Luke's Theology of the Spirit and Suffering

You are here: Home

Resources

Essays

Upcoming Events

Jan

2012

Luke's Theology of the Spirit and Suffering

The recognition that “‘God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and… he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him’” (Acts 10:38), and that, at Pentecost, the church was endowed with the same Spirit, has rightly encouraged many Christians to expect powerful manifestations of the Spirit’s presence in their midst.[1] However, in certain circles of contemporary Christianity (at least in the West),[2] this has often led to a triumphalistic view of the Christian life,

with many believers assuming a right to happiness and that God will “infiltrate their lives with regular pleasant experiences.”[3] Indeed, the notion that God could use suffering as a means for a believer’s growth and the spread of the gospel “is a shocking and even abhorrent notion”.[4] Confusion tends to emerge when Spirit-led, Spirit-inspired proclamation and demonstration leads to rejection or suffering;[5] somewhere, the role of the Spirit in relation to suffering has been lost. This problem is largely dissolved when one recognizes that Luke’s presentation of people anointed by the Spirit for proclamation and demonstration of the kingdom is often coupled with discussion of how their Spirit-led ministry resulted in persecution and suffering. This essay will first, summarize current conclusions being made regarding Luke’s theology of the Spirit and suffering while identifying where this discussion fits within broader debates related to Lukan pneumatology, second, examine two key passages from both Luke and Acts to illustrate Luke’s presentation of this dual-theme,[6] and conclude by suggesting the relevance of this to current Lukan pneumatological debates and contemporary Christianity.

Though there is consensus on a number of issues related to Lukan pneumatology, scholars are divided over whether, for Luke, the Spirit is exclusively a prophetic empowering for mission and service or also the source of one’s “experience of eschatological sonship, new covenant ‘life’ and the transforming presence of God’s reign”.[7] Mittelstadt has entered into this conversation by highlighting an element which has often been sidelined:[8] for Luke, the work of the Spirit is often directly associated with suffering.[9] Mittelstadt identifies that, far from presenting a triumphalistic pneumatology, Luke-Acts[10] reveals that the Spirit works in spite of, or even in conjunction with, suffering and persecution; for Luke, the Spirit and suffering are themes which intimately overlap. Just as the Spirit-anointed Jesus is opposed and ultimately crucified (Luke), the Spirit-anointed disciples are opposed, persecuted and sometimes martyred (Acts).[11] It also appears clear that Luke writes to instruct his readers, presumably believers living in contexts of suffering, “that support is available from the Spirit while their destinies are chartered by the Spirit.”[12] Despite this, expositions of Lukan pneumatology have “generally neglected to address and to apply the role of the Holy Spirit in contexts of suffering and persecution.”[13]

The Lukan birth narrative is filled with prophetic utterances which joyously anticipate the salvation which will be ushered in by way of Jesus’ birth.[14] Yet, the Spirit-inspired message from Simeon at the climax of the infancy narrative is more somber in tone;[15] not only will Jesus be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32), but will also “cause the falling and rising of many in Israel” and be “a sign that will be spoken against” (v34).[16] Simeon’s prophecy establishes the pattern of acceptance and rejection found throughout Luke, yet indicates to the reader that “division over Jesus is not fortuitous, but part of God’s plan.”[17]

The Nazareth manifesto, often recognized as being paradigmatic for the remainder of Luke,[18] also forms Luke’s archetypal model of the themes of Spirit and suffering.[19] Here the Spirit-conceived,[20] Spirit-anointed,[21] Spirit-led,[22] Spirit-overcoming,[23] Spirit-empowered[24] Jesus delivers his inaugural address. The narrative has made clear that Jesus enjoys a special relationship with the Spirit, being sufficiently prepared to “serve as the Spirit-filled messiah and carry out God’s plan for salvation”;[25] now Luke reports a first, central episode of Jesus’ ministry in which Jesus declares his anointed status and his mission (Luke 4:17-21).[26] This programmatic mission statement interprets the remainder of Jesus’ actions in the gospel: “This anointed Jesus… will bring about salvation in a five-fold manner.”[27] The subsequent narrative demonstrates how Jesus fulfills each of these themes throughout his ministry as he heals, releases and proclaims the gospel.[28] However, Jesus declaration requires a decision; Luke reveals that Jesus’ own town rejected his offering of this salvation. What is often overlooked is that the Spirit-anointed Jesus is soon to be revealed as suffering;[29] his Spirit-inspired[30] message of hope results with him being rejected by his own people to the point of attempted execution.[31]

