Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts : A contrast in social institutions

Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A contrast in social institutions This social-scientific study of Luke-Acts advances the thesis th a t in the L ucan econom y o f salvation , the Tem ple and the H ousehold represent opposed types of social institutions and economic relations, only one of which, the Household, is capable of embodying socially, symbohcally and ideologically the structures, values and goals of an inclusive gospel of universal salvation.


INTRODUCTION
O ne of the most rem arkable characteristics of Luke-Acts is the elaborate historical, geographical, and social concretization it gives to the good news concerning Jesus as savior of the lost and the lowly, the em ergent church, and the saving acts of G od in hum an history.M ore detail on the persons, groups, institutions, places, dates, and events surrounding Jesus and the early C hristian m ovem ent is contained here than in any other writing of the New Testam ent.T he function o f this detail, however, is not simply to provide a 'realistic' background to an essentially independent message, but rath er to give that message concrete content and shape in space and tim e and hum an interaction.F o r Luke w rites both as historiographer and theologian.His theological aim is to convince his C hristian audience of the certainty o f the things they have been taught (Lk 1:1-4) so as to strengthen faith and com m itm ent.His m ethod for doing so is that of a historian.'The things that have been accomplished am ong us' are given historical, social and geographical profile because for Luke the theologian G od saves in and through hum an history and for Luke the historian the ultim ate arbiter of truth is the historical and social record.
A m ong the m eans by which Luke has chosen to concretize th e m essage and m eaning of the good news is his depiction of two basic institutions of Judaism and early Christianity; namely, the Jerusalem Tem ple and the private H ousehold (o k o q , oÍKÍa).Q uantitatively, the Lucan references to these institutions outnum ber those o f any o th e r New T e sta m e n t w riting.Q ualitatively, as th e u se o f com m on and special tradition, structural arrangem ent, and coordination of them es dem onstrate.Tem ple and H ousehold constitute key elem ents in Luke's gospel of the reign of G od in h um an history.A lth o u g h this focus o f L u k e's w ork is g en erally recognized (B altzer 1965;B achm ann 1980;W ein e rt 1981, 1982;Cassidy & S c h arp er 1983;R ichard 1983;Casalengo 1984;Koenig 1985;Esler 1987) T he term 'institution', of course, is not p art o f Luke's vocabulary o r even of his thought-w orld.H e, like his an cie n t c o n tem p o raries, spoke n o t o f schem atized w holes b u t ra th e r o f re late d p arts: a holy place o f p ray er and sacrifice, priests, rulers, law and lawyers, p urity observance on th e one h and; an d hom es, fam ily m em bers, servants, friends, meals, hospitality and dom estic life on th e other.Luke the first-century historiographer, in other words, tells his story from a 'native's' point o f view o r w hat is term ed in anthropology th e 'em ic' perspective.O n the o th er hand, from an analytical, social scientific point o f view, or 'etic' perspective, w hat L uke p o rtray s a re aspects of two m ajor in stitu tio n s of first-cen tu ry P alestin ian society, the Jeru salem T em ple and th e p rivate H ousehold.Institutions com prise social associations or processes which are highly organized, systematized in term s of roles, relationships, and responsibilities, and stable over tim e.As 'institutions' in th e form al sociological sense, th e T em ple and th e H o u seh o ld e n ta il n o t sim ply d ifferen t spaces for w orship o r residence, respectively, b u t d ifferently organized sectors and systems of social life.T h erefo re o u r investigation of the m ain Lucan m aterial p ertaining to the institutions o f T em ple and H o usehold will include not only explicit term inological referen ces to 'T e m p le ' (i/aóq, olKoq [xoO 0€ov)], tó lep ó v ) and 'H o u seh o ld ' (oIkoi;, olKÍa) b u t also th e ir sem an tic fields an d social domains; that is all the connected groups, roles, structures, and patterns of behavior, norms, values and cultural symbols; and economic, political, and ideological features which com prise their respective institutional character.Such an inclusive body of d a ta will provide a com prehensive basis for relating and analyzing th e distinctive features of each institution and the im plications o f their contrast in Luke-Acts.
T he thesis advanced in this study is that in the Lucan economy o f salvation, the T em ple system and the H ousehold rep resen t opposed types of social institutions, only one o f which, the H ousehold, is capable o f em bodying socially, symbolically and ideologically the structures, values and goals o f an inclusive gospel of universal salvation.By combining an analysis o f the Lucan T em ple/H o u seh o ld contrast with aspects of previous exegetical research and filtering this d ata through the lens of an anthropological model o f alternate types o f ancient social relations, I intend to show its general function in the narrative; how this contrast coheres with dom inant Lucan them es, how it advances Luke's conception of the gospel and depiction of Christian community, and why it m ade compelling sense in Luke's social context.
This study is a follow-up on some brief comm ents I m ade concerning the signifi cance of the H ousehold in Luke-Acts in my earlier work, A hom e fo r the homeless.There, in a sketch o f 'the significance and function o f the o k o q in the Old and New T estam ents' (E lliott 1981:182-200), I observed that: In Luke-Acts the H ousehold is prom inently contrasted to the tem ple, th e bankrupt seat of Jewish pow er and piety, and to the city, the area of 'C aesar's's netw ork' and locus o f social control....For the Christians [of Luke-Acts] the o k o g constitutes not simply an additional form of social identity and religious allegiance alongside o thers such as the tem ple, the synagogue, or th e city.T h e C hristian oíico»; is ra th e r a decisive alternativ e according to Luke.M em bership in th e form er involves constant conflict with and critique o f the latter.(E lliott 1981:193-194) As an expansion on these b rief observations I shall now turn to an exam ination of the com plete Lucan text narrative and the role o f the T em p le/H o u seh o ld contrast in particular.

T E M P L E A N D H O U SEH O L D ; A SPECTS O F CO N TRA ST
2.1 T em ple and H ousehold in Luke 18:9-14 T he contrast betw een Tem ple and H ousehold in the critical parable of the Pharisee and the Tax C ollector (Lk 18:9-14) may serve as o u r p o in t o f d e p a rtu re .In this parable, intended by Luke as an indictm ent of those persuaded o f th e ir righteous ness and despising of others (18:9), three contrasts are drawn betw een (1) the actors and their actions, (2) the content o f their prayers, and (3) locale.The actors are key figures o f th e L ucan n arrativ e, rep resen tin g th ro u g h o u t the Gosp>el those at the c e n te r an d th o se on the p e rip h e ry o f Ju d a ism 's social an d relig io u s life.T he Pharisee, certain of his favor with G od and his superiority over o thers like th e tax collector, plies G od in prayer with his punctilious piety ( w 11-12).By contrast, the self-deprecating tax collector throws him self as a sinner fully on G od's mercy (v 13).
T he upshot of the story (v 14) involves not only a contrast in Jesus' verdict betw een the tax collector who was justified by G od and the Pharisee who was not, but also a shift in locale.'This m an w ent down to his house (o k o g ) justified rath er than the o th e r' (v 14a).Begun in th e T em ple, th e 'H oly P lace' (xó lepóv), as th e conven tional place for dem arcating social and religious differences, th e story concludes with the olKog as the locus o f the justified.
