauline texts that emphasize the corporate life of the body of Christ rather than the Lukan perspective that depicts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit descending on individuals and groups of believers.{C}[19]

5. Ecumenicism

Although both movements have experienced their share of criticisms from the broader religious community, Charismatics have been able to cross confessional boundaries far more than Pentecostals. During the early years, Pentecostals were ostracized from the larger evangelical community and were duty-bound to theologically validate their experience in the Spirit. By the time the Charismatic Movement emerged on the horizon, a number of factors were at play that would enable Charismatics to enjoy a greater interdenominational influence. First, Pentecostal pneumatology, already in its second generation, was permeating the religious landscape and was becoming less offensive and more respectable.[20] Second, coinciding with the rise of the Charismatic Movement was the emergence of the Ecumenical Movement which created a greater receptivity to various pneumatological ideas.[21] Third, those who had experienced the baptism of the Spirit and remained in their churches were able influence others from within their traditions more so than if they left to join established Pentecostal churches.{C}[22] As early as 1955, charismatic believers were holding meetings within their mainline denominations by arranging opportunities for seekers that featured the anointing of the sick and prayer for healing. Although it did generate some controversy at the time, within a few years, virtually every American denomination had been introduced to the work of the Spirit through the Charismatic Movement.[23] Although the openness and acceptance of the pentecostal message among the broader Christian community would likely not have been possible without the Charismatic Movement, it was the Pentecostals who loosed the proverbial jar a generation earlier.

6. Eschatology

Coinciding with the emergence of Pentecostalism was an enduring evangelical preoccupation with the events surrounding the end-times. Within this context, Pentecostals, with their Scofield Bibles in hand, largely accepted the dispensationalist teachings promoting the pre-millennial second coming of Christ.[24] Conversely, the Charismatic Movement has not sanctioned any particular eschatological standing despite the heightened “end-times” consciousness resulting from their experience of Spirit-baptism.[25] Within the Third Wave camp, there are voices that oppose the pessimism of pre-millennialist propositions, yet there remains little eschatological cohesion and consistency within the movement.

7. Healing

A central component of both the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements is an enthusiastic belief in divine healing. Despite the shared confidence in divine healing, the patterns resident within each movement demonstrates some differences. While Pentecostals have engendered a more demonstrative divine healing praxis with a focus on physical restoration, Charismatics have largely concentrated on inner healing with a focus on emotional recovery.[26] Hocken’s explanation for this distinction is worth noting: “This contrast reflects differences in social background and theology. Awareness of mental states is more characteristic of a middle-class milieu than of working-class people, and the theology of many charismatics is more sympathetic to psychology than that of many Pentecostals.”[27] Although Hocken attributes the socio-economic contexts of each movement as a way to explain their respective distinctions, there likely are further contributing factors such as how each movement interprets Scriptures related to divine healing, their common healing practices, and the explanatory style of the suffering and healed within their faith communities.

8. Spirit-baptism

If there is one central theme to both Classical Pentecostals and Charismatics alike, it is that a person can have a personal encounter with the Holy Spirit. Classical Pentecostals traditionally hold that all Christians should seek a post-conversion crisis experience called the baptism in the Holy Spirit.[28] Referring to the Lukan narrative as their modus operandi, Pentecostals cite multiple examples of biblical characters receiving Spirit-baptism some time following their conversion, underscoring how these examples are to be normative for all believers. The Charismatic position does affirm a subsequent crisis experience of Spirit-baptism, but it is understood more as an actualization of the Spirit given at conversion and less a gift of the Spirit for vocational empowerment.[29]

9. Initial Evidence

As part of their theological validation of Spirit-baptism, historical Pentecostal denominations affirm that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit-baptism. The Charismatic view however, refuses to make any such “law of tongues,” contending that simply providing glossolalic evidence can not and should not be the sole signifier of Spirit-baptism.[30] Other than the fact that Charismatics refuse to make a “law of tongues,” there is little continuity among Charismatics regarding a theology of glossolalia. Early Charismatic leader Dennis Bennett highlighted how “tongues are part of the package” when it comes to Spirit-baptism while contemporary charismatic leader Larry Hart teaches that one “may or may not speak in tongues when baptized in the Holy Spirit, but speaking in tongues is still seen as a normal part of Spirit-filled living available to all.”[31]

A Way Forward: Defining PAOC Identity

With such theological variability within the contemporary context, it is easy to see how the Charismatic Movement has blurred the theological lines Pentecostals once struggled to establish. From a distance, I agree with Allen Anderson that “it is often impossible now to distinguish between ‘Pentecostals’ and ‘Charismatics’.” However, if we were to zoom in for a closer look, I believe that there are three significant Pentecostal characteristics that contribute to the formation of a unique identity with the global pentecostal/charismatic family: foundational, missional, and transformational.

a) Foundational

Emerging from Hocken’s article is the inimitable position Pentecostals have as founders of the modern outpouring of the Spirit. Not only did early Pentecostals proclaim an experience of Spirit-baptism and pioneer a theology of Spirit-baptism while it was unpopular and persecuted, they also blazed a trail for future generations of Spirit-filled believers. Without the revolutionary initiatives of early Pentecostals, the Charismatic Movement would have had to break its own ground, defend its own experiences, and develop its own theologies. Unfortunately, so many Pentecostals know so little about their own history to truly appreciate the pioneering work of their spiritual forbearers. Perhaps it takes a non-Pentecostal such as Harvey Cox to remind us of our unique place in the world:

Pentecostalism has become a global vehicle for the restoration of primal hope. The movement started from the bottom. A partially blind, poor, black man with little or no book learning outside of the Bible heard a call. Seymour was anything but a Paul of Tarsus, trained by the leading religious scholars, or an Augustine of Hippo, schooled by the most polished Roman rhetoricians, or a Calvin or Luther educated in the original languages of scripture. He was a son of former slaves who had to listen to sermons through a window and who undoubtedly traveled to Los Angeles in the segregated section of the train. Yet under Seymour’s guidance, a movement arose whose impact on Christianity, less than a century after his arrival in Los Angeles, has been compared to the Protestant Reformation.[32]

For Canadian Pentecostals, our heritage differs from the American story, yet it remains a rich tapestry of Spirit-led and Spirit-empowered believers whose sacrifice paved the way for our own faith journey. Despite the changing times, tapping into our shared heritage is one of the most valuable exercises in rediscovering our unique identity. Although classical Pentecostalism now shares the road with the Charismatic Movement as the global torchbearers with the message of the Spirit, to rephrase the words of Killian McDonnell, behind every Charismatic stands a classical Pentecostal.{C}[33]

b) Missional

Having identified some of the differences between Pentecostals and Charismatics, an indispensable quality of Pentecostalism continues to be its inherent mission of global evangelization. Permeating almost every theme is the intrinsic awareness of a lost world and the need for Spirit-empowered witness. Although the context changes and new voices emerge, Pentecostalism remains anchored to gospel proclamation. Experiences may be debated and theologies disputed, but sharing Christ is a non-negotiable feature of the Pentecostal message and an essential component of Pentecostal belief and practice.

c) Transformational

Not only is Pentecostalism missional at its heart, but it is also intensely pragmatic and able to continually transform itself into new and relevant ways of communicating the gospel without compromising its core beliefs. Although some have described the blurring theological lines within contemporary Pentecostalism as an identity crisis and a worrisome fragmentation of a divinely ordained religious institution, Jacobsen explodes this myth by stating that Pentecostalism was never united enough to fragment in the first place.[34] For example, early Pentecostalism was endemic with theological controversies: holiness Pentecostalism, finished work Pentecostalism, and Oneness Pentecostalism- each vying for the hearts and minds of Pentecostal believers. Within the contemporary context, the Charismatic Movement has challenged Pentecostals on many of its historical doctrines and belief systems, but the most contentious issues today still pale in comparison to the historical debates of the past. Rather than perceiving Pentecostalism as suffering an identity crisis or fragmentation, a more accurate and helpful way of understanding Pentecostalism is to return to the understanding that it is a movement and vastly capable of reinvention. While denominations grow stale and stagnate, movements “change on the fly” and consistently and creatively reinvent themselves according to the changing cultural and religious landscape. Pentecostalism is movement not a denomination- and its identity lies in its inherent ability to transform itself with the foundational and missional message of Christ for generations to come.

Bibliography: Anderson, Allen. An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity.            Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Brand, Chad Owen, ed. Perspectives on Spirit Baptism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004. Burgess, Stanley M., ed. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Cox, Harvey. Fire From Heaven. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1995. Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003. Menzies, William W. and Robert P. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984. Synan, Vinson. The Century of the Holy Spirit. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Messiah As Spirit and Fire Baptizer Luke 3:15-17 by William Sloos

Introduction

From the outset, readers of Luke’s Gospel discover that both John and Jesus are chosen for a divine purpose from conception.  John’s mission is to be a prophet and prepare the people for the coming of Jesus, the Messiah.[1]{C}  As the narrative progresses, John is found in the desert wilderness, proclaiming a message of repentance and forgiveness of sins, performing water baptisms, and instructing people in righteousness.  During his ministry, crowds following him wonder if he might be the long-awaited Messiah.  Responding to their speculations, John illuminates his listeners to the identity and mission of the coming Messiah, describing him as a man of superior status, a baptizer of Spirit and fire, and an eschatological judge.  This paper will examine John’s description of the anticipated Messiah based on an exegesis of Luke 3:15-17.