At first the response in Nazareth appears to be favorable, but quickly turns to contempt. The people start grumbling, “‘Isn't this Joseph's son?’” (Luke 4:22), suggesting Jesus’ hearers failed to recognize Jesus was God’s own son and thus did not take his message to heart.[32] Ironically, Jesus has proclaimed the acceptable year of the Lord yet is not acceptable to his own people.[33] He responds by paralleling himself to Elijah and Elisha (v24-27), stating “‘prophets are not accepted in their hometowns’” (v24).[34] In doing so Jesus “incites them to identify for or against him.”[35] Jesus’ stories from these two OT prophets are telling: in both cases the prophets, who are largely rejected by Israel, turn to outsiders, to gentiles.[36] Just as these significant prophets were rejected, so now is Jesus; just as they turned to outsiders, so too will Jesus, an action which “calls into question their privileged position as ‘Israel’.”[37]

The assembly reacts to Jesus’ implication that his activity will have greater results among those beyond his hometown[38] and that they parallel the prophets’ persecutors; they drive Jesus out of the city and attempt to execute him by casting him off a cliff (v28f).[39] Thus Jesus’ first public act anticipates what is to come: his Spirit-anointed ministry will bring about salvation for many, but will also result in division and conflict (Luke 2:34f); Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth prefigures “his ultimate rejection, execution (and resurrection triumph).”[40] Curiously, Luke offers no explanation regarding how Jesus escaped (Luke 4:30), suggesting to his readers that Jesus’ life was taken in God’s timing to fulfill God’s own plan;[41] the reader is thus encouraged that conflict does not necessarily indicate that God’s plan has been thwarted.[42]

This essay will now examine two key passages from Acts, both of which confirm the truthfulness of Jesus’ promises that the Spirit would inspire them to speak in challenging situations (Luke 12:12; 21:15).[43] In many ways, Acts’ introductory section is programmatic for the remainder of the document.[44] In Acts 1:8, Jesus informs his apostles that they will be his “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Though this instruction contains the “remarkable promise for the potential of the Gospel being presented to the world”,[45] for the apostles this was an impossible task.[46] Thus, the provision of the Spirit must be understood within the context of the challenging nature of the commission; the Spirit was the necessary element to enable Jesus’ apostles to “turn the world upside-down” (Acts 17:6 NKJV).

Our second passage (Acts 3:1-4:31), a crucial turning point in Acts, revolves around Peter’s[47] healing of a cripple at a gate to the temple and results in the “familiar suffering that is associated with the missions of envoys of the Spirit.”[48] Though it is not directly stated, it is implicit that this miracle was performed by the power of the Spirit.[49] Peter then addresses the crowd, assuring them the miracle was not a result of his piety and boldly proclaiming the truth about Jesus.[50] The setting of these events at the temple is significant as this is the gathering point for the nation and its religious authorities; as it was for Jesus, the temple is to become a place of strife and danger.[51]

The various temple authorities, infuriated by his message, interrupt Peter and cast him into prison (4:1-3). Intriguingly, Luke alone records Peter’s earlier bold claim that he would follow Jesus into imprisonment (Luke 22:33), which is followed by Peter’s cowardly denial (22:56-60); now Peter has faced the religious authorities directly and boldly gone to jail (Acts 4:3). Clearly, the coming of the Spirit has resulted in a dramatic transformation in Peter, empowering him to overcome previous weaknesses and thus parallel both the work and suffering of Jesus.[52] Furthermore, Luke notes that, despite this apparently negative act of persecution, the church grew dramatically as a result of Peter’s preaching (4:4); ironically, the apostle’s suffering correlates to the growth of the church.[53]