In  (1974:199), in fact, m aintains th at 'these descriptions of the "where" o f hum an living, pointing to two different loci and thus to a spatial contradiction b etw een "temple" and "house", lepóu and oI ko<; , seem to m e to re p re se n t th e p rim ary dialectical contradiction in the story.' F o r M ottu, T em ple and o k o q denote contrasting social spaces and contrasting forms of social life; the form er, an alienating form of collective, institutional life, the latter, a creative form of integrative group life.H e goes on to observe that As long as the tw o antagonists look a t the tem ple as th eir locus o f reference, they stay in an alienated organization o f space that makes hum an reality inhum an.T he skopos (goal) o f the story seem s ®o me to be lo cated in an in v itatio n to ch an g e th e ru les o f th e com m on spatial game, to transform collectives into groups and to give a 'house'  Casalengo 1984:146-147,196-197).In these early chapters o f Acts, the Tem ple is both the scene and the subject of conflict.A n instance of alm sseeking and healing at the T em ple (3:1-4:22) becomes an occasion for distinguishing betw een those who take and those who give life, those who killed the 'A uthor of life' (3:15) and those who heal in his nam e (3:16).Tem ple authorities (priests.Tem ple captain, and Sadducees, 4:1; rulers, elders, scribes, high priests and fam ily, 4:5-6, 5:17; S a n h ed rin , 4:5-6, 15; 5:21, 27; 6:12-15) in th eir jealousy (5:17), opposition to the apostles' teaching (4:2; 5:18,27-28; 6:57), and their actions o f arrest, im prisonm ent, beating, and killing (4:3; 5:18, 40; 6:57-58), defend m onopolistic T em ple interests by seeking to suppress the joyous comm unity which gives health (3:1-10; 5:16), celebrates the covenant o f A braham given through G o d 's resurrected servant to 'all the families o f the earth ' (3:25-26), praises G od (4:24-30), and is filled with the Spirit (4:8; 5:21; 7:55).
F or Stephen, charged with speaking "w ords against this holy place and the law' (6:13-14), death is the result of his verdict on the T em ple as the house of Solomon H TS 47/1 (1991) but not the dwelling place of G od and on its functionaries as the m urderers of the R ig h teo u s O ne (7:46-58).In th e only o th e r set o f refe re n ce s to th e Jeru salem T em ple in A cts, P a u l's T em p le visit and th e p lo t against his life (21:26-36) and P au l's defenses (in chs [22][23][24][25][26], th e T em ple is p o rtray ed sim ilarly as th e scene o f assassin atio n conspiracy, conflict o v er purity , an d p o litic al co llu sio n (T em p le authorities, H erodians, and Rom ans).A fter Stephen's death, the persecution of the Jeru salem church, and its d ispersion (8:1b ff), it is th e H ousehold, on th e o th er hand, which becom es the basis of the church's life and the focus of its mission.
T  36-50; 8:40-56; 10:38-42; 12:13-53; 13:18-30; 14:1-24; 16:1-17:10; 18:18-34; 19:1-10) frequently providing th e positive contrast to th e negative climax of confrontation and death in Jerusalem .In Acts, the H ousehold becom es increasingly prom inent as   T his link betw een the holy place and the holy people and their dem arcation from all that was unholy was derived from the T orah and elaborated, m aintained, and legiti m ated in an ideology and system o f holiness which defined Jewish identity and regulated all aspects of Jewish life.W here T em ple and T orah are involved in Luke's narrative, therefore, crucial issues regarding norm s of holy behavior and social interaction and the boundaries o f G od's holy people are at stake.
In Luke, the T em ple as holy place is first the scene o f Jesus' presentation, Mary's purification (in accord with Torah), Sim eon's and A nna's blessing of the child, and, y ears la te r, o f Je s u s' discussion w ith te a c h e rs a fte r th e o ccasio n of a Passover pilgrim age (2:22-51).Initially, the T em ple is the place w here Jesus' fidelity to the Law, his role as agent o f divine salvation, redem ption and mercy, and his wisdom a re m an ifested .W ith th e co m m en cem en t o f his p u b lic m inistry, how ever, the T em ple scenes in Luke-Acts take on a m ore om inous hue.In L uke's redaction of the tem p tatio n account, it is Jesus' confrontation with devil at the T em p le which forms the climactic conclusion o f the episode (4:9-13; cf M t 4:5-7).In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14), the holy place as a scene o f alienation betw een the holy Pharisee and the unholy tax collector is contrasted to the oIko<; of the ju stified sinner.U p o n his arrival in Jeru salem , th a t om inous m o m en t long anticipated in the narrative (9:30-31, 51; 13:22; 17:11; 18:31-34), it is th e holy place and the holy city which form the combined object of Jesus' passionate condem nation (19:41-44; 45:46; cf 13:33-35).T h e re a fte r, th e T em p le reckons prim arily as the aren a of Jesus' conflict with the Tem ple (chief priests; Sadducees) and related legal authorities (chief priests, scribes, elders; i e Sanhedrin) and their conspiracy with the R om an governor to take his life (19:45-47; 20:1-22:6; 22:47-23:25).
Scribes, though not cultic officials but ra th e r official interpreters of the Mosaic Law (T orah), constituted a fu rther arm of the T em ple apparatus described by A ccording to Luke, as well as the other Evangelists, it was this system o f purity and the exclusivity and injustice which it fostered which Jesus challenged (B org 1984).
This challenge, so w ide-reaching in its political and social ram ifications, inevitably led to conflict, death, and social division.
The picture Luke paints of Jesus' attitude toward purity norm s is a complex one.O n the one hand, Jesus, his fam ily and follow ers resp ected th e holiness o f the T em ple as a house of prayer (Lk 19:46; Ac 3:1), a place o f purification (Lk 2:22, 5:14; 17:14) and pilgrimage (Lk 2:41; 9:51), the holiness of the synagogue as a place o f teaching and hearing (Lk 4:16-30; Ac 13:5 etc), and th e holy festivals (Lk 2:41; 9:51; 22:7 ff; Ac 2:1).O n the o th er hand, however, th e m inistry o f Jesus and his m ovem ent also is m arked by w hat is perceived to b e a flagrant disregard of the purity norm s concerning persons, behavior, times and places.

The Housefaold institution in Luke-Acts: A summaiy
In Luke-A cts the H ousehold plays a p aram ount role in the ministry, teaching, and mission of Jesus and his followers.T hese contrasting m odes of social exchange, according to Moxnes, played a key role in shaping social dim ensions o f the conflict betw een the Jesus m ovem ent and the Tem ple establishm ent as described in Luke-Acts.Before considering this role in m ore detail, how ever, let us first exam ine the analytical m odel and its operative terms, as m ore extensively clarified by Malina.

•
P ro f John H Elliott, Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Francisco, visited South Africa during June and July 1990 as HSRC Research Fellow of Prof A G van Aarde of the University of Pretoria.His contribution 'Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A contrast in social institutions' will be published in Neyrey J H (ed) 1991, The world o f Luke-acts: A handbook o f social science models for biblical inlerprelalion.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
, far less attention has been given to w hat a p p e a rs to be a d e lib e ra te c o n tra st draw n b e tw een T em p le and H o u seh o ld and th e social and ideological ram ificatio n s o f this c o n tra st in the narrative of Luke-Acts.