After prayerfully reading the text from a variety of translations, the passage will be analyzed and evaluated according to a multi-dimensional interpretive process.   The historical context of the passage will be researched, followed by a micro-level examination of key literary elements, a meso-level exploration of the main themes, and a macro-level review of the text’s broader theological implications and how they relate to the larger Canon of Scripture.  The contemporary significance of the text will also be considered in addition to how the passage applies to both the community of faith as well as on a personal level.

Compositional History

Since the author of the Gospel of Luke is not identified in the text, the most reliable information concerning Lukan authorship originates from early church tradition.[2]{C}  Irenaeus, a second century Christian apologist, ascribes the authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, a close travelling companion of Paul, a claim uncontested by the early church fathers.[3]{C}  Though some scholars contend that Luke-Acts could have been written as late as the second century, most scholars agree that Luke wrote his two volumes from an undisclosed location during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, likely between A. D. 60-70.[4]{C}  Addressed to Theophilus and likely intended for a wide readership, Luke’s purpose of writing was to produce an organized account of God’s plan of salvation, accomplished through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and continuing to unfold through Christ’s followers.[5]

Genre and Structure

The literary genre of Luke 3:15-17 is a Greek and Semitic narrative written in dramatic prose with some Hebrew and Aramaic metaphors and expressions.[6]{C}  For the purpose of this study, the structure of the passage will be broken down into a verse-by-verse analysis and follow an outline informed by the The Anchor Bible:[7]

Verse 15          The People’s Curiosity

Verse 16          John’s Response

a)     The Messiah’s Superior Status

b)    The Messiah as Spirit and Fire Baptizer

Verse 17          Messiah as Eschatological Judge

Historical Context or Sitz im Leben

Reminiscent of Israel’s desert wanderings in the Exodus, the setting for John’s prophetic ministry takes place in the wilderness near the Jordan River (3:2-3).[8]{C}  Luke identifies the story occurring during the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, presumably during 28-29 C.E (3:1).[9]{C}  In addition to naming Tiberius, Luke also identifies a number of political leaders including Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, and Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, information Luke supplies less to indicate chronology and more to introduce characters who will oppose the work of God in subsequent accounts.[10]{C}  Moreover Luke’s identification of these political figures serves to emphasize the oppressive Roman rule currently enforced in Palestine and magnify hopes of Messianic liberation among the Jewish people.

Literary Context and Canonical Placement

The Luke 3:15-17 passage is the concluding segment of a larger narrative that describes John’s public ministry as a forerunner of the Messiah.  Readers are introduced to John’s prophetic mission at his conception in chapter one and witness the fulfilment of his mission in chapter three, concluding with his final public discourse before his imprisonment by Herod.  This brief passage, describing the identity and mission of the expectant Messiah, also fits into the larger Canon by confirming numerous Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, sets the stage for the commencement of Jesus’ public ministry, anticipates the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, and foresees the eschatological reign of Christ.[11]

Literary Analysis of the Text

The People’s Curiosity (3:15)

John’s harsh words of imminent judgment, calls for repentance, and demands for moral change, still the crowds respond to him by volunteering to be baptized in water and expressing interest in his message about ethical and social transformation.  Messianic expectations were in the air and John’s prophetic ministry caused people to speculate whether he might be the one to liberate and redeem Israel from their oppression.[12]{C}  Luke uses the word προσδοκάω (“expectation”) to describe the optimistic feelings of the people, suggesting that there was a collective eschatological anticipation for the appearance of the Messiah, causing the people to view John as the potential embodiment of their hopes.[13]

John’s Response (3:16)

Aware of the people’s curiosity as to whether he might be the Messiah, John publicly responds with a solemn declaration about the nature and characteristics of the true Messiah.

a) The Messiah’s Superior Status

Speaking to his desert followers, John declares that “one more powerful than I will come,” redirecting their speculative theories and emphasizing the Messiah’s superior status.  To further the people’s understanding of the vast difference between himself and the Messiah, John states that he is not even worthy to untie the Messiah’s sandal-thongs, a culturally sensitive metaphor that dramatically illustrates John’s inferior position compared to the greatness of the Messiah.  In Roman Palestine, rabbinical teachers were seldom remunerated monetarily and their disciples would often show their appreciation for them by performing a variety of personal services.  The untying of the sandal-thong however, was considered too menial a task for a disciple, illustrated by the rabbinical saying, “Every service for which a slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his teacher except the losing of his sandal-thong”.{C}[14]{C}  To unfasten sandal-straps was considered a humiliating task, done primarily by slaves; John states that he is not even worthy to be the Messiah’s slave, let alone disciple, clearly highlighting to the crowd that their speculations are drastically misplaced and that they should consider John a lowly servant, not the Messiah.

b) The Messiah as Spirit and Fire Baptizer

Continuing to contrast their roles, John reveals that, though he baptizes with water, the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.  Since the crowd was being baptized in water by John, they clearly understood the concept of baptism as an immersing or drenching exercise, but how did they understand John’s description of the Messiah as a Spirit and fire baptizer?[15]{C}  In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God consistently came upon or possessed the heroes of Israel, empowering them to perform unusual feats and filling them with wisdom, prophetic utterances, and divine inspiration.[16]{C}  Not only is Spirit-empowerment or Spirit-filling prominent in Israel’s history, but Isaiah prophecies that the Messiah will possess the fullest endowment of the Spirit of God (Is. 11:1-5) and Joel predicted that in the last days the Holy Spirit would be “poured out” upon all people (Joel 2:28).[17]{C}  The understanding of a Messianic figure empowered and empowering others with the Holy Spirit would not be a foreign concept to John’s listeners.  Linking the Holy Spirit to the language of baptism would have given John’s listeners a sense that they too will be immersed or drenched by the Spirit.

Fire is also a common theme in Old Testament literature, but rather than an empowering force as the Spirit, fire is often associated with judgment.  Within the context of unbelieving Israel, prophets used fire as a symbol of judgment as do several Jewish apocalyptic sources.[18]{C}  In addition to a symbol of judgment, fire also served a theophanic purpose symbolizing the presence of God to the people of Israel.  Numerous times God reveals himself from the midst of a fire or describes himself as a devouring or consuming fire.{C}[19]{C}  Throughout Israel’s history, fire has symbolized both destructive and theophanic traits; its very attributes indicate holiness, inapproachability, mystery, consumption, and purity.  Combining the attributes of judgment and theophany serve to intensify the image of the holiness of God in contrast to the sinfulness of humanity.[20]{C}  Though some New Testament scholars argue that fire baptism relates to the Spirit baptism of Pentecost, to John’s hearers, a Messianic figure coming to baptize with fire would point to a cleansing and purifying of unrighteousness, clearly identifying his role as eschatological judge.[21]

For the writer of Luke-Acts, John’s identification of the Messiah as Spirit and fire baptizer is clearly an anticipation of future events that John could not have imagined.{C}[22]{C}  The promise of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is reiterated by the resurrected Christ in Acts 1:5 and fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on the Upper Room gathering.[23]{C}  Immersing Jews and Gentiles, men and women, the Holy Spirit continued to empower converts throughout the Acts narratives, even baptizing John’s disciples in Acts 19:1-7.  John’s description of the Messiah as Spirit baptizer informs his followers that they can expect a future Spirit baptism as part of the unfolding of God’s redemptive mission.[24]{C}  The Messiah as fire baptizer however, confronts those who ignore the call to repentance with the certainty of final judgment, as informed by the following verse.

The Messiah as Eschatological Judge (3:17)

The theme of Messiah as eschatological judge is further developed by introducing an agricultural metaphor in the explanation.  John depicts the Messiah as a farmer during harvest time who performs the ancient practice of separating wheat from chaff.  After loosening grain from the husks, a farmer would take his winnowing fork and toss or fan the threshed grain to the wind to separate the light chaff from the heavy kernels.  After separation is complete, he would then take his winnowing fork and move the grain from the threshing floor to his storage facilities; the left over chaff would be discarded.{C}[25]{C}  In describing the metaphor, John actually presumes that the process of winnowing has already been accomplished and all that remains is the heap of grain on the threshing floor which still needs to be cleared.[26]{C}  With his winnowing fork in hand, the Messiah is the one who will come and clear the threshing floor, taking the wheat into his barn and consigning the chaff to the fire.  From this picture, it can be surmised that John considers his ministry the actual winnowing process, separating the repentant from the unrepentant.[27]{C}  Consequentially, the mission of the Messiah is portrayed as one who will pronounce ultimate judgment on the people based on their response to John’s message and thus clear the threshing floor by preserving the repentant and condemning the unrepentant.  Though the judgment of Christ is not actualized in the Lukan narratives, John presents the judgment of the Messiah as imminent and eschatological in scope, creating an acute sense of urgency among the people to align themselves with righteousness and escape the “unquenchable fire” reserved for the wicked.

