Cellars , wages and gardens : Luke ’ s accommodation for middle-class Christians

The Gospel of Luke has been described as having ‘more m aterial from the tradition on the question of justice for the poor and dow ntrodden than any o ther evangelist,’ Y et Luke also addresses the situation of the rich and powerful, and not always in a critical fashion. So there is an ambiguity within the gospel, which has not recei­ ved sufficient attention from the scholarly world. Using redaction criticism, 1 intend to show that the presen ta­ tion of Jesus in Luke is no closer to the socio-political situation of Jesus’ tim e than that in M atthew o r Mark. Indeed , the purpose o f the gospel may be to explain how a message of significance to wealthy Rom ans came to arise in such unlikely circum stances as rural Pales­ tine. L INTRODUCTION T he G ospel of Luke opens with an augu.st address to ‘m ost excellent T heophilus’. The appellation leads one to believe that the addressee is a m em ber of the ruling elite (see fu rther Fitzm yer 1981:300; R obbins 1991:320-323). Certainly, there is nothing in the opening sentences to suggest a concern for the marginalized members of society, the poor, the women and the despised Samaritans. Yet the gospel is said ISSN 0259 9422 / m ■ «// <t 2 (1993) 85 Cellars, wages and gardens to resound with sentim ents of concern for these very groups. Kenneth Bailey (1980: 59) writes: The question of justice for those who cry out seeking it is an im portant concern of many bibh'cal w riters from Amos onward. Luke himself has more material from the tradition on the question of justice for the poor and downtrodden than any other evangelist. Early in Luke Mary expresses joy at the exaltation of those of low degree (Luke 1:52). A num ber of the parables offer hope for the rich (cf The G reat Banquet; Lazarus and the Rich Man). Luke 4:17, along with many o ther refe­ rences, may be cited. The purpose of this article is to question the claim by Bailey (1980:59) that Luke has ‘more material from the tradition on the question of justice for the poor and down­ trodden than any o ther evangelist’. By means of a redaction critical study, I will attem pt to show that Luke’s concern for the poor and oppressed is no greater than that found in the other gospels. Furtherm ore, what concern he shows is offset by his ideological commitment to Roman rule and government. 2. T H E TRA D ITIO N A L VIEW O F LUKE Lucan scholarship has tended to accept one of two scenarios. O n the one hand, scholars like Bailey (1980) and Cassidy (1978) present Luke as ‘the gospel for the poor’, while M atthew is perceived to be ‘urban, well-to-do, educated, and...anticharismatic’ (Smith 1983:451). One the other hand, a minority of scholars (Karris 1978 and most recently R obbins 1991) have argued tha t that Luke’s presen tation has been adapted, either as an apology for Christianity or as a gift for a wealthy patron. Richard Cassidy (1978, 1987) has devoted a considerable am ount of his writing to the social and political concerns of Luke in the gospel and in the Acts o f the Apostles. He presents a reasonably balanced depiction of Luke in that he speaks both of Luke’s concern for the poor and his concern for the rich (Cassidy 1978:24). Indeed, Jesus frequently passes critical comm ent upon the m aterial desires of the latter (Cassidy 1978:24-33). Thus Cassidy recognises the basic tension which exists within the gospel, with regard to the rich and poor. This tension may indicate that Luke’s own social interests are at odds with some of the m aterial which he has in­ herited from the tradition (so M ealand 1981:16-20). 86 HTS 49 /1 A 2 (1993)


L INTRODUCTION
T h e G ospel of Luke op en s with an augu.staddress to 'm ost excellent T h eo p h ilu s'.
T he ap pellation leads one to believe th at the ad dressee is a m em ber of the ruling elite (see fu rth e r F itzm yer 1981:300; R o b b in s 1991:320-323).C ertainly, th e re is nothing in the opening sentences to suggest a concern for the m arginalized m em bers of society, the poor, the women and the despised Sam aritans.Yet the gospel is said ISSN 0259 9422 -/ m ■ « // <t 2 (1993) to resound with sentim ents o f concern for these very groups.K enneth Bailey (1980: 59) writes: The question of justice for those who cry out seeking it is an im portant concern of many bibh'cal w riters from A m os onw ard.Luke him self has m ore m aterial from the tradition on the question of justice for the poor and dow ntrodden than any other evangelist.Early in Luke Mary expresses joy at the exaltation o f those of low degree (Luke 1:52).A num ber of the parables offer hope for the rich (cf The G reat B anquet; L azarus and the Rich M an).Luke 4:17, along with many o th er refe rences, may be cited.