The next morning the key religious leaders met to interrogate Peter about the previous events. Luke’s description of Peter’s response includes a key reference to the Spirit (Acts 4:8):[54] “Peter's response is not a mark of eloquence or skill, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; it is a direct fulfillment of Jesus' promise that they disciples would be guided by the Spirit when facing trials.”[55] So impressive is Peter’s response that his opponents marvel at his boldness[56] and the fact he is an ‘unschooled, ordinary’ man (4:13);[57] the learned authorities are rendered speechless. In fact, the fulfillment of Jesus’ promises is affirmed by the opposition of those who recognize Peter’s boldness.[58]

Upon release, Peter returns to the believing community. Their response is to engage in a time of corporate thanksgiving for Peter’s deliverance and petition for continued empowerment to remain steadfast. Interestingly, their prayer is not for new direction; they do not interpret Peter’s persecution as a mistake on their part. Rather, they recognize that the persecution was the natural outcome of faithfulness to Jesus and thus request further enabling to boldly preach and demonstrate[59] the gospel. Luke records that God instantly responds to their petitions by trembling the gathering place (4:31), filling the disciples afresh with the Spirit, and empowering them again for further proclamation.[60] “The Spirit is depicted once more as the prophetic presence of God strengthening the disciples to go forth and proclaim the word.”[61]

Once again, this passage serves as an encouragement to Luke’s readers, the Spirit-inspired Peter being offered as a model to emulate. As has commonly been observed, the first miracle recorded in Acts demonstrates that the Spirit-filled disciples carry on the work of Jesus.[62] But, what has often been overlooked is that these disciples also parallel the suffering of the Spirit-led Jesus.[63] Moreover, Luke appears to be encouraging his readers that suffering need not be seen as a sign that God is not with them; rather, just as with Jesus and the apostles, the presence of suffering can indicate that they are indeed following the Spirit, and, just as was the case with the apostles, the Spirit will empower believers to remain faithful despite persecution.[64]

As a tentative suggestion which requires further research and testing, perhaps investigation into Luke’s use of this dual-theme provides an area of correlation between Lukan and Pauline pneumatology.[65] Luke appears to present a pneumatology which suggests that the Spirit’s role includes comforting believers during times of conflict and persecution, empowering them for proclamation/demonstration and to remain steadfast in their witness.[66] Paul makes this theme more explicit, presenting the Spirit as the one who comforts believers in the present age of suffering as they await the consummation of God’s kingdom.[67] Therefore, though Luke does not appear to directly present the Spirit as a comforter, his constant coupling of the Spirit and suffering would likely encourage believers in the same way as Paul did.

Whether this is true or not, this dual-theme is incredibly relevant for the church today. Firstly, Christians, who feel they have ‘missed God’ when they step out in faith in response to what was perceived as the leading of the Spirit yet find the outcome being somewhat negative, can be encouraged that negative responses do not necessarily indicate something was not Spirit-initiated. Secondly, this message offers hope for the many believers in the non-West who are presently experiencing phenomenal church growth, dramatic demonstrations of God’s power, and significant persecution. Suffering need not be perceived as undermining their witness, as “the Spirit, who sets the agenda for the development of the church and assures that it will succeed, does so on a route often categorized by opposition and suffering.”[68] Likewise, this message can comfort persecuted believers to remain steadfast in their faith; opposition can ironically be seen, not as a sign one’s faith is entirely misguided and erroneous, but rather as evidence of the validity of their hope in Christ.[69] Thirdly, this dual-theme stands against mere triumphalistic understandings of the Spirit which focus on empowering for mission and the victory the Spirit brings while overlooking Luke’s message that the Spirit is “the Spirit of power and triumph through suffering.”[70] Instead, “Praying for more power needs to be recognized as simultaneously calling for more opportunities to exhibit it while embracing challenging situations.”[71] This causes one to wonder how many prayers for power have been answered yet defused because the recipient was unwilling or unable to accept the suffering which accompanied it.[72]