Main Themes and Theological Message

Luke 3:15-17 is marked by dramatic contrasts and both positive and negative messages concerning the coming of the Messiah.  Contrasting himself with the coming of Jesus, John reveals that not only is he not the Messiah, but that he is not even worthy to be considered his slave.  His confession of the superior identity of Christ reaffirms that Jesus is the Son of God and Saviour, a dominant theme throughout the Lukan narratives and essential to Luke’s overall theological message of the redemptive plan of God through Christ.  Additionally, John’s depiction of the Messiah as Spirit and fire baptizer suggests both a positive and negative image of the expectant Messianic figure.  Jesus as Spirit-baptizer points to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost which empowered the church to bear witness to the resurrected Christ.  Conversely, Jesus as fire-baptizer is a potent sign of the severe judgment that awaits unrepentant humanity.  Though John considered his message as “good news” (3:18), the certainty of impending judgement for unrepentant sinners confronted his listeners and reinforced a consistent message weaved throughout both the Old and New Testaments.[28]

Theological Implications and Applications

Considering himself even less than a slave, John makes a clear distinction between himself and the anticipated Messiah.  Though his ministry is under the anointing of the Holy Spirit (1:15; 1:80), attracts larges crowds, and enjoys positive results, John does not even consider himself worthy enough to untie Jesus’ sandal-thong.  At first glance, his self-effacing comments seem somewhat undeserving, yet John recognizes the baseness of his humanity in comparison with the supremacy and majesty of Christ.  John’s extraordinary example reminds contemporary readers that a servant attitude is essential for all Christians and that, no matter how successful or esteemed they are, they should regard themselves as humble servants of Christ.

Furthermore, observing Jesus as both Spirit and fire baptizer should ignite both a desire for God and fear of God in contemporary readers.  As Luke later describes in his second volume, the baptism of the Holy Spirit transforms Jesus’ followers, empowering them to be his witnesses throughout the world and drawing them together to form vibrant, multi-racial, Christ-centred communities.{C}[29]{C}  Though two millennia have past since the day of Pentecost, the power of Spirit-baptism is still available to empower believers in their commitment to fulfil the mission of Christ.  The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a personally transforming experience that continues to strengthen my walk with God and empower me to fulfil the call of ministry on my life.  Jesus as fire-baptizer however, points toward the eschatological judgement of the repentant from the unrepentant and is a vivid reminder of Christ’s continuing call for genuine repentance and commitment to holy living.  The ominous warning should concern contemporary society, realizing that the coming of the Lord is closer now than when John sternly warned his followers.  As well, I am personally compelled to live a penitent life, conscious of my failings and quick to repent for personal transgressions, knowing that sin is a serious matter to God.  John’s description of the Messiah as Spirit and fire baptizer contains both blessing and judgement, the fullness of the Spirit and the severity of holiness, contrasting attributes that necessitate the attention of all humankind.

Bibliography: Charles, J. Daryl, “The Coming One/Stronger One and His Baptism: Matt 3:11-12, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16-17,” Pneuma, 11:1 (1989), 37-49. DeSilva, David, A.  An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation.  Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2004. Fitzmyer, Joseph A, ed.  The Anchor Bible.  The Gospel According to St. Luke 28.  New York: Doubleday, 1981. Freedman, David Noel, ed.  The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1.  New York: Doubleday, 1992. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed.  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Green, Joel B.  The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Keck, Leander E., ed.  The New Interpreter’s Bible IX.  Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Klassan-Wiebe, Sheila, “Luke 3:15-17, 21-22,” Interpretation 48.04 (1994), 397-401. Marshall, Howard I.  The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978. Morris, Leon, ed.  Tyndale New Testament Commentary.  Luke.  Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1988. Neyrey, Jerome H.  The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation.  Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Tannehill, Robert C.  The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts 1: A Literary Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. The NIV Study Bible.  New International Version.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

The Theme of Acceptance and Rejection in Luke Based on Simeon's Second Oracle Luke 2:34-35 by William Sloos

Climaxing the Lukan infancy narratives, Simeon’s second oracle introduces Luke’s readers to the first hint of impending trouble and conflict in the story of Jesus.[1] Contrasting the optimistic tone of the first oracle where Simeon praises God for the privilege of seeing the promised salvation in the form of the Christ child, his second oracle contains a sobering prophecy announcing that the emerging mission of Christ to liberate and redeem fallen humanity will be met with considerable human resistance.[2] Serving as a preview of the upcoming conflict between Jesus and the people of Israel, Simeon addresses Mary saying: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too (2:34-35, NIV).” Simeon’s Spirit-inspired words inform Luke’s readers that Jesus will cause a diametrically opposed pattern of response among the people of Israel: those who accept Jesus compared with those who reject him.{C}[3]

Preparing Luke’s readers for what is about to be fulfilled in the narrative, Simeon’s programmic prophecy contains four components that anticipate the tension between acceptance and rejection.{C}[4] First, Simeon states that the child will cause “the falling and rising of many,” indicating that people will be divided in their response to Jesus, some accepting him and others rejecting him (2:34a).[5] Second, Jesus will be “a sign that will be spoken against,” implying that those in the emerging community who incorrectly interpret the sign of Jesus are those who reject him and stand in opposition to him (2:34b).{C}[6] Third, Jesus will reveal the “thoughts of many hearts,” referring to Jesus’ exposure of the hidden thoughts and negative attitudes of those who accept and reject him (2:35a).{C}[7] Fourth, Simeon concludes his unsettling prophecy by informing Mary that “a sword will pierce your own soul too,” suggesting that Mary must also decide whether to accept or reject Jesus for herself (2:35b).[8] The following study will analyze the theme of acceptance and rejection in the four components of Simeon’s programmic prophecy and trace their trajectory through the Gospel of Luke.

The Falling and Rising of Many in Israel

The first component of Simeon’s programmic prophecy announces to Mary that the Christ child “is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel” (2:34a), indicating that people will be divided in their response to Jesus, some accepting him and others rejecting him.[9] These words inform Luke’s readers that the ministry of Jesus will be summarized by the spatial movement of people, those who fall and those who rise in response to him.[10] Although some scholars take this reference to suggest a double experience of the same people, those who will be brought low and are later raised up by the gospel, it is unlikely since Luke uses the word πτῶσις, indicating a state of collapse or downfall, a common word for the effect of judgment on the wicked.[11] These falling and rising images relate back to the “stone” passages in Isaiah, where God is depicted as setting up a stone “that causes men to stumble” (Isa. 8:14-15) and “a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation” (Isa. 28:16).[12] The “stumbling” metaphor in Isaiah is understood as an image of judgment; those who reject the cornerstone stumble while those who trust in the cornerstone receive God’s salvation.{C}[13] Since Jesus is God’s agent of judgment and salvation, these Messianic texts were easily related to the incarnate Christ and used repeatedly in the New Testament (Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6-10) to illustrate how Jesus will cause division among people, with some accepting him and others rejecting him.{C}[14]

As Luke’s Gospel unfolds, the image of those who fall and rise begins to take shape. John the Baptist causes division among his listeners resulting from his stern proclamations, informing them that they can be replaced by “stones” if they fail to “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (3:7-9).{C}[15] At Jesus’ inaugural address to the synagogue congregation in Nazareth, he articulates how his mission will cause future division among the people and subsequently experiences the rejection of his own community and leaves to preach elsewhere (4:23-24; 28-29).[16] Luke’s decision to include Jesus’ saying that “no prophet is accepted in his hometown” (4:24) was not a mere restating of a common one-liner, but was an essential component to his theological presentation of Jesus as being intricately and irreversibly defined by his acceptance or rejection by the people of Israel.[17] Simeon’s ominous prophetic insight into the coming division of Israel reaches a dramatic literary climax when Jesus characterizes himself as the one who causes a positive or negative response in people.[18] Addressing his disciples and the crowds following him, he states:

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Luke 12:51-53).{C}[19]

When Luke records this difficult saying of Jesus, his readers recall Simeon’s programmic prophecy that Jesus will cause the falling and rising of many in Israel and not only realize that Simeon’s Spirit-inspired words are being fulfilled, but that they too must be prepared for potential division within their own families as it relates to accepting or rejecting Christ.[20]

Following Jesus’ declaration that he came to bring division on the earth, the narrative begins to demonstrate the coexisting nature of the two people groups, those who fall and those who rise in response to Jesus.[21] When the Pharisees approach Jesus and warn him that Herod wants to kill him, Jesus expresses sorrow for Jerusalem because the people are unwilling to accept his protective care (13:33-35).[22] Later, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, he weeps over the city because of the people’s failure to see him as the Messiah.[23] Due to their blindness, Jesus pronounces future judgment upon them, stating that they will be thrown “to the ground” because they “did not recognize the time of God’s coming” (19:44).[24] Contrasting those who fall because of their rejection of Jesus, Luke concludes the pericope by noting the acceptance of others who “hung on his words,” underscoring the coexistence of the two people groups as forecast by Simeon (19:48).{C}[25]

The “falling and rising of many in Israel” also indicates the social upheaval and reversal of common social order caused by the presence of Jesus.[26] Those who believe they belong in the centre of the kingdom of God will be rejected and those along the periphery will be accepted.[27] When Jesus teaches the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector who both ascend to the temple to pray, one rejoices in his righteousness, the other weeps at his sinful condition.[28] Pointedly, Jesus remarks that it is the tax collector who returns home justified, “for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (18:14).[29] During the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus pronounces blessings upon the poor, hungry, and persecuted, but woes to the wealthy, satiated, and highly esteemed, overturning the conventional social constructs of early Roman Palestine (6:20-26).{C}[30] Additionally, Jesus’ exhortation that “there are those who are last who will be first and first who will be last” also emphasizes how Jesus overturns social customs, marking the unmistakable dividing line between those who rise and are accepted and those who fall and are rejected in Simeon’s prophecy (13:30).