the p arab le itself, this c o n trast in locales at first glance ap p ea rs o f m inor im p o rtan ce.T h e fram ing function of lepói/ ( 'holy p la c e ', 'T e m p le ') and oTko<;, how ever, gives cause to pause.O ne co m m en tato r on this passage, H enry M ottu to displaced persons.No conversion, no morals, no opposition o f two 'characters' is the skopos; but a shift o f space, a structural change, a transform ation o f w here people live is w hat we are invited to accom plish.T he opposition betw een the P harisee and the tax collector is only the secondary aspect of the dom inant contradiction which is the spatial contradiction betw een tem ple and house, collective and group, alienated and hum an space.(M ottu 1974:201-202) M o ttu expands on th e se o b serv atio n s fro m a p h en o m en o lo g ical p o in t o f view inform ed by th e w ork o f Je a n P aul S artre.H e is expressly n o t co n cern ed with correlating this text w ith the L ucan p roject as a w hole (M ottu 1974:197).C onse quen tly, his th orou g hly n eg ativ e rea d in g o f th e significance o f T em p le in this parable lacks balance with a positive portrayal of the Tem ple found earlier in Luke (chs 1-2) and fails to cap tu re 'L u k e's am bivalent a ttitu d e to th e T em p le' (E sler 1987:133-135).N evertheless, the dram atic contrast he notes betw een T em ple and H ousehold in this parable of special Lucan m aterial appears to m e worthy o f further analysis at the hand o f Luke's entire com position.Is m ore im plied h ere than first m eets the eye?A re Tem ple and H ousehold contrasted elsewhere in the Lucan n ar rativ e? D oes it a p p e a r th a t this co n trast involves opposing form s of social o r ganization, relations, and values?D o T em ple and oT koc; and th eir respective n et works of relations depict in Luke-A cts contrasted styles of piety and behavior?A sustained exam ination of Luke-Acts indicates th at such, indeed, appears to be the case.2.2 T em ple and H ousehold in the general structure o f Luke-Acts T hat the contrast betw een T em ple and H ousehold in Luke 18:9-14 is neither coinci den tal nor singular is indicated, first, by two structural featu res of Luke-A cts.As has long b een recognized, it is with scenes in the T em ple th a t the first h alf o f the L ucan tw o-volum e w ork begins and ends.C om m encing with the story of Z echariah's priestly service in the Tem ple and the angelic announcem ent of his son's birth (1:5-23), the G ospel concludes with the disciples' d ep artu re from B ethany and the parting of the risen Lord and their return to Jerusalem w here they w ere 'continually in th e T em p le blessing G o d ' (24:50-53).T em p le scenes th u s p ro v id e a g ran d fram ew ork or inclusio for the first half of Luke-A cts.It is likewise th e case, how ever, th a t as T em p le scenes fram e th e first h alf o f the L uke-A cts, scenes in the H ousehold fram e the second half.Commencing with the gathering o f the faithful in the house with the upper room (Ac 1:12-14), following the L ord's ascension (1:1-11), Acts concludes with Paul's house confinem ent in R om e and his unhindered procla m ation of the gospel (28:30-31).Once again, but on a grander scale, the scene shifts from Tem ple to Household.A second structural indication of this contrast is evident in the early narrative of Acts.W ithin the first eight chapters the scene shifts w ith regularity betw een the o Ik o c ; w here the b eliev ers assem b le, pray, receiv e th e S pirit, b re a k b re a d and generously share all things in comm on and the Tem ple as the center o f political and religious control, a place for seeking alm s, and th e scene and object o f conflict (a rre st and im prisonm ent, critique of T em ple rulers, m ob violence, beating, and deatha tte rn of altern atin g scenes clearly dem arcates two areas of action and two differentiated communities, their variant forms of social and econom ic organization, and th eir ultim ately contrasting loyalties.T he one represents T em ple rule, norm s and allegiance; th e other, a new comm unity of witnesses to the resu rrected C hrist based in the H ousehold, inspired by the divine Spirit and loyal to the G od who does not dwell in m an-m ade houses or tem ples ( the scene and focus of th e Christian m ovem ent gradually shifts from Jerusalem and the T em ple to the H ouseholds o f the D iaspora.A t first the m essianic comm unity g ath ers b o th at th e T e m p le an d in hom es (2:43-47; 5:42).B ut th e a tte m p t at peaceful coexistence fails.Agents of th e Tem ple becom e the hunters and followers o f Jesus, the hunted.T h e episode of Stephen's speech and stoning in connection w ith rem ark s concerning th e T em p le form s a turning po in t b etw een th e earliest phase o f the church's life and its connection with th e T em ple (chs l-8 :la ) and its fullscale mission to the H ouseholds of the D iaspora (8:lb-28:31).In the rem ainder o f L u k e 's account, th e T e m p le plays no p o sitiv e ro le as a p la c e o f C h ristia n assem bly o r symbol of C hristian identity.A long with th e synagogue which re p re sents the extension of Tem ple authority and values, the T em ple reckons only nega tively as a locale of Jew ish-Christian conflict over purity and its im plications for the course o f universal salvation.By contrast, th e story o f th e Jesus m ovem ent con cen trates positively on th e oIko^ as th e focus o f the m ovem ent's recruitm ent, the locus o f its assem bly, w orship, and m utual support, an d th e basis fo r th e social em bodim ent of its evangelical message.In sum, the juxtaposition of scenes in Acts 1-8 and the inclusive fram ew ork of Luke (T em ple) com pared with its co unterpart in Acts (H ousehold) suggest a p ur p oseful co n trast o f locales, groups, and institutions w ithin a historical and th e o logical m ovem ent com m encing w ith th e T em ple and concluding with th e H o u se hold.T hese larger pattern s of contrast in the Lucan narrative ap p ear consistent with the contrast draw n betw een T em ple and o k o g in Luke 18:9-14.T he T em ple and the H ousehold constitute not simply different sites o f activity but bases of different and conflicting groups o f actors with differing and conflicting sets o f interests and allegiances.F rom com m encem ent to close o f the Lucan narrative, m oreover, it is the H ousehold which gradually replaces the T em ple as the actual sphere of G o d 's saving presence.T

A
rtem is tem ple of E phesus (19:24).*O k o q (xoG 0€oO) as a second term for the Jerusalem Tem ple appears possibly four tim es in Luke and once in Acts, all in contexts o f conflict or censure.In conflict with the Pharisees over the sanctity of the sabbath rest, Jesus defends his disciples' plucking and eating grain with an appeal to D avid's entering the house of G od and eating the bread of the Presence, a privilege reserved only to priests (Lk 6:4).In censure of the lawyers (and Pharisees) for burdening people with the law bu t not aiding th eir entrance into the Kingdom (11:45-52) and for consenting with the m urderous deeds of their fathers, Jesus refers to the shed blood o f the prophets, including th a t of Z echariah who perished betw een the a lta r and th e 'san c tu a ry ' (R S V ) (olicoq) (11:51).In 13:35, Je s u s' w ord of judgm ent, 'B ehold, your house (oIkoí;) is fo rsak en ', is am biguous, referrin g e ith er to the T em ple in p articu lar o r to Jeru salem (cf 13:34; W ein ert 1982), though both are interchangeable as symbols o f a condem ned Israel.Finally, Jesus condemns the Tem ple m erchants with the words: 'It is written, "My house (oÍKoq) shall be a house (o k o q ) o f prayer"; b u t you have m ade it a den of ro b b ers' (19:45-46).In Acts, S tephen, affirm ing th a t G o d 'does n o t dwell in houses m ade w ith han d s' (Isa 66:1-2), contests G o d 's dw elling in the house (o k o g ) built by Solomon (7:47-50).* T he substantive t o lepóv, however, used fo u rteen tim es in Luke and twentyfo u r tim e s in A cts (m o re th a n in th e re s t o f th e N ew T e sta m e n t w ritings co m b in ed ), is th e p re d o m in a n t L ucan term fo r d esig n atin g th e Je ru sa le m Tem ple, including its buildings, precincts and courts, as 'the sanctuary' o r 'holy place'.F o r Judaism , the T em ple as Israel's central holy place represented the chief visible symbol of its identity as G o d 's holy peo p le. T he holiness o f its space, its p e rso n n e l (p rie sts [lep eiq ] = 'holy fu n c tio n a rie s'; c h ie f p rie sts [(ipXiepeiq]; L evites), its sacrifices, and o f th e laws o f holiness it enforced sym bolized a holy p e o p le 's u n io n w ith th e H oly O n e o f Israel.