The purpose of this article is to question the claim by Bailey (1980:59) that Luke has 'm ore m aterial from the tradition on the question of justice for the poor and down tro d d en than any o th e r evangelist'.By m eans of a red actio n critical study, I will attem p t to show that L uke's concern for the poor and oppressed is no g reater than that found in the other gospels.Furtherm ore, what concern he shows is offset by his ideological com m itm ent to R om an rule and governm ent.

T H E T R A D IT IO N A L V IEW O F LU K E
Lucan scholarship has ten d ed to accept one o f two scenarios.O n the one hand, scholars like Bailey (1980) and Cassidy (1978) present Luke as 'the gospel for the p o o r', while M atthew is perceived to be 'urban, well-to-do, educated, and...anticharism atic' (Smith 1983:451).O ne the oth er hand, a minority of scholars (K arris 1978 and m ost recently R ob b in s 1991) have argued th a t th at L uke's p rese n ta tio n has been adapted, either as an apology for Christianity or as a gift for a w ealthy patron.R ichard Cassidy (1978Cassidy ( , 1987) ) has devoted a considerable am ount of his writing to the social and political co n cern s of Luke in the gospel and in the A cts o f the A postles.H e presents a reasonably balanced depiction o f Luke in th at he speaks both of L uke's concern for the poor and his concern for the rich (Cassidy 1978:24).Indeed, Jesus frequently passes critical com m ent upon the m aterial desires o f the latter (Cassidy 1978:24-33).T hus Cassidy recognises the basic tension which exists within the gospel, with regard to the rich and poor.This tension may indicate that L uke's own social interests are at odds with som e of the m aterial which he has in herited from the tradition (so M ealand 1981:16-20).

86
HTS 4 9 /1 A 2 (1993) 2.1 T he p<K)r Cassidy divides his consideration o f the social stance o f Jesus, according to Luke, into a num ber of subsections, beginning with Jesus' concern for the poor.
* Mary sings in prai.se of a G od, who has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who w ere hum ble (lit oppressed).H e has filled the hun gry with good things and sent away the rich em pty-handed (Lk l:52f T here is no doubt that the tradition that Luke has inherited voices a concern for the poor but as we move through the chapters of Acts, the p o o r and oppressed d isap p e a r (C assidy 1987:21-38).Cassidy (1987:24) notes with som e surprise th a t the word nTtoxó<; does not ap p ear once in Acts, although it was used nine tim es in the gospel.

The two horizons of l^ke
T he trad itio n in h erited by Luke certainly dep icted Jesu s' concern w ith th e poor, w om en and probably the gentiles.But L uke's use of this tradition is ambigious, as we have already seen.We sense that th ere are two worlds coming to g eth er in the gospel.First th ere is the w orld of G alilee, and the peasan ts w ho follow ed Jesus.
But beyond th at w orld, we en co u n ter the shadow of an o th e r w orld w here L uke's own social in terests intrude upon th e gospel.A w orld in which oppression is no threat, w here hunger is an unlikely possibility and in which liomes with gardens, cel lars, banquets and guest lists are com m on.W ealth is an asset to the gospel, rath er than an hindrance, and concern for the poor is expressed in m onetary term s, rath er than in countering oppression.W e shall now attem p t to sketch som ething of the textual basis for our understanding of this 'hidden' world of Luke.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LUKE'S SOCIAL CONCERN
T o w hat extent is L uke's p resen tatio n of Jesus a faithful rendition o f his sources?
T his is a question posed by Cassidy (1978:86) at the conclusion of his book, and this will dom inate our own study of the gospel.

Jesus' historical enemies
M atthew not only preserves M ark's referen ces to the Sadducees and P harisees as the enem ies of Jesus (e g Mt 22:23 following Mk 12:18) but he also refers to these sam e groups when he uses his own m aterial (M t 16:1-12).In Luke, th e antagonism is not as obvious, until ju st before the trial o f Jesus (Lk 20:27).So Luke has 'the m ultitudes' (Lk 3:7; cf Mt 3:7) or 'a certain lawyer' (Lk 10:25) or 'lawyers' (i/o|j.ucot; cf Lk 11:45-52) and the sense o f conflict betw een Jesus and the Jewish leaders, spe cifically the Pharisees and Sadducees, is less than that found in M atthew and Mark.