A Sign that will be Spoken Against

In addition to Jesus causing division among the people, Simeon also states that Jesus will be “a sign that will be spoken against” (2:34b), implying that those in the emerging community who incorrectly interpret the sign of Jesus are those who reject him and stand in opposition to him.[31] The concept of a child representing a sign recalls the prophecy in Isaiah where the child Emmanuel is given as a sign to indicate God’s judgment over the house of David (Isa. 7:14).[32] Isaiah also contains several passages that associate a sign, banner, or ensign that is to be raised as a summons and warning to the nations that God is about to demonstrate his power for the judgment and salvation of Israel and the Gentiles (Isa. 5:26; 13:2; 18:3; 49:22; 62:10).[33] With the sign motif already evident in the Old Testament, Simeon’s prophecy of Jesus as “a sign to be spoken against” is weighted with the consequences of divine judgement. Those who fail to interpret the sign of Jesus correctly will also encounter his judgment. Luke concretizes the relationship between sign and judgment later in the narrative when Jesus warns the crowds that, just as the sign of Jonah announces judgment on Nineveh, “so also will the Son of Man be to this generation” (11:30).[34] With the consequences of divine judgment looming over those who fail to correctly interpret the sign of Jesus, Luke’s readers become cognizant to the terrible future awaiting those who reject Jesus and stand in opposition to him.{C}[35]

Simeon’s dire prediction that Jesus is “a sign to be spoken against” prepares Luke’s readers to view the subsequent unfolding of the narrative with the expectation that Jesus will endure significant opposition by those who reject him.[36] When Jesus’ own community misunderstands the nature and scope of his announced mission, they respond with rage and “drive him out of the town” and attempt to “throw him down the cliff” (4:29).[37] Opposition continues when the scribes, Pharisees, and other religious leaders question the source of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins (5:21), his association with tax collectors and sinners (5:30), and his provocative determination to heal people on the Sabbath (6:7).[38] After Jesus performs a healing on the Sabbath, those who oppose him are furious and “discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus” (6:11).[39] As Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem, opposition towards him intensifies and the religious leaders scheme together to eliminate him. Though many people in the crowd accept him, the chief priests and the teachers of the law attempt to trap him (20:1-8).[40] At Jesus’ trial, the Jews falsely accuse him saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king” (23:2).[41] Words and actions against Jesus are furthered by the Roman leaders, who berate Jesus and treat him with contempt during his passion. The soldiers heap insults upon him and members of King Herod’s guards ridicule and mock him by dressing him in a stately robe before sending him back to Pilate (23:11).{C}[42] The extent of Simeon’s prophecy that Jesus will be “a sign to be spoken against” is alarmingly unmistakeable in the narrative, alerting Luke’s readers that not everyone will accept Jesus, but rather he will be rejected and opposed by many. Moreover, because of the oppositional reaction to Jesus, the Lukan community learns that there is a personal cost to following him and the sign of Jesus may actually continue in their own communities, provoking additional opposition.[43] With the threat of judgment looming over those who incorrectly interpret the sign of Jesus however, Luke’s readers also recognize that those who reject Jesus will face retribution.[44]

The Thoughts of Many Hearts Will be Revealed

Following the pattern of acceptance and rejection, the third component of Simeon’s prophecy states that Jesus’ will reveal “the thoughts of many hearts” (2:35a), referring to Jesus’ exposure of the hidden thoughts and negative attitudes of those who accept and reject him.[45] Consistent with the language of the New Testament, Simeon’s use of the term “thoughts” (διαλογισμός) refers to an adverse human disposition and oppositional attitude to the purposes of God.{C}[46] Moreover, Simeon’s presentation of Jesus as the discerner of the “thoughts” of “hearts” plays a critical function in the ensuing conflicts of the narrative, informing Luke’s readers that Jesus is continually aware of the internal condition of human hearts in response to his words and deeds.{C}[47]

Jesus’ exposure of hidden thoughts and negative attitudes towards him occurs throughout his ministry, beginning with the healing of the paralytic.[48] After Jesus forgives the sins of the crippled man, Luke gives his readers an exclusive glimpse into the hidden thoughts of the Pharisees and the scribes who wonder to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (5:21). Knowing their negative thoughts, Jesus challenges their flawed reasoning and publicly shames them before the crowd.{C}[49] Later in the synagogue, Jesus’ opponents observe whether he would perform a healing on the Sabbath. Luke records that Jesus “knew what they were thinking” and proceeds to heal the man with the withered hand “in front of everyone,” angering the Pharisees and teachers of the law and igniting a discussion about “what they might do to Jesus” (6:8, 11).[50] Jesus’ exposure of the secret thoughts of his opponents not only reveals their hostile attitudes towards him but also shows their rejection and opposition to the purposes of God.{C}[51] When Jesus teaches the parable of the tenants who kill the owner’s son, Jesus uses the parable to reveal the hidden agenda of the scribes and high priests, who were looking for a way to kill him.[52] At the conclusion of the parable, his opponents realize that Jesus had discerned their wicked thoughts for he had “spoken this parable against them” (20:19).{C}[53] Jesus’ ability to reveal his opponents’ thoughts underscores the tension that pervades the entire narrative and notifies Luke’s readers that Jesus is not informed by mere appearances, but rather searches the hearts and exposes the thoughts of all who reject the purposes of God (16:15).[54]

In addition to revealing the hidden thoughts of his opponents, Jesus also exposes the spiritual immaturity and weak faith of his disciples.[55] After an argument ensues among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest, Jesus is recorded as “knowing their thoughts” and responds to their faulty pattern of thinking by teaching on the importance of being the least in the kingdom (9:46).[56] Later, as Jesus and his disciples were walking along the road, several well-intentioned people approach Jesus with the desire to become one of his disciples. When one man says to Jesus, “I will follow you wherever you go,” Jesus detects his superficial pledge and responds by clearly stating the cost involved in being one of his followers (9:57-58). After Jesus’ resurrection, he appears to the disciples and asks, “Why are you so troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?” (24:38).[57] His knowledge of their thoughts enables him to address their lack of faith and confirm his promise that he would rise again. By exposing the hidden thoughts of his disciples, Jesus reveals the condition of their hearts and exposes their immaturity, insincerity, and doubts. His revelations divide true followers from false ones and prevent anyone from assuming a neutral position within the emerging community of disciples.[58] When Jesus states to the crowds, “there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known,” Luke’s readers are reminded of Simeon’s ominous prophecy and recognize that Jesus reveals the hidden thoughts and negative attitudes of those who reject him and his followers as well (12:2).{C}[59]

A Sword Will Pierce Your Own Soul Too

Simeon concludes his unsettling prophecy informing Mary that “a sword will pierce your own soul too” (2:35b), a phrase that appears to interrupt the flow of the oracle and turn the focus of the prophecy away from the people of Israel and squarely on Mary.{C}[60] While several opinions of the meaning behind this difficult phrase have been documented, most scholars settle on one of two views.{C}[61] The first view insists that, because Mary was the first person to hear and accept the good news concerning the coming of the Messiah, she too will encounter opposition by many in Israel.[62] Aligned with her son as “a sign to be spoken against,” she will suffer as she witnesses her son’s rejection and crucifixion.[63] At the sight of Jesus hanging on the cross, the intensity of her anguish will be like a sword piercing her soul.[64] However, this view of Mary as the sorrowing mother violates a proper interpretation of the text since the Lukan description of the passion does not include Mary.{C}[65] The scene where Mary stands at the foot of the cross is found only in John’s Gospel and there is no indication that Luke’s readers would have been aware of the Johannine passion accounts.[66] Therefore, for a proper understanding of Simeon’s prophetic words to Mary, the meaning must be derived entirely from the Lukan Gospel.[67]

Recognizing the thematic string of acceptance and rejection weaved through Simeon’s oracle, the image of the sword should not be regarded as a metaphor for pain as in the earlier view, but rather of as a symbol of judgment.{C}[68] This image is observed in the Old Testament, where Ezekiel prophecies that nationwide disobedience will rouse the judgment of God and provoke him to dispatch a series of disastrous calamities upon the people, including punishment by the sword which kills both “men and their animals” (Eze. 14:17).{C}[69] Within the prophetic imagery, God uses the sword to judge between those who accept him and those who reject him; the use of the sword conveys a selective judgment, destroying some and sparing others.[70] The imagery of the sword of judgment in Ezekiel corresponds with the pattern of acceptance and rejection in Simeon’s second oracle.{C}[71] Just as the sword divides those who accept God from those who reject him in Ezekiel, the sword will also divide those who accept Jesus from those who reject him in Simeon’s prophecy.[72] The fact that Simeon directs the prophecy of the sword of judgment towards Mary emphasizes that she is not excluded from the rest of Israel, but she also must determine the significance of Jesus for herself, whether to accept Jesus as the Christ or reject him.[73]

With this view in mind then, Simeon’s words bring the pattern of acceptance and rejection from a national to a personal level.[74] If Mary thought that her maternal relationship to the Messiah would ascribe a special place of honour for her in the kingdom of God, Simeon’s words quash such sentiments.{C}[75] Despite the kinship between Jesus and Mary, she must also wrestle with the challenge of correctly interpreting the sign of her son and meet the same discriminatory demands as the people of Israel.[76] However, as Luke’s readers discover, Mary will have difficulty understanding the nature and scope Jesus’ mission to liberate and redeem fallen humanity.[77] She will struggle to grasp his message, his rigorous demands for discipleship, and his rejection by Israel.[78] Undoubtedly, Simeon’s dire predictions have tempered Mary’s joy and informed her that she too must decide whether to accept or reject Jesus as the Christ.[79]