:52-53), as at the outset o f Acts (2:46; 3:1; 5:12, 20, 42), the disciples worship or teach in the Tem ple.But the holy place continues as an are n a o f conflict (A c 3:1-4:22; 5:12-42).F o r Paul, as for Jesus, d espite his con formity to the law (A c 21:17-26), the holy place and the holy city rem ain the locale of hostility, political collusion, and conspiracy against innocent life (21:27-26:32).This review of explicit Tem ple references also exposes elem ents o f the sem antic field associated with Tem ple in Luke-Acts.This wider sem antic field, a set of term s re la te d to a specific a re a o f cu ltu ral life (N id a 1975:22), in this case th e social dom ain of the Jerusalem T em ple, provides a b ro ad er picture o f the featu res asso ciated with the T em ple in the Lucan narrative.Sacrifice, prayer, praise, revelation, hope o f salvation, tithing and legal observance are all activities associated with the Tem ple.B ut so is priestly political pow er, econom ic disparities, scribal arrogance an d e x p lo ita tio n o f th e p o o r, co n flict o f Je su s and his fo llo w ers w ith T em p le au th o rity , th e ir critiq u e o f th e T em p le e sta b lish m e n t, d e a th p lo ts a n d u n ju st executions.T he T em ple and Jerusalem , the Holy Place and th e Holy City, consti tute for Luke the dom inating public center o f Jewish society and that web o f social relations w ithin which the Jesus m ovem ent was bo rn b u t with w hich it also cam e into irrem ediable conflict.T h e Holy Place and the holiness ideology it em bodies eventually em erges in Luke-A cts as an en tire system at odds with th e will o f G od and the realization of salvation.32, The Temple network and purity system in Luke-Acts In L uke-A cts various in terre la ted groups o f the T em ple netw ork a re d ep icted as playing key roles in the opposition to Jesus and his followers: chief priests and m inor clergy, scribes, elders, Sanhedrin, Sadducees and Pharisees.A t th e pinnacle of the T em p le hierarchy w ere th e c h ie f priests (o p x iep eu;).A llied w ith the Sadducean faction (A c 5:17), and c o n tro lled by th e R om an governor, this priestly aristocracy represented the pow er of the Tem ple over all aspects of Jewish political, economic, social and cultural life.W ith the scribeslawyers and elders (th e lan d ed , lay aristo cra cy ), th ey also c o n stitu te d th e Sanhedrin, th e 'sup rem e c o u rt' of th e Jew s.In L uke-A cts, as in th e o th e r G ospels, it is these w ielders of Judaism 's unified political, economic, legal, and religious pow er w ho play th e decisive role in th e conflict involving th e Jesus m ovem ent.T he Tem ple police (axpaxTiyoi, only in Luke-A cts) exercise the coercive pow er of the holy place (Lk 22:4, 52; Ac 4:1; 5:2, 24, 26).T he C hief priests, to g eth er with th e Scribes and E lders and in collusion with R om e (Lk 23:1-25; Ac 24-26), conspire with an agent o f Satan (Judas Iscariot, Luke 22:3) to kill Jesus ( Luke.As noted, they held a key position in the Sanhedrin and, like the faction o f the P harisees, re p rese n te d th e link b etw een T em ple au thority and T orah observance.In Luke's account, it is these scribal Tem ple and T orah authorities who em bodied the injustice and oppression of the Tem ple as an econom ic insti tution.Like the Pharisees condem ned by Jesus as 'lovers of money'(Lk 16:14)    and'extortionists' (11:42; cf also 11:37-44; 12:1; 15:1-31; 16:14-15; 18:9-14), and the Temple merchants accused of making of the house of G od and prayer 'a den of thieves' (19:45-47), the scribes are censured in the Tem ple itself for seeking public h o n o r in th e synagogues w hile they secretly 'd evour w idow s' houses' (20:47).Jesu s' exposure o f th e ir m achinations (cf also 20:1-26) attack s the econom ic as well as religious corru p tio n o f T em ple politics and condem ns a system organized not for prayer, justice and mercy b u t for self-aggrandizem ent and exploitation.Accordingly, in Luke-Acts, the scribes also play a m ajor role in th e p lo t against Jesus and his follow ers(L k 11:54; 19:47; 20:19; 22:2, 66;   23:10; Ac 4:5; 6:12;(22)(23).O th e r T em ple p ersonnel, ordinary priests (lepetq: Luke 1:5; 5:14; 6:4; 10:31; 17:14; Ac 4:1; 6:7) and a Levite (Lk 10:31) represent, with the lay faction of the Pharisees, a further key aspect of the Tem ple system as seen in Luke-Acts.This concerns the fundam ental conception of the T em ple as the 'holy place' w here holy priestly personnel served (e g Luke 1:8), purification was effected (Lk 2:22) and certified (Lk 5:14; 17:14) in accord with T orah (Lev 13-14), and all m atters regarding the 'holiness' = 'cleanness' of the Jewish people w ere regulated.The Pharisees, en fo rc in g T em p le p u rity re g u la tio n s still m o re rig o ro u sly , h ad extended th e norm s of T em ple and priestly holiness to th e b ed and b o ard of every observant Jew ish hom e.In Luke-A cts this purity system sym bolized by the Tem ple and controlled by the Tem ple establishm ent becom es a m ajor point of controversy and contrast concerning the praxis of the Tem ple guardians and that of Jesus and his followers.In order to grasp the implications o f this conflict over purity, it is necessary to see how Judaism 's purity system functioned from a social scientific point of view.• The Temple purity system, as M alina (1981:122-152) and Neyrey (1986:91-128; cf N eusner 1973) have shown, established and controlled the social identity, social classifications, and social boundaries of the Jewish people as the holy people of G o d .Is ra e l's la n d and p lace s (M ish n ah K elim 1.6-9), c lasses o f p erso n s (T o se p h ta M egillah 2.7), holy tim es (M ishnah M oed), an d u nholy physical 'uncleanness' (M ishnah Kelim 1.3) w ere all classified and ranked according to an elaborated m ap of degrees of purity o r impurity.This system established the structure and social stratification o f the Jewish comm unity (Jerem ias 1969:271-358), th e norm s o f public and p rivate behavior, and th e lines o f d em arcation betw een holy Israelites and all at o r beyond the m argins o f G o d 's holy people (i e physical or social deviants, Samaritans, and G entiles).This organization of society along purity lines called for a careful avoidance o f contact with all that was judged im pure or unholy (sinners, lepers, blind, lame, m enstruants, corpses, to ll co lle c to rs, S a m a rita n s, G e n tile s) an d p ro p e r re s p e c t fo r holy p la c e s (T em ple, synagogue), holy persons (T em p le p e rso n n el), acts o f purification (hand washing before m eals) and holy tim es (Sabbath, festivals).A ccording to this system o f econom ic and social stratificatio n legim itated by purity classi fications, the rich were ranked above the poor, the clergy above the laity, urban dw ellers (especially in Je ru sa le m ) above th e ru ra l p easan try (especially in distant G alilee), m en above women, m arried above unm arried, healthy above the ill, conformists above deviants.