T he following exam ples illustrate som ething of the trends found in the two gospels.

T he brood of vipers
In

T he trial o f Jesus
The prophecy concerning the death of the Son o f Man in M atthew and M ark reads 'the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will con dem n him to death, and deliver him to the gentiles...' (M t 20:18b, 19a; Mk 10:33b).
Luke leaves out the reference to the Jewish leaders and has only, 'he will be d eli vered to the gentiles' (Lk 18:32a  seen to be the one concerned with literal poverty, while M atthew has apparently spi ritualized the w ords o f Jesus (E sler 1987:168;Cassidy 1978:23).However, my own studies (D om eris 1987, 1990) do not b ear this out.fects.Thus, to be p o o r in spirit in a culture of honour and sham e, is to be stripped of honour and so to be a person sham ed.
Cellars, wages and gardens 3 3 .2M eek o r poor?
In the sam e series of blessings (M t 5:5), M atthew quotes Jesus as saying 'Blessed are th e m eek, for they shall inh erit the e a rth '.T his is a q u o tatio n from Psalm 37:11.join together in the unique Lucan m aterial, which leans evidently towards the social setting of his audience.
Luke even details the duties of a servant (Lk 17:7-10) as working all day in the fields, preparing a m eal and serving h is/h e r m aster, before partaking of a meal him / herself.All this w ithout even a 'thank you'.T hen later to his audience, he says 'Be on your guard, that your hearts may not be w eighted down with dissipation [icpai-notXri] and drunkenness and the worries of life' (Lk 21:34).This sounds m ore like a scene from a R om an comedy than the words o f the G alilean Jesus.O ne could im a gine speaking to a peasant about a W eight-watchers diet.
draws atten tio n to the extension of Jesus' ministry into the dom ain of the Sam aritans) and the gentiles (Lk 7:1-10; 8:26-33).W hat is interesting is the fact th at Luke leaves out the story of Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman (M k 7:24-30; see Cassidy 1978:142f n l7 ).Fitzm yer(1981:   190)  underm ines Cassidy's point when he argues th at th ere is nevertheless 'no fullfledged mission of Jesus into gentile territory as in M ark or M atthew '.D id such a mission com plicate L uke's presentation or was it simply missing from his version of M ark?Very little of M ark chapters six and seven occur in Luke, so the latter may be the correct answer, but otherwise the silence is ominous.24) also refers to L uke's em phasis on the role o f women in the minis try of Jesus.F rom the birth narratives to the m ention o f the w ealthy w om en who support Jesu s' m ission (L k 8:3), Luke lays the basis for the role th at w om en like Priscilla (A c 18) and Lydia (Ac 16), will play in the growth of the church.
u lar b elief has it th at M atthew has soften ed th e concern o f Jesus fo r the poor and oppressed, and so m ade his gospel m ore acceptable to m iddle class Chris tians.In particular, his rendering of the blessing of Jesus on the po o r as 'Blessed are the poor in spirit' (M t 5:3), has encouraged this view.In com parison with Luke's ra th er blunt 'B lessed are the p o o r' (Lk 6:20), follow ed by 'W oe to you w ho are rich' (Lk 6:24), M atthew ap p ears to be caterin g for an au d ien ce o th e r th an the literal poor.Indeed R o b ert Smith (1983:447) describes M atthew 's comm unity as 'affluent C hristian Jews who probably belonged to upper-class society'.My own w ork on M atthew (D om eris 1987) and his p o rtray al of Jesu s' social concern, has led m e to a very different position.Indeed, I think th ere is evidence to show that the Jesus o f M atthew 's G ospel is as concerned for the m arginalized peo ple of his time as the Jesus of L uke's G ospel.M oreover, I have found th at on seve ral occasions M atthew ren d ers th e social, political and econom ic im plications o f Je s u s' teaching m ore clearly than does Luke.F o r this reaso n I have decided to focus on the differences betw een M atthew and Luke, using M ark and the G ospel of T hom as as reference points along the way.W e com m ence with a study of the en e mies of Jesus as depicted by M atthew and Luke.