Mary’s difficulty in correctly interpreting the sign of Jesus is demonstrated in the Lukan narrative. When Jesus is twelve years old, his parents find him sitting in the temple among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.[80] Luke records their reaction to Jesus saying they were “astonished” and they “did not understand what he was saying to them” (2:48, 50).{C}[81] Despite their inability to understand what they saw and heard, “Mary treasured all these things in her heart” (2:51).[82] Later, Jesus’ mother and brothers search for Jesus and find him ministering to the crowds.{C}[83] When Jesus was informed that his family wants to see him, he replies, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice” (8:21).[84] Though Luke does not record Mary’s response to Jesus’ terse remark, readers are informed that entrance into Jesus’ eschatological family does not result from a physical relationship, but in a relationship of obedience to the will of the Father.[85] In another example, when Jesus is proclaiming the word of God, a woman in the crowd calls out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you” (11:27).{C}[86] Jesus responds, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” (11:28).{C}[87] Though Mary is not present in the story, Jesus’ response directly places his mother on the same level as others in Israel, also requiring her to hear and obey the word of God. Later, Jesus speaks to the division he causes between families, reminding Luke’s readers of the challenge Mary will have in learning that access into the kingdom of God transcends even family ties (12:51-53).{C}[88] Though Luke describes Mary as the “Lord’s servant” early in the narrative, Simeon’s prophecy that “a sword will pierce your own soul too,” is a sobering warning for Mary that she too must decide the significance of Jesus for herself and accept or reject him as the Christ (1:38).[89]

Conclusion

Culminating the Lukan infancy narratives, Simeon’s second oracle enlightens Luke’s readers to the opposing pattern of response that Jesus causes among the people of Israel: some accept him and others reject him.[90] First, Jesus causes “the rising and falling of many,” indicating that people are divided in their response to him, some accepting him and others rejecting him.[91] Second, Jesus is “a sign that will be spoken against,” implying that people who incorrectly interpret the sign of Jesus are those who reject him and stand in opposition to him.[92] Third, Jesus reveals the “thoughts of many hearts,” referring to Jesus’ exposure of the hidden thoughts and negative attitudes of those who accept and reject him.[93] Fourth, Simeon informs Mary that “a sword will pierce your own soul too,” suggesting that Mary must also decide whether to accept or reject Jesus for herself.{C}[94] Each of the four components of Simeon’s programmic prophecy has introduced Luke’s readers to the theme of acceptance and rejection in the narrative and has prepared them for the contentious nature of the emerging mission of Christ to liberate and redeem fallen humanity.

Bibliography: Arndt, William F. Concordia Classic Commentary Series: Luke. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956. Bock, Darrell L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke 1:1-9:50. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994. Brown, Raymond E. “The Presentation of Jesus (Luke 2:22-40),” Worship 51.01 Ja (1977), 2-11. Cunningham, Scott. ‘Through Many Tribulations’: The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Evans, C. F. Saint Luke. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1990. Green, Joel B. New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Green, Joel B. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Keck, Leander E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible IX. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Marshall, Howard I. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978. Mittelstadt, Martin William. The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology. T&T Clark International: London, 2004. Neyrey, Jerome H. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary 35 Luke 1-9:20. Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Soards, Marion L. “Luke 2:22-40: The Presentation of Jesus,” Interpretation 44.04 O (1990), 400-405. Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts 1: A Literary Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Valiquette, Hilaire. “Handed over to the Gentiles”: The Centrality of Persecution for Missiology,” Missiology 26.04 O (1998),  431-443.

You are Loosed from Your Infirmity: The Narrative of the Straightened Woman Luke 13:10-17 by William Sloos

Introduction

The story of the straightened woman in Luke 13:10-17 contains a number of thought provoking and informative issues that can aid in the development of a proper biblical theology of healing and inform contemporary minds to the multi-dimensional scope of healing in the New Testament.  Unique to Luke’s Gospel, this pericope dramatically demonstrates the powerful, yet controversial, healing ministry of Jesus, who cures a Jewish woman from a crippling disease and liberates her from satanic bondage through the spoken word and the laying on of hands.  Taking place on the Sabbath, in the midst of a public worship service in a synagogue, the woman’s healing ignites an intense exchange between the synagogue ruler and Jesus over the issue of healing on the Sabbath, resulting in the shaming of the ruler and the collective recognition and honour of Jesus as the woman’s healer, liberator, and defender.  Though many scholars seem to emphasize the confrontation between Jesus and the synagogue ruler as the more theologically relevant portion of the text, the significance of the healing of the woman must not be undervalued.{C}[1]{C}  Her healing was not just a provocation for a clash over Sabbath regulations, but is an important and theologically fruitful miracle story involving the instantaneous and awe-inspiring healing of a chronic and debilitating affliction and the triumph of Christ over the works of Satan.

Through an exegetical study of Luke 13:10-17, this paper will examine the narrative of the straightened woman with a specific focus on the woman’s affliction and her healing.  The general approach of this study is informed by John C. Thomas’s insightful monograph, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, with an emphasis on an in-depth analysis of the written text.[2]{C}  The methodology employed in this investigation is primarily through literary analysis with the aid of some historical studies where necessary.[3]{C}  Upon review of the structure of the passage, the text will be examined according to a verse by verse exegesis, followed by a discussion of the various and pertinent implications for contemporary theological thought.

With the commencement of this episode, Luke marks the first change of setting since Luke 11:53 and, in doing so, closes Jesus’ extensive teaching on vigilance in the face of eschatological crisis (Lk. 12:1-13:9).[4]{C}  Concluding with the parable of the barren fig tree and a third warning about impending judgment, Jesus is found teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath- an unexpected location since he had not associated with synagogues since the onset of his journey to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51).[5]

10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years.  She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.  12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.”  13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.  14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work.  So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”  15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites!  Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?  16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”  17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing (NIV).[6]

Literary Analysis of the Text

a) The Setting (v. 10)

Luke immediately begins this pericope by setting the stage for the drama about to unfold.  While on his journey towards Jerusalem and the suffering of the cross before him, Jesus is found teaching in a synagogue on the Sabbath.{C}[8]{C}  This event marks the final time when Jesus is allowed to enter and teach in a synagogue during his ministry.  Since the Jewish hierarchy had become so hostile to Jesus, it is quite possible that many synagogues were already closed to him and, considering the impending conflict with the synagogue ruler later in this passage, he is likely shunned from attending any further synagogue worship services.{C}[9]{C}  Despite the strained atmosphere, Jesus’ presence in the synagogue at this juncture offers him a final opportunity to formally address his own people and publicly declare and demonstrate his Messianic mission as healer and liberator.

The narrative also highlights that Jesus was teaching in the synagogue, a function frequently coinciding with his miracles and a significant component in Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ overall ministry.[10]{C}  Especially noticeable is how the healing of the crippled woman follows and precedes episodes of teaching, emphasizing the importance of Jesus’ teaching role and striking a balance between his deeds and his words.{C}[11]{C}  Furthermore, Jesus’ synagogue teaching is reminiscent of his initial Nazarethean synagogue declaration where he unveils his five-fold Messianic mandate to preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, release the oppressed, and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour (Lk. 4:18-19).  This Isaiahic proclamation governs Jesus’ entire ministry and is again manifest in the current pericope, confirming his role as a divine and authoritative teacher-healer.  Though it is Jesus’ final appearance in a Jewish synagogue before his Passion, Luke’s depiction of Jesus as teacher reinforces the understanding that his healing and teaching are not only inherently linked but are also central to his divine mission and mandate.{C}[12]

b) The Woman’s Condition (vv. 11-12)

Following the establishment of the setting, Luke immediately introduces the woman, the central figure of the miracle story and the person who inadvertently polarizes Jesus and the synagogue ruler.  The narrator gives little information about who the woman is or why she is in the synagogue on this particular Sabbath day, but instead describes her only by her affliction.{C}[13]{C}  Visibly noticeable was her physical condition, bent over or bent double and unable to raise herself up.  Such a description would indicate that the site of her disease was the spine or vertebral column.  Since she could not stand erect, the disease most likely affected the bones, joints, ligaments and/or muscles of the spine.  According to Wilkinson, the most probable diagnosis, given the symptoms, would likely be ankylosing spondylitis, a degenerative disease which produces fusion of the spinal joints and eventually creates an increased forward curvature and bending of the upper spine.[14]{C}  Additionally, Luke reports two important characteristics of the woman’s affliction not visible to the eye, notably the length of her suffering being eighteen years and the cause of her condition being a “spirit of infirmity”.