Finally,
holy places and personnel are criticized and disrespected: critical rem arks against the Tem ple and its network: the T em ple 21:6; Ac 6:14;; the chief priests, scribes, and elders(Lk 9:22;(67)(68)(69)(70)(71); priest and U v ite (Lk 10:29-37); scribes(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32); Sadducees; Pharisees(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(39)(40)(41)(42) 12:56,(13)(14)(15)(16)(17).critical rem arks against the Holy City of Jerusalem : Luke 13:33-35; 19:41- 44; 21:20-24.disregard for the limits o f the Holy Land and the Holy People o f Judaism: Jesu s' com m ission of his follow ers to leave the Land 'for th e ends o f the w orld' (A c 1:8) and 'to preach in his nam e to all nations (G e n tile s)' (Lk 24:47; cf Ac 28:29).Consequently, the incrim inating charge of defilem ent levelled against Jesus and his company becom es a global one.Jesus is accused of 'perverting our nation' (Lk 23:2, 14); S tep h en is charg ed w ith sp eak in g 'b lasp h em o u s w ords ag ain st M oses and God,...this Holy Place and the Law...claiming that this Jesus of N azareth will destroy this place and will change the customs which M oses delivered to us' (A c 6:11-14).And Paul is denounced as 'teaching men everywhere against the people and the Law and this place' and by, bringing G reeks into the Tem ple, 'defiling this Holy Place' (Ac 21:28).3 3 T he Tem ple institution in Luke-Acts: A summary In the L ucan n arrativ e th e T em p le g radually em erg es as an in stitu tio n w hose m anagers, interests, and ideology stood diam etrically opposed to the ministry and mission of Jesus and his community.Constituting with T orah and purity system the chief symbol o f Jew ish national identity, the T em ple, for Luke, was a holy place w hich had lost its pow er to m ake holy, th a t is, to bring all w ho w ere unholy into com m union with the H oly O ne.T his c e n te r of Jew ish political, econom ic, and social power, through its collusion with R om e and its oppression and exploitation of its own p eo p le, was once b u t no lo n g er th e place w here the hope o f th e w orld's salvation and the universal experience of G o d 's mercy could be realized.Tem ple functionaries and o th er agencies o f the T em ple apparatus ap p ear guided by th eir own self-interests in preserving an exploitative regime in which the mighty rem ain in their seats and nothing but disdain and neglect is shown those of low degree.F or all those outside the holy boundaries of Israel, the physical limits of the Holy Place and the social restrictions of its purity system effectively prohibited the access of all to sanctifícation, health, and salvation.W ithin the borders o f Israel dem arcated by the purity system, the econom ic pow er of the T em ple from taxes, tithes, sacrifices and offerings was used to prom ote the program s of the pow erful at the expense of the pow erless.P riest and L evite p ro tected th e ir purity ra th e r th a n extended mercy.Scribes dev o u red w idow 's houses, P h arisees neglected ju stice and mercy, chief priests and Sanhedrin conspired to condem n the critics and eradicate the agents of change.The call to repentance was m et with the plot to remove.Efforts to redefine the purity which G od req u ires and consequently th e b ehavioral norm s and social identity of G od's holy people w ere denounced as plots to pervert the nation and its sacred customs.R eform program was countered by death plot, critique by condem nation.T he presence of the Spirit eventually shifted from the Tem ple in Jerusalem to th e H o useholds o f th e D iasp o ra.In c o n trast to th e T em p le, th e H o usehold gradually em erged as the venue of sanctity and divine salvation.C onsidering all th e related aspects o f the T em ple as a com prehensive social in s titu tio n , its p o litic a l, e c o n o m ic , so c ia l, a n d c u ltu ra l d im e n sio n s a n d its accom panying purity ideology, has provided us with a full p icture o f th e T em ple system as portrayed and evaluated by Luke.F ailure to take into account this full ra n g e o f d a ta can le ad only to u n b a la n c ed an d in a c c u ra te conclu sio n s.T hus W ein e rt's co n ten tio n (1981) th a t 'Luke avoids any polem ic against th e T em p le' appears w ide of the m ark.W einert isolates references to the T em ple from those concerning T em ple authorities (see Cassidy 1983 and T annehill 1986:169-199) and their unjust program s, understates Jesus' and S tephen's critique o f the Holy Place and its m anagem ent, and ignores the negative im plications o f the T em ple's purity system altogether.Secondly, this survey has revealed w hat for Luke are those key issues over which the Jesus m ovem ent and T em ple establishm ent collided.Lastly, this analysis has highlighted salient features of a political institution, the Tem ple, with which another form of institution based on kinship, namely the H ousehold, can instructively be com pared.4. T H E H O U SE H O L D IN LUKE-ACTS O ver against the society dem arcated by these bonds and boundaries o f social iden tity and a T em ple adm inistration in ten t on th e elim ination o f T em ple critics and purity violators, according to Luke, stands a comm unity in solidarity with Jesus and the righteous victim s o f T em p le 'justice', a com m unity organized not aro u n d the T em ple but around the H ousehold and bound by an ethos of mercy and justice and a vision of universal salvation.4.1 House and Household: Tenninology and prominence In Luke-Acts the 'house' (olxia) and 'H ousehold' (oIko(;), comprising family and kin, personnel and property, play a prom inent, if not d om inant, role in the narrative.T he term oIkIo appears twenty-five tim es in Luke and twelve tim es in Acts; oÍkoí;, another thirty-four times in Luke and twenty-five tim es in Acts.T hese references to dom estic residences and com m unities are joined by num erous related term s o f the o lic-ro o t re f e r r in g to H o u s e h o ld m a n a g e rs a n d m a n a g e m e n t (olK oS ófiog, olKoSojActu, olKovon.eiv,0lK0U0)j.ia,olKOUópog) and H ousehold servant (olKéxTv;), as well as to fu rth e r aspects an d conditions o f h a b itatio n (KaxoiKciu, KaToiKÍo, H eto iiá^eii/, oIktuio, navoiKei, iropoiKeiv, nópoiKoq, nepiouceíi/, nepíouco<;).The range of this terminology alone already gives a strong im pression of th e im portance which dom estic conditions and relations play in L uke's social concretization o f the gospel.M ore than any other writing of the New T estam ent, Luke-Acts m akes clear the fundam ental role which private houses and H ouseholds played in the geographical spread of the Jesus m ovem ent, the dom estic form o f organization it assum ed, and the social relations and values it fostered.In contrast to th e T em ple, the place of hostility and the focus o f critique, the oT ko<; rep resen ts in L uke-A cts th e favored setting of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus and his followers and the typical lo c a tio n o f th e g o sp e l's re c e p tio n a n d th e c h u rc h 's gro w th .M o re o v er, it is c h a ra c te ristic fe a tu re s o f d o m estic life w hich serve to illu s tra te in th e L ucan n arrativ e n o tab le aspects o f C h ristian v alues and social re latio n s ro o te d in th e institution o f kinship: solidarity, loyalty, trust, m utuality of obligations, generosity, sharing and the like.

4 2
H ousehold settings H ouses, hom es and households, first o f all, provide in L uke-A cts th e setting for a wide range of events in the life of Jesus and his followers: th e p ro c la m a tio n o f th e gosp el, th e ex p erien ce o f forgiveness o f sins, salvation and th e p resen ce o f th e Spirit: L uke 1:

(
12:33).T he Lucan gospel begins with rejoicing over the divine mercy linked with Jesu s (1:76-79) and m an ifested to lowly w om en, M ary (1:50, 54) and E lizab eth (1:58) as re p re se n ta tiv e s o f e x p e c ta n t Isra el.M ercy, m o re o v e r, is e x ercised concretely in the healing of sinners and the unclean: lepers (17:11-19); a blind man (18:35-43); one n e ar d eath (10:29-37); a lam e m an (A c 3:1-10).W orks o f mercy, beyond th e m ere gift of alm s, involve d eed s o f loving kindness: hospitality, the rearing Of orphans, assistance a t weddings, red em p tio n o f prisoners, care for the sick, b u rial o f th e dead, com fort o f m ourners (Strack-B illerbeck 1961:536-610) - H istorically and geographically, H ouseholds of believers m ark the way-stations o f the spread o f the gospel from G alilee to Rom e. Econom ically and socially, they constituted independent, self-subsistent com m uni ties organized on the basis of kinship and H ousehold m anagem ent.Politically, they played no p art in Palestine's pow er structure except as the supplier o f its economic resources and the object of its devouring policies.H ere am ong th e H ouseholds of th e holy and the unholy, th e w ealthy and the poor, Jews and G entiles o f high and low degree, the good news o f a holiness and w holeness available to all m ade its in itial and su stain ed advance.H o u seh o ld o rg an izatio n w as d e te rm in e d by th e structure and roles of the family and regulated by the traditional customs and codes of family life and kinship relations.T hese dom estic structures and codes, in turn, supplied Jesus and his company with the basic models and m etaphors for illustrating th e relations and conditions of life in the kingdom of G od. Biological kinship and its a tte n d a n t roles, re la tio n s, an d resp o n sib ilities serv ed as th e m odel fo r con ceptualizing relations with G od as father and fellow believers as brothers and sisters in the family of G od. Q ualities of both the honorable hum an fath er and the divine p arent -generosity, mercy, hospitality, loyalty, friendship -w ere those qualities to be em ulated by the family as a whole.T he H ousehold thus serves in Luke-Acts as both a historical and a m etaphorical reality.T he church which grows through H ousehold conversions becom es a t the sam e tim e a worldwide H ousehold o f faith.The contrast to the Tem ple as historical institution and erstw hile sacred symbol is clear: political institution versus kinship institution; centralization o f pow er and coercion versus diffusion of th e pow erless H o u se h o ld s an d fam ilial c o m m itm en t; eco n o m ic e x p lo itatio n v ersu s m a te ria l sharing; stratificatio n by purity versus in teg ratio n via kinship an d fictive kinship bonds; exclusion and alie n a tio n b ased o n purity lines versus inclusion b ased on mercy and faith.T he form er, for Luke, is the object o f critique and th e aren a of rejection, Satan-inspired conflict and death.T he la tte r is object of praise and the sphere of repentance, concord and divinely conferred life.Thus, in Luke's account, the Spirit of G od and its sanctifying pow er moves from T em ple to H ousehold, from the chief symbol o f Jewish national identity to the principal symbol of a community united with a heavenly Father.In Luke-Acts the H ousehold em erges as the preem i n e n t sp h ere an d sym bol o f th e re c e p tio n of th e gospel, C h ristian identity, and solidarity in the Spirit. 5. TEMPLE AND HOUSEHOLD CONTRASTED IN LUKE-ACrS T his concludes our exam in atio n of th e two m ajor in stitu tio n s in L uke-A cts, th e T e m p le a n d th e H o u se h o ld .T h e e v id e n c e in d e e d s u p p o rts th e th e s is th a t throughout Luke-Acts, as in Luke 18:9-14 in particular.Tem ple and o I k o q represent distinctly different and contrasted types o f social institutions with conflicting sets of structures, interests, values, beliefs and behaviors.The following table sum marizes the salient contrasts.