M atthew 3:7 Pharisees and Scribes com e to John the Baptist to be baptized and are m et with a stinging rebuke: 'You brood of vipers!'In contrast, Luke has the im personal 'm ultitudes' coming to be m et wjth the sam e rebuke.W hich is the original O reading?M arshall (1978:139) argues in favour o f the Lucan version, on the basis of the general nature of the verses that follow (Lk 3:10-14).Fitzm yer (1981:467) begins by suggesting th at it is alm ost im possible to decide betw een the two versions, but on the basis o f the form o f address 'brood o f vipers' it ISSN 0259 94222 is 'easier to see the M atthean audience as the m ore original'.Certainly such a pole mic, if rem oved from the oppressive structures o f the Sanhedrin and the tem ple hie rarchy (see Pixley 1983:381-382), hardly m akes sense.T he ju d g em en t u ttered by Jo h n the B aptist (M t 3:10; Lie 3:9) is surely against the Jewish leaders and not the people as a w hole.Presum ably the day o f w rath (M t 3:7) is the destruction of the tem ple in 70 A D. The im agery of fire is drawn from M alachi 4:1, which was direc ted in part against the priesthood of Jerusalem (cfMl 3:1-4).L uke's use o f the singular 6 \ \ o q (crowd or m ultitude) and the plural óxX.oi is 'baffling'(Fitzm yer 1981:467), because there appears to be no logic in his use or dis use of the term .Most often, however, it designates simply 'the anonym ous audience that witnesses the ministry of both John and Jesus...the Lucan use of the word suits his general stress on the popular, universal reaction to the ministry of both John and Je su s' (F itzm yer 1981:467).In Luke 12:56, the crowds are accused of hypocricy, while in the M atthean parallel, it is the Pharisees and Sadducees th at come to test Jesus who are rebuked (M t 16:1-4).The two versions are not verbally so close that one may conclude that the sam e source was in use (Fitzm yer 1985:999), but the ten dency of the two evangelists is still noticeable.3.1.2The woesM atthew devotes a considerable section (M t 23) to a scathing attack on the Scribes and Pharisees.The m aterial obviously comes from 0 (Fitzm yer 1985:943), for Luke has p arallels to five of the seven woes.B ut when we exam ine the c o n ten t of the Lucan woes, we find that they are all much shorter than the M atthean parallels (Lk 11:37-52; cf Mt 23:1-39).Luke divides his attack betw een the Pharisees (M t 23:37-44) and the lawyers (M t 23:45-52), with three woes addressed to each.This 2x3 p a t tern should be ascribed to L uke's redaction(Fitzm yer 1985:943).W hat is particu larly striking is the Lucan setting found in Luke 11:37.Jesus is invited by a Pharisee to share a m eal, and the controversy arises out of Jesus's failure to wash before the meal.M arshall (1978:491) argues th at this is the original O setting and th at M at thew has used a M arcan setting (M k 12:38-40).Fitzm yer (1985:944), on the o th er hand, thinks it unlikely that Jesus would have attacked his host on the occasion of a dinner.T he differences betw een M atthew and Luke, and the contrasting interpretations of scholars like M arshall and Fitzmyer, indicate the extrem e difficulty o f using the O source as a guide to the Lucan redaction.H ow ever certain trends have em erged.All in all, Luke does not pay much atten tio n to the friction betw een Jesus and the leaders of his time.M atthew , on the oth er hand, is much m ore specific than either Luke or M ark abo ut the intrigues of the Scribes, Sadducees, and P harisees.This does not, on its own, m ean th a t M at thew 's version is m ore authentic.Indeed the focus on the Pharisees, found also in Jo h n 's gospel, may reflect the situation at the end o f the first century, w hen P hari saism was dom inant(Pixley 1983:391).W e should first exam ine th e trial of Jesus before we move tow ards any conclusion.