‘Spirit of Infirmity’

The phrase pneuma ecousa asqeneiaV, literally “a spirit of infirmity”, has frequently divided commentators of the Gospel of Luke and raises the question of whether or not the basis of her physical disease was demon possession.{C}[15]{C}  Luke attributes her condition to a “spirit” and, in doing so, uses language that might be taken more generally as a condition of weakness.  However, in light of Jesus’ remarks in vv. 12 and 16, it seems more appropriate to regard Luke’s description of her crippled state as grounded in satanic bondage.[16]{C}  Though different from those who suffer from demon possession, her condition does underscore the interrelatedness between her physical malady and diabolic influence, and implies that her illness has been caused by and perhaps even sustained by demonic forces.{C}[17]{C}  According to Green, her condition is expressed physiologically through a deformed back, but is rooted in a cosmological disorder, the work of an evil spirit.{C}[18]{C}  This assessment is affirmed throughout the remainder of the pericope, verified not only by Jesus’ healing method, but also in the woman’s response to Jesus’ word and touch.  Additionally, though Luke’s description of the woman as having “a spirit of infirmity” is unique to the miracle stories of the New Testament,[19] it does illustrate that it is possible for a person to experience physical suffering, not only from natural causes or demon possession, but also from demonic influence.[20]

‘You are Loosed’

Though there is no indication that the woman came for healing, when Jesus sees her in the synagogue, he takes the initiative and, calling her over, says to her gunai, apolelusai thV asqeneiaV sou, translated “you have been loosed from your infirmity”.[21]{C}  If the woman was demon possessed, it would have been presumed that Jesus would speak directly to the spirit of her infirmity and, using exorcistic language, cast out the demon.[22]{C}  Instead he speaks to the woman directly, affirming the previous assessment that she is not demon possessed, but is rather physically bound by satanic forces and requiring physical and spiritual liberation.  Furthermore, Jesus’ use of the word apolelusai to affect healing is unparalleled in the New Testament and indicates the releasing or freeing nature of the miracle.[23]{C}  Jesus simultaneously loosens the fused bones in her back and loosens her from the bondage of the evil spirit, setting her free from her physical affliction and spiritual bondage.{C}[24]{C}  This type of language not only acknowledges the cause of her ailment as an agent of subjugation, something from which she needed to be released, but is also harmonious with the overall characterization of Jesus’ ministry in Luke-Acts as one who sets people free from the bondage of Satan (Ac. 10:48).[25]{C}  Additionally, Jesus’ emancipatory pronouncement is later used to counter the synagogue ruler’s argument against healing on the Sabbath, stating that since animals are released to drink water on the Sabbath, how much more are people worthy of being released from their affliction on the Sabbath.

c) Jesus Heals on the Sabbath / Woman’s Response (v. 13)

In conjunction with the spoken word, Jesus puts his hands on the woman, a common occurrence in Jesus’ healing methods throughout the Gospels symbolizing the power and blessing of God.{C}[26]{C}  Following the laying on of hands, Luke dramatically and succinctly reports the speed and nature of her healing.  First, Luke notes that her healing was paracrhma, translated “at once” or “immediately”, a dramatic word Luke frequently employs when describing Jesus’ miracles, underscoring the immediacy and effectiveness of Jesus’ supernatural liberation.  Second, Luke documents how the woman was “straightened” or was “made erect” in response to Jesus’ healing power.[27]{C}  The verb anwrqwqh is also used in Hebrews 12:12, referring to the author’s admonition to “strengthen” feeble arms and weak knees.{C}[28]{C}  Thus, this word indicates that not only was the woman’s back straightened, but she was also strengthened in her body.  She entered the synagogue bent, weak, and bound; after meeting Jesus, she was immediately straightened, strengthened, and liberated.  What had afflicted her for eighteen long years was instantly and permanently cured by the word and touch of Jesus.{C}[29]

Understandably, the woman responds to her healing by edoxazen ton qeon, glorifying or praising God, an activity that often accompanies healings in Luke.[30]{C}  Rarely occurring in the other Synoptic Gospels (once in Mark 2:12 and twice in Matthew 9:8; 15:31), the glorifying of God becomes something like a musical refrain in Luke-Acts, commonly occurring throughout the narratives and highlighting Luke’s interest in portraying the dual agency of Jesus and God in people’s lives.[31]{C}  The connection between the work of Jesus and the praise of God underscores the unity of the Father and the Son and supports the biblical claim that Jesus has been sent to earth to do the work of God.  Furthermore, the fact that the woman praises God rather than Jesus is significant to understanding how Jesus was perceived by the woman.  Not realizing the divinity of her liberator, she appropriately names God as the subject of her praise, understanding that God’s mercy has been mediated through Jesus.[32]{C}  Though Jesus is the instrument of the woman’s healing, God receives the glory since it is God, working within Jesus, who has effected her restoration.[33]{C}  Left to the imagination, the question remains when, or if, she fully understood the real identity of her healer.  Additionally, the imperfect tense of the word edoxazen indicates that the woman’s glorification of God was a durative action, essentially a continual praise and exaltation to God for her healing.{C}[34]{C}  Though Luke does not go into detail, her enduring celebrative response must have riveted the crowd, increased the focus on Jesus, and raised the indignation of the synagogue ruler.

d) Ruler’s Response / Prohibition of Healing on the Sabbath (v. 14)

The scene rapidly transforms from a joyous healing to a public confrontation between the synagogue ruler and Jesus.  Angry and offended at Jesus’ blatant disregard for the law, the ruler warns the congregation that infirm people must not present themselves for healing on the Sabbath.{C}[35]{C}  His lack of enthusiasm for the miracle is bewildering; how could he not celebrate such a miraculous healing in his own synagogue?  Wilkinson contends, however, that the synagogue ruler may have considered healing not exclusive to Jesus’ ministry.  The author suggests that the Pharisees and Scribes believed that such healings could also be also be performed by their own colleagues.  If this is true, not only would the synagogue ruler minimalize the magnitude of the miracle, but would also be angry that the act was not done appropriately and in accordance with the law.[36]{C}  Whether the Pharisees and Scribes actually performed miracles similar to Jesus is not known; what is known is that the synagogue ruler was clearly offended that the law was disregarded.   He most likely considered the condition of the woman hardly life threatening; after all, she had been crippled for eighteen years.  Her need did not supersede Sabbath law and her treatment should have waited until the following day.[37]{C}  His harsh and merciless words must have dampened the woman’s celebration and was the cue for Jesus’ subsequent response.

e) Jesus Defends Sabbath-healing / Rehearses the Woman’s Condition (vv. 15-16)

As the synagogue ruler speaks to the people on the grounds of Exodus 20:9-10, he chooses to avoid addressing Jesus directly, possibly indicating his need to restore order and bring some correction to Jesus’ actions.[38]{C}  Jesus responds to the hidden hypocrisy of his complaint by using the accepted rabbinic precedent for providing water for thirsty animals on the Sabbath.[39]{C}  Though the rabbis permit animals to be untied on the Sabbath, their contrary attitude towards healing on the Sabbath shows they have more regard for the wellbeing of animals than for human beings in physical and spiritual bondage.[40]{C}  For eighteen years, this woman had been bent double, unable to hold her head high, lift up her eyes to heaven, or look her family and friends in the face- only able to shuffle along in her suffering.  Jesus, having none of their legalistic religion, declares that her freedom is not only a necessity, but must not be delayed a single day.[41]{C}  Standing up for her needs, Jesus openly displays his compassion for the woman in the face of religious authoritarianism and oppression.{C}[42]{C}  Furthermore, Jesus’ strong words implicate the synagogue ruler as a co-conspirator with the forces of evil.[43]{C}  By disallowing the woman to be healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler is, in essence, aiding Satan’s plan to keep people in bondage to their suffering.  Instead of allowing people to be healed, the Sabbath is a day when people are to remain bound in their affliction, when evil is not to be opposed, and Satan’s plans not to be disrupted; one can care for animals, but not the healing of a human being.[44]{C}  Jesus confronts the synagogue ruler’s hypocritical attitude, exposing him in front of his entire congregation.  For Jesus, the Sabbath is not only for healing, but also to combat the forces of evil and liberate people from their bondage.  Additionally, Jesus’ pointed language demonstrates that he is not only the woman’s healer and liberator but also her advocate, publicly defending her healing to the religious authority.[45]{C}  Though accused of breaking the law by seeking a healing on the Sabbath, Jesus champions her cause and refuses to allow the synagogue ruler to bind her again with the shackles of the law.

‘A Daughter of Abraham’

Jesus continues his rhetorical reprimand by defending his healing of the woman on the Sabbath, calling his adversaries to account for their disparity towards their own people.  Jesus draws attention to the fact that the woman he healed is a qugatera abraam, a daughter of Abraham, and reminds the synagogue ruler that she has a share in the blessing of Abraham’s progeny and God’s faithfulness and mercy.[46]{C}  As a child of patriarchal promise, Jesus publicly affirms the woman’s place in Abraham’s lineage and place within her people.  Instead of marginalizing the woman and preventing her from being healed, Jesus sees her as one of God’s chosen people who must not be hindered from receiving her miracle.  Additionally, Torgerson notes that the woman’s healing on the Sabbath serves as a remembrance of the Jubilee in which all debts are forgiven and all slaves are freed.[47]{C}  Thus, freeing the woman from physical and spiritual slavery at the hands of Satan is not only allowable on the Sabbath but is actually an appropriate and acceptable Sabbath activity [48]

‘Whom Satan Has Bound’

Here Jesus clearly identifies the exact source of the woman’s affliction, noting it is the work of Satan who has bound her for eighteen years.  However, this should not merely be understood as an identification of the origin of her illness, but should also illuminate the reader to the larger conflict between Jesus and Satan.  First, Jesus’ unveiling of the source of the woman’s affliction highlights the narrator’s overall mission in presenting Jesus as the one who delivers people from Satan’s captivity.[49]{C}  As in Matthew, Luke presents Jesus as the one who is able to defeat the enemy and bring people into the experience of God’s reign.[50]{C}  Though Satan stands behind the afflictions in life, Jesus has come to set people free.[51]{C}  Second, this event, while not portrayed in typical apocalyptic language, highlights the cosmic confrontation between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil.  As Jesus liberates the woman, he breaks the curse of the Fall over her life and defeats the powers of Satan that held her in bondage.{C}[52]{C}  Encapsulating his Messianic mission, this scene has been repeated over and over again throughout the ministry of Jesus, and, though the setting and the characters change, Jesus always unseats the enemy and pushes back his influence.  This cosmic triumph, accomplished on behalf of the crippled woman, also foreshadows the ultimate victory realized at the cross, where Satan is conquered and people are liberated from the bondage of sin and the forces of evil.[53]{C}

f) Summary of Responses (v. 17)