•
to bureaucratic roles; Exclusive space and society according to purity (Torah), zone of aliena tion and self-justification; Sphere of unrepentance, conflict, death plotting; Tem ple system object of Jesus' critique; Solidary kin and fictive kin group ('brothers and sisters, children of G od' by faith and mercy); R ank according to traditional familial roles; Inclusive groups according to faith and mercy, zone o f integration and divine justification; Sphere of acceptance, repentance, concord, life; Dom estic relations object of Jesus's teaching and praise.• SYM BOLIC FE A T U R E S Perversion of G od's dwelling-place, sphere of Satan's activity; Chief public symbol of Jewish identity and purity; The dwelling-place o f the Spirit, sphere of G od's activity; C hief social symbol of the kingdom of G od and Christian holiness.6. T E M P L E , H O U S E H O L D A N D C O N T R A S T IN G S E T S O F S O C IA L R ELA TIO N S Thus far it has becom e clear th at in Luke-A cts T em ple and H ousehold symbolize different and opposed forms of social organization, identity and allegiance.Now it is ap p ro p riate to inquire as to the reason for this particular choice o f symbols.It goes w ithout saying, of course, th a t b o th th e T em ple and th e H ousehold played m ajor roles in th e actual history of Jesus and th e Jesus m ovem ent.N eith er are fictions o f L uke's narrative world.B ut w hat explains th eir p articu lar elaboration, accentuation and contrast in L uke's narrativ e? Why are T em ple and H ousehold poles aro u n d w hich Luke has w oven his story?H ow does L uke's depiction and contrast of Tem ple and H ousehold institutions resonate with the societal structures fam iliar to his audience?Why did L uke have reaso n to cxpect th a t a contrast of th e s e tw o in s titu tio n s a n d th e so cial re la tio n s th ey involve w ould strik e his h earers/read ers as plausible and persuasive?R ecent studies by H alvor Moxnes and Bruce M alina describe a useful social-scientific m odel for pursuing these questions.T he significance o f p articu lar institutions and groups in L uke-A cts and th e ir function in th e narrative, M oxnes (1987, 1988) notes, can b est be d eterm in ed by examining them in relation to the social relations typical of the society within which and for w hich Luke w rites.U nderlying the econom ic and social m odes o f in te r action and conflict described in Luke-Acts, he dem onstrates (following the work of M arshall Sahlins (1965, 1972) w ere bro ad er contrasting patterns o f relations based o n ancient system s o f e ith e r reciprocity or redistribution.As reciprocal (direct, p erso n -to -p erso n give-an d -tak e) form s o f in terac tio n w ere ch ara c teristic o f the H o u seh o ld and local village life in first century P alestin e, so ce n tra liz e d accu m u latio n o f ag ricu ltu ra l surp lu s and re d istrib u tio n w ere typical o f th e general Tem ple-based economy.

F
orm s o f so c ia l're la tio n s (including econom ic exchanges) in p re-in d u stria l societies, M alina notes, fall along a spectrum m arked by types o f reciprocity at one pole of the spectrum to types o f redistribution or centricity at the other.Reciprocal relations, involving personal, back-and-forth exchanges o f goods and services, are typical of sm all-scale societies, tribal organizations, village and household life.A t this level of direct, personal and local interaction, food, clothing, shelter, hospitality and o th e r basic necessities o f social life are eith er (a) shared freely according to generosity or need (generalized reciprocity), (b) exchanged sym m etrically according to th e in te re sts o f b o th p a rtie s {balanced reciprocity), o r (c) o b ta in e d w ith no concern for the o th er's self-interest {negative reciprocity).T h e types of reciprocity w ill vary according to p revailing social co nditions; th e proxim ity (p e rso n a l and geographical) of th e agents, and th e purpose, m ode, place and tim e o f the in te r actions.H o u seh o ld s, kin and fictive kin g roups regularly p ractice g en eralized reciprocity am ong them selves, evidencing th e closeness o f social b o nds and the concern for freely-given m utual support.B alanced and negative forms of exchange are typical w here social ties and trust betw een groups are w eaker and interactions are m ore infrequent.Form s o f redistribution, on the o th er hand, are typical o f large-scale societies w ith c e n tr a l s to re h o u s e e c o n o m ie s su ch as th e te m p le -b a s e d s o c ie tie s o f M esopotam ia, Egypt, P alestin e and R om e (C arney 1975:172-175).W hile these p o litical econom ies include recip ro cal form s o f exchange o n local levels, th eir differentiating feature is the pooling of goods and services in a central storehouse, g e n e ra lly lin k e d to a te m p le , a n d th e i r c e n tr a liz e d p o litic a l c o n tr o l a n d re d istrib u tio n by a po w erfu l elite o r tem p le h ierarch y .In th is form o f social o rg a n iz a tio n , b a se d o n th e p o litic a l r a th e r th a n th e k in sh ip in s titu tio n , th e m anagem ent of the en tire collectivity is of p aram o u n t concern and redistribution occurs according to the interests o f those in power.'C entricity with its pooling and re d is trib u tio n g e n e ra te s th e p e rc e p tio n o f so cial u n ity ...re p lic a te s th e social stru ctu re w ith its rank o rder, and presupposes cen tralized organ izatio n o f social o rd e r an d social actio n ' (M alina 1986:110).E conom ic an d social relatio n s are asym m etric and stratified according to norm s favoring the elites.In place o f the consensus and com m itm ent typical o f kinship-based reciprocal relations, submission and allegiance are m arshalled through a consolidation o f political, legal and military pow er, en fo rcem en t o f social stratifica tio n and b o u n d aries, an d con tro l o f the cultural (including religious) tradition (see Sack 1986:61, 68, 71 for diagram m atic sum m aries of reciprocity and redistribution patterns, and Scott 1977 for their rele vance to the issue of justice in particular).Contrasting features of these orderings of social and econom ic relations are sum m arized in the following table.