[1] John Michael Penney, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 11; Robert P. Menzies, "The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology," Evangelical Quarterly 78, no. 2 (April 2006): 174; Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984); Martin William Mittelstadt, The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for Pentecostal Pneumatology (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 20-27; C. Peter Wagner, The Book of Acts: Third Edition (Ventura: Regal, 2008), 11; Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 151-152. Bock identifies the continuity between Jesus and the early church’s ministry, though does not proceed to suggest that the same continuity applies for believers today. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 391.

[2] This author has chosen to avoid categorizing and identifying which particular Christian circles are being referred to, preferring to keep their identity at a level of generality. It should however be noted that much of the discussion below relates to Pentecostal pneumatology.

[3] Keith Warrington, "Suffering and the Spirit in Luke-Acts," Journal of Biblical & Pneumatological Research 1, (January 2009): 32. Cf. Menzies, “The Spirit and Suffering,” 174. This writer of this essay has likewise observed this trend in certain circles he has been involved in.

[4] Warrington, “Suffering and the Spirit,” 32.

[5] See Martin William Mittelstadt, "Spirit and Suffering in Contemporary Pentecostalism: the Lukan Epic Continues," in Defining Issues in Pentecostalism, ed. Steven M. Studebaker (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008), 144-146.

[6] For both Luke and Acts, we will briefly discuss a passage from the book’s introductory section and then discuss in more detail a passage which exemplifies Luke’s presentation of the dual-theme within that book.

[7] Max Turner, “Luke and the Spirit,” in Reading Luke, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Joel B. Green and Anthony C. Thiselton, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 269. Cf. Mittelstadt, “Spirit and Suffering in Contemporary Pentecostalism,” 153. A key question is whether Luke and Paul present contrasting (or even conflicting) pneumatologies, or whether the broader soteriological pneumatology found explicitly in Paul can also be found implicitly in Luke-Acts. See Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness (London: T&T Clark, 1991, 2004), 44f; Turner, “Luke and the Spirit,” 287; Robert W. Wall, "The Acts of the Apostles," in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, ed. Leander E. Keck, et. Al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 41.

[8] Mittelstadt, Spirit and Suffering, 2f, 132; Warrington, “Suffering,” 15. A reason for this sidelining is that debates have typically centered on views of the baptism of/in the Spirit and thus have overlooked other elements of Lukan pneumatology. Blaine Charette, "The Spirit and Suffering in Luke-Acts: Implications for a Pentecostal Pneumatology," Pneuma 27, no. 2 (September 1, 2005): 383.

[9] The key works specifically addressing this issue are: Mittelstadt, Suffering; Warrington, “Suffering”; Mittelstadt, “Contemporary Pentecostalism.” Warrington has sought to take Mittelstadt’s thesis further. It should be noted that this is an area of Luke’s theology which appears to have received only a small amount of focus (though both themes have been explored separately in detail). Therefore, though this essay will attempt to employ a wide variety of sources, only a few sources which specifically address our dual-theme have been interacted with. In many ways, this topic appears to be unchartered territory; it requires further research and testing, including deeper considerations of how it applies to the contemporary church. For additional ways this could be taken further, see Charette, “Spirit and Suffering,” 384f.

[10] This essay assumes that Luke and Acts are written by the same author as two volumes of the same story. See “Contemporary Pentecostalism,” 147; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 6-10. It should also be noted that Luke is identified not merely as a historian, but as a theologian in his own right. V. George. Shillington, An Introduction to the Study of Luke-Acts (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 7-8; Green, Theology of the Gospel of Luke, 2; Penney, Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology, 12f.

[11] Warrington, “Suffering,” 16.

[12] Ibid. Cf. Suffering, VIII, 134; Menzies, "The Spirit and Suffering,” 174.