Jesus’ vehement response to the synagogue ruler’s contempt for healing on the Sabbath causes a very discernable reaction by those in attendance.  Those who oppose Jesus are shamed and those who side with Jesus, which appear to be the majority, rejoice at his glorious deeds.  The crowd’s response accents Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as both authoritative teacher and miracle worker, something the synagogue ruler is clearly incapable of being.[54]{C}  Additionally, the response of the crowd plays a vital role in elevating the honour of Jesus and the straightened woman.  According to Torgerson, in the honour-shame society of Jewish culture, matters of honour and shame must be witnessed publicly in order to be recognized as valid.[55]{C}  As such, the crowds response to the interactions between Jesus and the synagogue leader is instrumental to the outcome of the honour-shame challenge that has just occurred.  Jesus has exposed the leader’s hypocrisy and the crowd responds in celebration.  In doing so, they publicly affirm Jesus and publicly disgrace the synagogue ruler, distinguishing truth from falsehood, hope from hopelessness, and liberation from bondage.  Furthermore, Luke’s inclusion of the adjective endoxoiV, translated “glorious things”, used to describe Jesus’ miraculous deeds, is rarely used in the Synoptics, reflecting how the crowd, not just the woman, uniquely recognizes the supernatural nature of the person and work of Christ.[56]

 Implications

Throughout this brief Lucan narrative, there are several significant implications that are able to aid in the development of a proper biblical theology of healing.

First, Luke clearly identifies a balance between Jesus’ words and deeds.[57]{C}  Not only is the actual healing of the woman a combination of pronouncement and touch, but Jesus’ teaching precedes and follows the miracle.  In fact, it is arguable that the healing is grounded in a didactic purpose as illustrated by the sequence of events following the healing which expose the hard-hearted attitude of the synagogue ruler.  Thus, Jesus’ healings and his teachings must not be isolated from each other, but must be considered as an integrated component of his earthly ministry.

Second, Luke’s description of the source of the woman’s illness indicates that affliction can originate from demonic forces.[58]{C}  The narrative supports the proposal that the woman is not demon possessed, but is afflicted by an evil spirit which produced and perhaps even sustained the infirmity.  Identifying Satan as the source of the illness not only suggests that Satan’s destructive activity includes causing physical affliction in people’s bodies, but also underscores the importance of prayerful discernment when praying for the healing of sick people.

Third, since the woman is found in the synagogue and is described as a daughter of Abraham, it is possible to conclude that she is a person of faith or in right standing before God.{C}[59]{C}  If this is the case, it would suggest that it is possible for people of faith to be afflicted by demonic forces.  Though there is no evidence in Scripture to suggest that a believer can be demon possessed, this episode provides some evidence to propose that a God-fearing person can live in physical and spiritual bondage.

Fourth, the element of faith is not a required feature in the woman’s healing.  Contrary to the woman with the issue of blood who, with faith for her healing, pushes through the crowd to touch Jesus (Lk. 8:43), the crippled woman is not expecting a miracle or exhibiting faith.  This suggests that not all of Jesus’ works of healing is dependent on the presence of faith by the afflicted person, but can be accomplished simply by an act of divine will.

Fifth, the freeing of the woman from her physical and spiritual affliction emphasizes the liberating nature of Jesus’ messianic ministry.  Announced in the Nazarethean synagogue, his mission includes proclaiming freedom for the prisoners and releasing the oppressed (Lk. 4:18).  In his final synagogue appearance, in the midst of increasing hostility to his ministry and message, he is again found fulfilling his divine mandate as liberator of those who are imprisoned and oppressed. 

Sixth, in addition to revealing Jesus as messianic liberator, the text also emphasizes Jesus’ compassion for those who are hurting, downtrodden, and marginalized.  Part of Luke’s overall presentation of the holistic nature of Jesus’ salvation is his genuine concern for the least of society.{C}[60]

Seventh, Jesus is an advocate for those facing injustice.  Following the angry outburst by the synagogue ruler who accuses the woman of coming for a healing on the wrong day, Jesus speaks on behalf of the woman, defending her physical and spiritual liberation on the Sabbath.  A vital component in understanding the healing ministry of Jesus, his advocacy on behalf of the less fortunate is unmistakable, raising people up, not only physically and spiritually, but socially as well.

Eighth, Jesus’ miracles are to be mutually shared and celebrated.  When the woman was straightened by the healing power of Jesus, not only did she praise God for her miracle but the congregation rejoiced at the glorious event as well, emphasizing the importance of κοινωνός within the body of Christ.[61]

Finally, the cure of the woman’s disease is a dramatic illustration of Jesus’ engagement with opposing cosmic forces. [62]{C}  Loosing the woman from Satan’s power and breaking his demonic hold on her life displays Jesus’ superior strength and ability to defeat the enemy.  For Luke, this healing and his other miracle stories are regarded as essential factors in Jesus’ overthrow of evil and foreshadows the cross, where Jesus triumphs over Satan and liberates people from the bondage of sin and death.{C}[63]

Bibliography: Ellis, E. Earle, ed.  The Gospel of Luke.  London: Thomas Nelson Ltd., 1966. Evans, C. F.  Saint Luke.  London, SCM Press, 1990. Fitzmyer, Joseph A.  The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985. Foster, Lewis.  Luke.  Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1986. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed.  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Gooding, David.  According to Luke: A New Exposition of the Third Gospel.  Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1987. Green, Joel B.  The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Green, Joel B. and McKnight, Scot, eds.  Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.  Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1992. Green, Joel B.  “Jesus and a Daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:10-17): Test Case for Lucan Perspective on Jesus’ Miracles.”  Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51.04 (1989): 643- 654. Hamm, Dennis.  “The Freeing of the Bent Woman and the Restoration of Israel: Luke\ 13:10-17 as Narrative Theology.”  Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 23-44. Marshall, Alfred.  NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament on Greek and English.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987. May, David M.  “The Straightened Woman (Luke 13:10-17): Paradise Lost and Regained.”  Perspectives in Religious Studies 24.03 (1997): 245-258. Nolland, John.  Word Biblical Commentary 35B.  Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993. Obach, Robert E. and Kirk, Albert.  A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.  New York: Paulist Press, 1986. O’Toole, Robert F.  “Some Exegetical Reflections on Luke 13, 10-17.”  Biblica 73 (1992): 84-107.  Strong, James.  Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries.  QuickVerse for Windows on CD-ROM Version 2007.  Cedar Rapids: Parsons Technology Inc., 2007. Thayers Greek Definitions.  QuickVerse for Windows on CD-ROM Version 2007.  Cedar Rapids: Parsons Technology, Inc., 2003. Thomas, John Christopher.  The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought.  London: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Torgerson, Heidi.  The Healing of the Bent Woman: A Narrative Interpretation of Luke 13:10-17.”  Currents in Theology and Mission 32:3 (2005): 176-186. Twelftree, Graham H.  Jesus The Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Wilkinson, John.  The Bible and Healing: A Medical and Theological Commentary.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998. Wilkinson, John.  “The Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13:10-17.”  The Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977): 195-205.

A Critical Reflection: Richard Bauckham on Jurgen Moltmann's Eschatology

by William Sloos

Summary

In the article, “Richard Bauckham on Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology” in Alister McGrath’s The Christian Theology Reader (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), Richard Bauckham contends that one of the most important achievements in Moltmann’s theology is his rehabilitation of eschatology for modern biblical faith.  Contrary to Schweitzer, Dodd, Bultmann and other theologians of the modern era who considered biblical eschatology objectionable to contemporary minds unless modified to reflect a more figurative or abstract interpretation, Moltmann asserts that restoring biblical eschatology reinstates the reliability and relevancy of the Christian faith in the modern world.  Instead of the church rejecting or retreating from the process of constant and radical change in the modern experience of history, a reorientation of faith towards the future compels the church to dynamically reconnect with the contemporary world and redirect it towards a future kingdom.  For Moltmann, the very essence of the gospel is rooted and grounded in eschatological faith and is an empowering factor in transforming the present in the direction of the promised future.

Thoroughly Christological in nature, Moltmann’s understanding of biblical eschatology is centred upon his understanding of the resurrection of Jesus.  The resurrection of Jesus is the promise of Christian hope and the eschatological future of all reality.  Moltmann sets forth his argument by contextualizing the resurrection of Jesus against the backdrop of Jewish history and theology.  Throughout the Old Testament, the God of Israel revealed himself to his people through his promises of future hope.  Within this promissory framework, God resurrects the crucified Christ from the dead, enacting the supernatural fulfilment of his divine pledge.  The resurrection of Jesus not only demonstrates the certainty of God’s promise of future hope, but also anticipates the resurrection of all the dead, the new creation of all reality, and proclaims the coming of the kingdom of God.