TA B LE 2 : C ON TRA STS IN R ED IST R IB U T IO N A N D R E C IPR O C IT Y R E D ISTR IB U T IO N G E N E R A L IZ E D R E C IP R O C IT Y of agricultural sur-Voluntary, back-and-forth sharing of plus, corvee, imposition of debts, taxes, 'gifts': food, shelter, clothing, tools, tithes, redistribution according to etc, giving w ithout expectation of interests of elites; im m ediate return; C entral store-house economy with tem ple depot; C entralized control o f production, distribution, consum ption of re sources and services; R edistribution of available surplus according to interests of power wielders; Economic and social im balance of 'haves/have-nots', elites and sub elites according to control of resources, m eans and relations of productionin times of Obligations o f reciprocity especially crisis (crop failure, plagues) re-stressed in crises involving persosulting in sub-subsistence conditions, nal survival, banditry and at times revolt; T his m odel sum m arizes and com pares differing form s o f social o rg an izatio n and in teractio n typical o f p re-in d u stria l societies including those o f Jesu s' and L uke's tim e.In particular it clarifies in general, abstract term s differences in the ways that sm all-scale, k inship b ased g ro u p s an d larg e-scale, n a tio n a l p o p u la tio n s w ith a centralized political base w ere socially organized to m anage the exchange o f goods and services and all forms of social interchange.F or our purposes the m odel is useful in th ree im p o rtan t ways.F irst, it provides a schem a for conceptualizing differing forms of social organization prevalent in the M editerranean world of the first century and known to Luke and his audience.This was a world rife with com peting systems o f re d istrib u tio n (P a le stin e , local m o n arch ies, R o m e) and recip ro city (fam ilies, villages, urban enclaves).Secondly, the contrasting featu res of red istrib u tio n and reciprocity arran g em e n ts w hich th e m odel m akes ev id en t p rovide categ o ries for organizing an d analyzing L u k e's d e scrip tio n and assessm en t o f econom ic-social conditions.This in turn will h elp clarify im plications o f the choice of T em ple and H ousehold as contrasting foci o f the Lucan narrative.Finally, the fit b etw een the social arrangem ents of Luke's world and the m aterial and accents of his composition will allow us then to assess th e plausibility and p ersuasive pow er o f L u k e's story concerning Tem ple and H ousehold for his contem porary audience.6 2 The model applied to Luke-Acts T he social arrangem ents typical of Luke's world echo in the m aterial and patterns of his two-volume work.W hen this m odel of contrasting forms o f social relations is used as a lens through which to analyze the social d ata o f Luke-Acts, it becom es apparent th at in his contrast o f Tem ple and H ousehold Luke is describing and evaluating two different types of social organization known to his audience.In the language o f our m odel, the one is a centralized, politically controlled redistributive system with the Je ru sa le m T e m p le as its c e n te r, an d th e o th e r, a m o v em en t o rg an ized aro u n d H ouseholds and kin/fictive kin relations which is united by bonds and obligations of generalized reciprocity.T he Je ru sa le m T em p le as the base o f first century P a le stin e 's re d istrib u tio n econom y and the destabilizing im pact o f the m anagem ent of this system in all areas of Palestinian life has been described by O akm an (1986:37-91) and others (H am ilton 1964; Brow n 1976; Fenelly 1978; H o u ta rt 1980:218-260; B elo 1981: 60-86; Fussel 1987:29-50).This system, controlled politically by an alliance o f large landholders (c h ie f p rie stly fa m ilie s, lay e ld e rs, H e ro d ia n s ) in c o lla b o ra tio n w ith R o m e 's colonialist policy, through an excessive burden o f tribute.Tem ple taxes and offerings, tith e s an d o th e r deb ts, was seriously a lterin g an cie n t lan d -h o ld in g p a tte rn s and ero d in g tra d itio n a l form s o f social relatio n s.A n ev er-increasing a m o u n t o f the p easant population, incapable of m eeting the enorm ous exactions im posed by R om e and th e Tem ple, was being forced to sell its lands and its family m em bers into debt slavery.Im poverishm ent of the masses, im prisonm ent, destitution and social unrest was on the rise.The gap betw een the landed 'haves' and the landless 'have nots' was growing, village p attern s o f cooperative lab o r and reciprocal social relatio n s w ere being destroyed, and the p o o r and the pow erless, once p ro tec ted by th e norm s o f T orah, w ere now the objects o f exploitation and abandonm ent.F rom L uk e's perspective, as we have seen above, this was a system w hich had grown morally bankrupt.The Tem ple, once a holy house o f prayer had becom e a den of thieves (Lk 19:46).The guardians o f Tem ple law, purity and power, preoccupied w ith status and class differentiation (L k 11:43, 54; 15:2; 16:15; 18:11), had im posed heavy burdens (Lk 11:46), ignored the needy (Lk 10:29-37), neglected justice and the love o f G o d (L k 11:42), w ere full o f e x to rtio n an d w ick ed n ess (L k 11:39) and devoured widow's houses (Lk 20:47).T heir interpretation of T orah and the cultural tradition was oppressive and self-serving (Lk contrast to this b ankrupt system of the Tem ple, on the o th er hand, according to Luke, was an organization of communal life m arked by the reciprocities of kinship, frie n d sh ip and d o m estic re la tio n s.A s o u r m o d el m ak es clea r, th e fe a tu re s of d o m estic life w hich L u k e has ac c en ted a re re la tio n s ch a ra c te riz e d by form s o f generalized reciprocity.W ithin the Christian netw ork of Households and the community of 'brothers and sisters in the faith ', social relatio n s w ere in tim ate, inclusive an d governed by the reciprocity characteristic o f family and friends.In this private sphere, social (inclu ding religious) life was self-contained and econom ically self-supporting.R esources w ere not directed under compulsion to a distant center and redistributed according to the interests of those in power, but w ere shared directly according to availability and need(11)(12)(13) 12:33;(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32) 18:22;  19:1-10; A c 2:44-47; 5:32-37; 6:1-6).N o holy place o r hierarchy se t stan d ard s fo r social d ifferen tiatio n because in the brotherhood of the fáithful all was holy (Lk 11:4-41; Ac 10-11:18; 15:9); all persons w ere equally servants (Lk 17:7-10; 22:24-27).H um ility (L k 14:7-11; 18:14) ra th e r than elitism, inclusivity (Lk 14:12-24; Ac 10:1-11:18) rath er than exclusivity, consensus (Ac 2:42; 4:32) rath er than constraint, personal com m itm ent(A c 3:11-16, 4:8-12, 5:23- 31) rath er than abstract allegiance was the rule here, as typical of reciprocal relations.T he private space of house and hom e was the scene w here hospitality, generosity, friendship, deeds of mercy, acts o f m utual aid and comfort, fam ilial love and fraternal support, uruneasured and unlim ited, w elded bonds of intim acy and solidarity.H ere the honorable person was the generous one who had given all away (and so was w eal thy beyond m easure in social prestige and honor before G od; o f Luke 12:33-34; 18:22; 21:1-4).H ere in relations m arked by reciprocity, giving (Lk 14:12-24) and forgiving 11:4;  15:1-32; 19:1-10) w ere never once-for-all b u t on-going activities which bound partners in an open-ended and continuous relationship.These contrasts in the structures, norm s and values associated with redistributive o r reciprocal forms of social relations represented by T em ple and H ousehold m ake clear how and why the H ousehold ra th er than the T em ple served Luke as the most apposite image for concretising the good news o f the kingdom and the social features o f a C hristian com m unity faithful to a G od o f m ercy and justice.T h e ethos o f the kingdom , according to Luke, is shaped by the logic o f generalized reciprocity typical o f the H ousehold and the bonds and obligations o f kin and Active kinship.G iven the economic and social cleavages within the missionary com m unities addressed in Luke-A cts (K arris 1979; E sler 1987:164-200), it was precisely this ethos o f sharing which was essential for the continued viability, solidarity and growth of th e fledgling move ment.