[13] Mittelstadt, “Pentecostalism,” 154.

[14] Suffering, 5, 31.

[15] This is something missed by Menzies and Stronstad, who “fail to take notice of the tension that Simeon brings into the Lukan story.” Suffering, 46. Cf. Menzies, Empowered, 109; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology, 36f.

[16] Suffering, 35-43; Green, Gospel of Luke, 149f; “Suffering,” 21-23; Bock, 1:1-9:50, 233, 246f, 250. This prophecy serves to interpret in advance the conflict which will result from Jesus’ life and ministry; it is a programmatic prophecy. See Suffering, 5, 43-46; Robert C. Tannehill, The Shape of Luke's Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 106f.

Space limitations do not allow for a discussion of the Lukan (and general NT) theme of the kingdom of God confronting the kingdom of the satan and how that inevitably leads to the tension between Spirit and suffering. See Gregory A. Boyd, God At War (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 180-191, 201-205, 212-214, 216-218, 235-240, 267f; Bock, 1:1-9:50, 37; Wagner, The Book of Acts, 20f. Cf. Tom Wright, Virtue Reborn. (London: SPCK, 2010), 98, 103. Likewise, there is no space to discuss the key ‘warfare’ passage, Luke 11:14-23, and its textual issues related to the phrase “finger of God.” See Menzies, Empowered, 112, 115-117; Green, Luke, 456f; Bock, 9:51-24:53, 1079. A more detailed exposition Spirit-suffering would want to carefully consider these elements.

[17] Suffering, 5. Cf. “Suffering,” 23. Note that Mittelstadt overlooks the significance of the metaphorical term sword (r(omfai/a) which prepares for verbal metaphors in Acts where words “cut through” listeners (IE Acts 2:37; 7:54). Charette, “Spirit and Suffering,” 385.

[18] See Green, Theology, 63; Green, Luke, 203; Suffering, 48, 51f; Charasmatic Theology, 8f, 45f; Tannehill, The Shape of Luke's Story, 107. The Narareth manifesto is a preview which interprets the remainder of Jesus’ ministry, just as Acts 10:38 is a review which looks back on the same events. Ibid., 106

[19] Suffering, 48f, 59; “Suffering,” 19f.

[20] Luke 1:26-38.

[21] Luke 3:21-22; 4:18-19. Jesus’ baptism and the subsequent anointing are central to Luke. See Green, Luke, 185-187, 203.

[22] Luke 4:1.

[23] Luke 4:1-13.

[24] Luke 4:14, 18-19; 5:17.

[25] Suffering, 51. Cf. Green, Luke, 203-205.

[26] Luke does this by depicting Jesus reading a quotation based upon a combination of Isaiah 61:1-2 and (most likely) 58:6, which Jesus then states is now ‘fulfilled’ in him. Suffering, 52; Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 404-406.

[27] Suffering, 52.

[28] Green, Luke, 203-205, 208-212.

[29] This overlooking (and in some cases, apparent ignorance) is evident in three prominent Pentecostal scholars who focus on Lukan pneumatology: Shelton, Menzies and Stronstad. Suffering, 62-64. Cf. Empowered, 145; Charismatic Theology, 8, 45-46.

[30] Given the emphasis on the Spirit in this pericope, this is implied. See Suffering, 50; Green, Luke, 203-205.

[31] Though Luke demonstrates how the Isaiah quotation was fulfilled throughout Jesus’ ministry, he also reveals how it was rejected. Suffering, 53.

[32] Suffering, 53-55; “Suffering,” 19; Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 413-415. This is the best way of explaining the odd transition from verse 22 (which on the surface does not appear over divisive) and 23 (where Jesus begins to rebuke his hearers). Green disagrees with this proposal, yet likewise recognizes that Jesus’ hearers are mistaken regarding his identity and have made erroneous, truncated presumptions about his mission and ministry. Green, Luke, 214-218. Regardless of how this transition is understood, Luke’s point is that Jesus ends up being rejected by his own people.