Moreover, this idea of resurrection as promise is further magnified when juxtaposed with Moltmann’s dialectical understanding of the cross and resurrection as contradiction.  First, the contradiction of the cross and the resurrection is itself eschatological, contrasting the reality of death and the promise and new life.  Though the cross represented death, the resurrection symbolizes life for the dead, righteousness for the unrighteous, and a radically new future.  Second, the contradiction of the cross and resurrection are characterized in the identity of Jesus.  Jesus did not merely survive the cross; he who was wholly dead has been wholly raised, dramatically illustrating the radical and total transformation of the Son and characterizing the nature of transformation in the eschaton, where the hope of creational resurrection will ultimately be fulfilled.

Thus, for Moltmann, Christian eschatology is hope; hope for a different world, free from all evil, suffering, and death and filled with the presence of God.  Completely transcendent of history and the machinations of humanity, this radical change will be completely achieved by God according to his teleology.  However, this hope is not without effect on the present.  The resurrection of Jesus activated a process in history that moves the world in the direction of future transformation by affecting change in the existing world.  This progression of change is, for Moltmann, achieved by the church, who demonstrates to the world that transformation is not only anticipated but is effectual in the contemporary context.  Instead of being other-worldly and disengaged from reality or resigned to the inalterability of world affairs, the promise of hope in the eschaton ignites and empowers the church to seek and activate all opportunities to effect change and express the divine nature of resurrection promise to the world.  Thus, for the Christian, the eschaton is not only an anticipation of restoration, but is the central motivating factor in viewing the present world as transformable in the direction of the promised hope of resurrection.

Implications

Richard Bauckham states how Moltmann’s eschatology differs from other prominent theologians of the modern age whose liberal theologies have pervaded the church and influenced the pulpit of the twentieth century.  Instead of relegating biblical eschatology to the attic of Christian theology, considering its concepts embarrassing to the logicality of modern thinking and irrelevant to contemporary faith, Moltmann resists the theories of his counterparts and restores the biblical concept of future hope.  Reviving the notion that there is not only a real future kingdom to come, but the anticipated future kingdom is active in the present world, Moltmann recovers the eschatological significance of Scripture, which for him, seems to represent a corpus that not only speaks to the past and present, but also speaks to the future.  Identifying the promise of hope motif as existent in the history of Israel and demonstrated in the resurrection of Jesus, he reveals the biblical trajectory of hope that will ultimately be achieved in the future eschaton.  This perspective implies that the Bible is not just a voice of antiquity, but a relevant voice that can speak to the modern Christian about living in the present in light of the anticipation of the consummation of the kingdom of God.

Additionally, Moltmann inexorably ties biblical eschatology to ecclesiology, emphasizing how the promise of future restoration serves as a stimulus for the church to actualize change in the present.  Instead of the church perceiving the world to be following a hopeless and unchangeable course, eschatology becomes the central motivating factor and vision of hope to bring the world into alignment with the promised future.  Viewing the world as transformable in the direction of the eschaton liberates the church from accommodation to the status quo and sets the church critically against it, enabling it to seek and activate present possibilities that arouse an active expectation and awareness of the eschatological future.  Though the church lives in the present world of evil, sin, and suffering, the future kingdom is anticipated, preventing the church from being absorbed by the corrupt conditions and, though suffering the contradiction of present affliction in light of future restoration, the church actively pursues new impulses of change that direct the world towards the future eschaton.  Thus for Moltmann, eschatology is intrinsically linked to the mission of the church as the motivating force to actualize change in the contemporary context.

Lastly, Moltmann’s rediscovery of biblical eschatology confronts the community of faith with the challenge of living according to the biblical principles of the approaching kingdom.  Recognizing that this present world will be wholly restored in the future, believers are compelled to thoughtfully examine the nature of their relationship to the world and its value systems.  Though tempted to be conformed to secular patterns, believers are called to live according to the expectations of the kingdom in anticipation of the ultimate fulfilment of the promised future.  Just as Jesus successfully engaged the world without being contaminated by the world and effected change with eschatological motivation, the believing community is also called to avoid being polluted by the world, yet live in the world as agents of change in anticipation of the coming kingdom of God.

Critical Reflection on Jurgen Moltmann's View of the Suffering of God by William Sloos

Summary

 In Jurgen Moltmann’s article, ‘The Crucified God’: God and the Trinity Today in the The Christian Theology Reader, he argues how the cross of Christ demonstrates the suffering of God for the sake of fallen humanity and is essential in understanding the inner relationship between the Father and the Son.  He states that through the suffering of the Son on the cross, the Father also experienced suffering, though distinct from the experience of the Son.  While the Son suffered the physical pain of the cross and the pain of being abandoned by the Father, the Father suffered because he abandoned his Son.  This suffering however, was not like the suffering of created beings, which is associated with their fallen state, but was rather a voluntary suffering whereby God allowed himself to be affected by external influences, specifically his love for fallen humanity.  Contrary to Aristotle’s God, who was loved by all but was incapable of loving, the Christian God has the capacity to love and the capacity to suffer for that which he loves.[1]  This suffering of both the Father and the Son illustrates how they are of the same substance and, even though they suffered differently, they were united in their suffering for the sake of fallen humanity.

The cross also illustrates the triune nature of God and is, according to Moltmann, the most concise expression of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.  Combating the heresies of the Patripassians who held to a monarchian theology that believes the Father was crucified through the Son, or the Theopaschites, who believe the divine nature of Christ died on the cross, Moltmann emphasizes how both the universality of the Godhead and the distinctiveness of the three persons are present in the atonement.  In effect, Moltmann argues that the Trinity must be understood in the context of the cross, which reveals the unity of God in the context of faith, affirming the traditional orthodox doctrine of the nature of God.[2]

Additionally, Moltmann argues that the cross is essentially a divine act involving every member of the Trinity, stating that the Father allowed the Son to sacrifice himself through the Holy Spirit.  Pointing to the passage in Romans 8:32 which states, “God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all,” he states that the Father abandons, or “gives up” his Son and is separated from him, and the Son is abandoned, or “given up” by the Father, and this “giving up” is the Holy Spirit.  That is, the separation experienced between the Father and the Son occurred through the means of the Holy Spirit.  This abandonment and separation at the cross is thus a Trinitarian event, whereby each person of the Trinity directly participates in the salvific design: the Father abandons, the Son is abandoned, and the Spirit is the means of the abandoning, to reconcile human beings back to God.[3]

Critical Reflection

Moltmann’s argument of a suffering God effectively illustrates the love that God has for fallen humanity.  If one voluntarily suffers on behalf of something or someone, they must love that something or someone because suffering is a painful experience; one would only choose to suffer if one considered that something or someone worth suffering for, and that is love.  As an illustration, if a foreign army is attacking a country and a citizen of that country volunteers to join the army and then suffers in battle defending their country, that citizen must consider their country worth suffering for, and thus, must love their country.  In the same way, God, who was under no obligation or compulsion, chose to abandon his Son and suffer the pain of separation because of his love for fallen humanity.  In the freedom of his perfect nature, God demonstrated perfect love to an undeserving and fallen humanity.

Within human relationships, if a father chooses to abandon his own son and separate himself from the torment of his son’s suffering, the father either does not love his son, or considers something or someone worth enduring the pain of his actions.  Since it is understood from the Scriptures that God is love, he must by his own definition, love his Son.  He thus must have considered fallen humanity worth the pain of abandoning the Son he loves to death on a cross.  If he considers fallen humanity worth such personal suffering, he must love human beings, and love them with the same love that defines his divine nature.

In addition to loving human beings, his altruistic and selfless act displayed in the atonement also shows that he values human beings.  If God values human beings, it is arguable then that he is interested in having a relationship with them, caring for their needs and guiding their lives for all eternity.  Why would anyone go through such pain and suffering if they did not intend to pursue a relationship with them afterwards?  The cross is therefore, not just a means of providing salvation to fallen humanity, but represents God’s passionate and intimate concern for all people and his unselfish desire to engage in a personal and eternal relationship with each human being.

Implications

If God willingly chose to abandon his Son and experience the pain of separation for his love of fallen humanity, then he must be a God who is worth obeying and worshipping.  By his actions displayed at the cross, he has shown human beings that he is a good and loving God and is interested in liberating human beings from sin and its consequences.  Thus, it would be reasonable and fitting for those human beings who have received the benefits of the cross through faith to live their lives in a manner that pleases him.  Through the acts of obedience and worship, in accordance with the revealed Word of God, human beings can demonstrate their gratefulness to the one who has suffered for their salvation.

Additionally, Molmann’s claim that the cross is the central focus of the Christian faith is very significant for the contemporary church.  Among the liberal community of faith or those espousing a social gospel, the cross has lost its significance and simply stands as a symbol of the Easter story, irrelevant to the current cultural context.  Conversely, some influential brands of evangelicalism are promoting a prosperity gospel that is contrary to the message of the cross.  However, the message of the cross is the gospel, proclaiming the love of God for all people and demonstrating the magnitude to which the Trinity went to rescue fallen humanity.  Without the emphasis on the cross of Christ, the nature of God is misunderstood, the value of salvation is diminished, and the church’s message is emptied of its power.

In conclusion, Jurgen Moltmann contends that the cross of Christ is essential in understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son, and how their suffering, though unique, was united in their love for fallen humanity.  Additionally, the author illustrates how the triune nature of God is evident in the cross of Christ; God suffered the loss of his Son, the Son suffered the pain of the cross, and the Holy Spirit was the means by which the event was accomplished.  In his argument, Moltmann also passionately demonstrates the immense love God has for fallen humanity and his willingness to suffer on their behalf.

Bibliography: McGrath, Alister E., ed.  The Christian Theology Reader.  Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.