. T his benev o len ce (m ercy / alm s) is in te n d e d especially fo r 'th e p o o r, th e m aim ed, th e lam e, th e b lin d ' (Lk 14:13), those lost and lowly o n es (L k 19:10), social d eviants and eth n ic o utsiders (Sam aritians, G en tiles) to whom the gospel of Jesus was particularly d irected (Lk This benevolence, exem plified by th e centurion at C ap h am au m (Lk 7:1-10), the g o o d S a m a rita n (1 0:2 9 -3 7 ), Z a c c h a e u s (19 :1 -1 0 ), B a rn a b a s (A c 4:36-37) an d C o rn eliu s (A c 10:2), typifies th e m utual sharing o f th e C h ristia n com m unity in general(A c 2:43-47; 4:32-37)  as it em bodies the generosity of its divine B enefactor(D an k er 1987, 1988)  and thereby establishes its ho n o r in a benefaction-conscious society(D anker 1982).G iving w ithout expectation o f retu rn , hospitality an d the sharing o f food and shelter, care for the ill, generous support of those in need, forgiveness of debts and redem ption of those in debt are all actions characteristic o f kin groups and the ethos o f the H ousehold.In Luke-Acts this p attern of dom estic relations and the intimacy and solidarity it presum es, serves as the decisive m odel for the identity and ethos of the C hristian comm unity as a whole.This form of community organized around the roles, relationships and responsibilities of the H ousehold stands in stark contrast to the exploitative system of the Tem ple and em bodies an altern ate vision of salvation based not on cultic purity b u t on th e gift o f divine m ercy and its im itation in the family of faith.L uke's portrait of Tem ple and H ousehold is just that: a po rtrait whose highlights and hues are conform ed to th e a rtist-au th o r's perspective and the contours of his w ork as a whole.This portrait, however, will have b een plausible and persuasive to his contem porary audience because it presum ed and conform ed with facts o f social and econom ic life known from personal experience.T hough by the tim e o f L uke's writing the Jerusalem Tem ple lay in ruins for decades or m ore, his audience was well acquainted with the opposing types of social organization rep resen ted by a T em ple state on the one hand and a netw ork of H ouseholds on the other.This audience could hardly miss the im plications of L uke's pointed contrast betw een a Holy Place w hich had becom e an exploitative den o f thieves and a w idespread com m unity of bro th ers and sisters w ho in faith and deeds of loving kindness shared all things in common.7. C ON CLU SIO N T em ple and H ousehold and the contrasting realities w hich they em body assum e a fundam ental significance in Luke-A cts, both structurally and them atically.A s the T e m p le fram es an d p ro v id es th e c e n tra l focus fo r th e first se g m en t o f L u k e 's narrative, the H ousehold fram es and m arks the chief focus of the second p a rt o f the narrative.In the structure o f Luke-Acts, this shift in focus em braces and replicates a m ajor plot device pervading the entire narrative.A t the sam e tim e, this transition in venue and focus from Tem ple to H ousehold charts for Luke the actual historical and geographical m ovem ent of the gospel from its inception in the Holy Land, the Holy City and the Holy Place to its dissemination through the H ouseholds of the Diaspora, 'from Jerusalem , Jud aea and Sam aria to the end of the earth ' (Ac 1:8).T h em aticaly , T em p le an d H o u se h o ld a re likew ise lin k ed w ith b asic Lucan em phases and contrasts.The social and economic system centered in Tem ple, Torah and purity w here ju st redistribution had failed served L uke as a negative foil with which to com pare the social and economic relations of the H ousehold as the aren a of justice, mercy and K oivui'ia and sphere of the Spirit's presence.O ver against a system dom inated by a central holy place, an exclusivist holiness ideology, a hierarchically stratified social o rd e r and exploitative econom ic in terests, a system in cap a b le of m ediating th e inclusive salvation envisioned by the p ro p h ets, L uke c o n trasts the d om estic associations o f the m ovem ent in itia te d by Jesus.H e re th e gospel o f a universal salvation is socially em bodied in a com m unity o f 'b ro th e rs and sisters' w here repentance, faith, forgiveness, generosity, mercy and justice, fam ilial loyalty and friendship unite the faithful with a G od of mercy and a Servant-Lord.H ousehold scenarios and dom estic im agery serve the unfolding of distinctively Lucan christological, soteriological and ecclesiological them es: Jesus C hrist as exalted Servant and B enefactor; salvation for the lost and the lowly, w om en and outcasts, G entiles and sinners; repentance and forgiveness; almsgiving and mercy; hospitality and table-fellowship.The Household, in fact, functions as L uke's prim e m etaphor for depicting social life in the kingdom of God.T he them es of prom ise and fulfillm ent and Christianity's continuity with Israel likew ise a re linked w ith T em p le an d H o usehold.F o r L uke th e h ope o f Isra el's salvation, initially linked with the Tem ple, is finally realized in the reciprocities of the o k o g .The role of the Tem ple has been superceded and there is no reason for regret over its destruction.His critique, however, is specific, not general.It is directed not against the Jews £is a people but against a bankrupt political system o f Tem ple-Torahpu rity in p a rtic u la r.In his econom y o f salv atio n , th e new H o u seh o ld o f Jesus M essiah, not the T em p le, co n stitu tes th e continuing dw elling place o f th e Spirit, C hristianity's enduring bond with the house of A braham in w hose posterity 'all the families of the earth will be blessed'.T he co n trast and developing conflict o f T em p le-b ased and H ou seh o ld -b ased com m unities also epitom izes historically, geographically, socially and ideologically L u k e's view o f the cleavage betw een th e w orlds and alleg ian ces o f Ju d aism and Christianity.It is the latter, he m aintains, which alone constitutes the fulfillm ent of the prophetic hopes and the divine prom ise o f a universal salvation offered by a G od of mercy who in Jesus Christ has made all things clean and all persons children of one universal family.R eturning to w here we began, we can conclude that the 'dom inant contradiction' betw een a lien ated and hum an space w hich M ottu saw expressed in th e T e m p le / o k o q contrast of Luke 18:9-14 is p art of a larger Lucan pattern in which the Tem ple and the H ousehold point to contradictory definitions o f social and religious life.O ur com parative m odel o f social relatio n s has en ab led us to see th at this contradiction involves not simply differing locales bu t differing structures of econom ic and social o rg an izatio n , o pposin g form s o f social re la tio n s, a lte rn a tiv e sets o f v alu es and loyalties, and contrasting symbols of social and religious identity.By identifying the sa lie n t a re a s o f c o n tra s t b e tw e e n th e se tw o d o m in a n t in s titu tio n s, th e m o d el explicates features of T em ple and H ousehold which are presum ed but implicit in the predom inantly theological narrative o f Luke-Acts.In L u k e's pred o m in an tly theological vocabulary, th e T em p le w as a house of prayer and hope perverted into a den of thieves, the dom inant symbol o f a holiness ethic opposed to the inclusive holiness of G od.The H ousehold, in turn, was the zone o f the Spirit and the hom e o f the children o f G od, the prim e m etaphor of life in the kingdom .T ran slated into social term s, the T em ple, its auth o rities, its law, and its c o n tro llin g pu rity ideology re p re se n te d , fro m L u k e 's persp ectiv e, an exclusivist, exploitative, and alienating system incapable of providing access to or symbolizing the u ltim ate sources of p e rso n al and com m unal sustenance.It opposed b u t failed to co ntain a reform ing m ovem ent seeking justice and su pport for th e pow erless and in te n t on ex ten d in g th e b o u n d a rie s o f Is ra e l to in clu d e all se ek in g a p la c e of belonging, acceptance, and succour.This movement, shaped in its ethos and ethic by th e re c ip ro c itie s o f k in sh ip and frie n d sh ip , a n d u n ite d by a sen se o f com m on b ro th erh o o d /sisterh o o d u n d er one divine F ather, freed itself from the restraints of Tem ple purify, allegiance, and national boundaries as it em braced 'all the fam ilies of the earth' in its worldwide mission.Works cited B achm ann, M 1980.Jerusalem u n d der Tem pel.D ie geographisch-theologischen E lem ente in der lukanischen Sicht des jiidischen Kultzentrums.S tuttgart: Kohlham m er.{B W A N T m .) B altzer, K 1965.T he m eaning o f the T em ple in the Lukan writings.H T hR 58, 263-277.Belo, F 1981.A materialist reading o f the Gospel o f Mark.Maryknoll: Orbis.Borg, M J 1984.Conflict, holiness and politics in the teaching o f Jesus.Lewisten: The Edwin M ellen Press.(Studies in the Bible and early Christianity 5.) Carney, T F 1975.The shape o f the past: Models and antiquity.Lawrence: Coronado.C asalengo, A 1984.G esu e il tem pio: Stu d io redazionale d i L u ca -A tti.B rescia: M orcelliana.