[33] Suffering, 54; Green, Luke, 217. Cf. “Suffering,” 20.

[34] Cf. John the Baptist earlier. Luke 3:7-9. See also “Suffering,” 19.

[35] Suffering, 55. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 247-250, 419.

[36] Ibid., 417f.

[37] Suffering, 58. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 418-420; Green, Luke, 217-219. It is interesting to note that, given the prototypical nature of this pericope, Jesus’ rejection of his own townsfolk is ultimately fulfilled in his rejection (IE crucifixion) by his own nation.

[38] Thus foreshadowing the later results the gospel would bear beyond the borders of Israel. Cf. Luke 2:32, 34f.

[39] Cf. Luke 4:9-12.

[40] Suffering, 59. See Ibid., 59-61; “Suffering,”19f; Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 417.

[41] Green, Luke, 217, 219; Suffering, 59; “Suffering,” 20. Cf. Bock, Luke, 27-29, 420.

[42] “Suffering,” 20.

[43] Ibid., 25f. Warrington identifies various ways in which the suffering of the early church is revealed in Acts: social divisions in the church, marginalization by the State and Greco-Roman religions/philosophies, Jewish abuse, rejection and persecution, socio-economic hardship, sickness, demonic oppression, death, misfortune, fear and internal dissension. Space limitations do not allow for a consideration of most of these elements.

[44] Suffering, 88. Cf. Wagner, Acts, 15, 23. It should be noted that Acts 1:1 implies that Acts is about what Jesus continued to do through his disciples; not only is Jesus’ preaching and his demonstrations of the Kingdom carried on by the disciples, but so also is his suffering. Cf. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 32; Wall, Acts, 37f; Suffering, 88f, 94; Green, Luke, 7; Leo O'Reilly, Word and Sign in the Acts of the Apostles (Rome: E.P.U.G., 1987), 41.

[45] “Suffering,” 26.

[46] Rather than simply being received as a triumphal declaration of the gospel’s power to spread (as is the tendency today), this commission would have been utterly daunting for the apostles: Jerusalem was inhabited by Jews who had not proved themselves ready to listen to Jesus’ gospel, the Samaritans were their enemies, and the ‘ends of the earth’ were totally unknown and included Rome, the center of power for Israel’s oppressors. “Suffering,” 26. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 64-66. This crucial point is not discussed by Mittelstadt, and is lacking in typical Pentecostal expositions as represented by Stronstad and even in general commentaries such as Wall’s.

[47] Though John was also present (Acts 3:1), given his apparent lead role in the events this essay will speak only of Peter.

[48] Ibid., 27. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 86, 97; Bock, Acts, 157.

[49] IE Wagner, Acts, 84f. Given that Luke 4:14f is programmatic, it is natural to read subsequent references to power (‎du/namin) and likewise demonstrations of power as being related to the Spirit. See Penney, Missionary Emphasis, 31.

[50] Peter’s boldness is evident in the fact that he is more direct about his audience’s blame in the death of Jesus than in his previous speech, despite the incredible danger of being so direct about such an issue when in the temple, surrounded by the religious authorities. Cf. Suffering, 91; Wall, Acts, 79.

[51] Suffering, 91. Cf. Bock, Acts, 157; Wall, Acts, 83f.

[52] Suffering, 88f. Cf. Bock, Acts, 64.

[53] Cf. Ibid. 91; Wagner, Acts, 92f.

[54] Notably, Luke’s use of the aorist passive plhsqei\$ indicates a specific moment of filling/inspiration and thus serves to stress that his response was specifically gifted to him by the Spirit. Cf. Suffering, 92.

[55] Ibid. Cf. Wagner, Acts, 95f.

[56] The term for boldness is ‎parrhsi/an, here denoting the frank boldness of one who is convinced and unafraid; he was unreserved in his speech. J. H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database, PC Study Bible version 5 (Biblesoft Inc. 2006.), n.p. Cf. Suffering, 93.

[57] See Wall, Acts, 90.

[58] “Suffering,” 27. Cf. Marshall, Acts, 100.

[59] That is, the performance of ‘signs and wonders’. Acts 4:30.

[60] “This provides Luke’s readers with one of the most characteristic features of his teaching, namely, prayer as the means by which the dynamic energy of the Spirit is released.” Suffering, 95. See also Wall, Acts, 93; Wagner, Acts, 98f. Cf. Prayer in Jesus’ life (Luke 5:15-17). Green, Luke, 238f.

[61] Suffering, 95.

[62] IE Suffering, 88f; O'Reilly, Word and Sign, 41, 153-159; Charismatic Theology, 61, 81; Wall, Acts, 37f, 77f; Green, Theology, 151-152; Bock, 1:1-9:50, 391.

[63] Suffering, 94. This element is missing from the expositions of Shelton, Menzies and Stronstad. Ibid., 100f.

[64] “Suffering,” 27-29, 31f; Suffering, 133-136.

[65] This is an issue of debate in current scholarship. See, for example, Turner, “Luke and the Spirit,” 269, 283-287; Martin William Mittelstadt, "Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile these Concepts by Youngmo Cho," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16, no. 2 (April 2008): 103-112; Youngmo Cho, "Spirit and Kingdom in Luke-Acts: Proclamation As The Primary Role of the Spirit in Relation to The Kingdom of God in Luke-Acts," Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 6, no. 2 (July 2003): 173-197; Youngmo Cho, Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007).

[66] Given that Luke’s readers were gentiles who were undergoing some form of persecution and who were thus questioning whether their new religion was valid, Luke’s message of the Spirit and suffering could restore significant measures of hope. Luke reveals that suffering need not be interpreted as a sign that God has abandoned them, nor that they had “missed God” and gone astray, nor that their experience of the life-giving, empowering and equipping Spirit was somehow deficient. Thus, Luke’s dual message of the Spirit and suffering could have revealed the Spirit’s dual role as equipper and comforter. Cf. Turner, who notes that Luke suggests similar elements which are made explicit by Paul. Turner, “Luke and the Spirit,” 287.

[67] IE Romans 5:3-5; 8:15-18, 23-39. See Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 493-495, 560-570, 572-575, 577-586; N.T. Wright, "The Letter to the Romans," in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Commentary, vol. 10, ed. Leander E. Keck, et. Al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 516f, 592-594, 597-600. For a discussion of the Spirit’s role in the tension between the “already but not yet” nature of the Kingdom of God, see Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit and the People of God (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 49-61.

[68] “Suffering,” 22.

[69] Luke would seem to suggest that the persecution of the church is the norm, therefore implying that the church which is not suffering is the one to be concerned about. Cf. “Suffering,” 32. Perhaps this awareness has led the persecuted Chinese church to request prayer, not for the removal of suffering, but for the empowering to remain steadfast despite of it. This statement has been made by Brother Yun, but the specific source is unknown; the same idea is reflected in Brother Yun and Paul Hattaway, The Heavenly Man (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2002), 295.

[70] “Suffering,” 31 (emphasis mine). It is interesting to contrast triumphalistic views with those of people such as Brother Yun who sees no conflict between the Spirit and suffering. Brother Yun, The Heavenly Man, 299f, 310-313, 344. Cf. Menzies, "The Spirit and Suffering, 176.

[71] “Suffering,” 31.

[72] In other words, the question of, “How far are you will to go in order to get more power in your life?”, not only relates to what one will do to pursue God but also to how much they are willing to suffer when they receive it. Perhaps the reason for the relative ‘powerlessness’ in the West is not merely apathy (or whatever alternative diagnosis one may propose), but also that God knows we will struggle to perceiver under suffering. For typical examples of exhortations made regarding the pursuit of power, see Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 163-207. Cf. Sunand Sumithra, “Towards Evangelical Theology in Hindu Cultures,” in Biblical Theology in Asia, ed. Ken Gnanakan (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1995), 159.