In L uke they connive to 'd eliver him up to th e au th o rity and ju risd ictio n o f the governor'(Lk 20:20b).W here M atthew and M ark describe the d esperate attem pts of the S anhedrin to find false evidence against Jesus (M t 26:59-68; Mk 14:55-65), Luke passes over the whole incident in silence.Luke even rem oves the verdict of the Sanhedrin, recorded by both M ark and M atthew, namely that Jesus is deserving o f d e a th(M k 14:64; Mt 26:66).In effect, Luke has changed a Jew ish trial into nothing m ore than a hearing, a prelude to the R om an trial.Finally, for the blin d folding and m ockery o f Jesus (which Mk 14:65 and Mt 26:67f blam e on the Sanhe drin), Luke 22:63-65 blam es the guards who hold him, before he enters the Sanhe drin.3.2.2Jesus before Pilate and H erod Luke introduces a series of political accusations on the p art of w hat he calls the council of elders (Lk 23:2), which forms a prelude to Jesus' trial before Pilate.The rest of the chapter contains the twin trials before H erod and Pilate, culm inating in accord betw een the two men (Lk 23:12) and the double verdict of not guilty (Lk 23: ISSN0259<)422 -14-15).Pilate's w ord carries the full weight of the R om an legal system -Jesus is not guilty!TTie w onder o f Pilate recorded in the o th er gospels (M t 27:14; Mk 15:5), falls far short of L uke's em phatic pronouncem ent of Jesus' innocence (L k 23:14).Later P au l's trial will follow a sim ilar path (W alaskay 1983:50-63), in spite o f th e strong lik elih o o d th a t Paul did defy th e Jew ish law on g e n tile s in th e sac red tem p ceed s to describ e how no less th a n th ree tim es Pilate attem p ts to have Jesus released (Lk 23:16, 20,22).T he read er is left in no doubt as to the mind o f Pi late.Still, the voice of the anonymous crowd prevails (Lk 23:23).So in the end, the responsibility for the d eath of Jesu s descends upon a faceless m ob or possibly (in our opinion less likely) the Jewish leaders carry the full blam e (so W alaskay 1983: 44; Cassidy 1978:70f).Both M atthew and M ark attribute the anger o f the crowd to the w ork of the Jewish lead ers (M t 27:20; Mk 15:11), but Luke is silent about the crowd's m otivation.This is consistent with Luke's attem p t to rem ove all pow er and auth ority from the Jew ish lead ers and to p resen t a picture of the wise, m ediating authority of the R om an governor (cf Luke 20:20 -'the rule and authority of the go vern o r').A sim ilar p attern is discernible throughout the book o f Acts.The reader is left with a sense o f the irrational attem pts of certain Jews to cause trouble, which is m et by the responsible efforts of the Rom ans: '...to put up with you; but if there are questions about w ords and nam es and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge o f these m atters' (Lk 23:14).L uke's exonerates Pilate, even to the extent of having H ero d 's soldiers dress up Jesu s (Lk 23:11), ra th e r th an P ila te 's m en (M t 27:27-31).H e leaves us with the sense th at Jesus is tried fairly but to no avail.U ltim ately, as so often in Acts (e g with the death of Stephen and the attem pt on Paul's life at E phesus -Ac 7, 19), the lynch law prevails.This stands in sharp contrast to the carefully planned and execut ed work of the Jewish leaders revealed in the accounts in M atthew and Mark.T he Jewish leaders em erge in Luke as a group of people who have an irrational h a tre d for Jesu s, b u t a re largely pow erless to do an ything a b o u t it.P ilate and H erod, on the o th er hand, who have real pow er p refer not to abuse it.T he blam e for Jesus' death is borne by an anonymous crowd.Finally, it is left to a R om an sol d ier to confirm the innocence of Jesus (Lk 23:47).which com es out of this study o f the trial o f Jesus, is that the real political focus in Luke is in support o f the R om ans rath er th an the Jewish authori ties.In spite o f Cassidy's argum ents to the contrary (1978:77-86), Jesus is not p or trayed as a th reat to the Romans.R ath er Jesus and his followers (in Ac) are consis tently exonerated of any blam e for the trouble which dogs their path, by no less than a progression of em inent Romans.L uke's in terest in R om an judicial p ro ced u re, evidenced in the G ospel and in Acts and his projection of the fairness o f th at system, is striking.Indeed one might justly question w h eth er law and not m edicine was the occupation of the evangelist.This would account at least partly for the em phases of his writings.His lack o f inte rest in the details of the Jewish system, reveals m ore than the concerns o f a gentile audience.It shows a lack of appreciation for the socio-political focus of Jesus' mis sion, and an underm ining of pow er o f the Jewish authorities.W e are left w ithout a sense of the exploitation of the tem ple hierarchy and therefore o f the real enem ies of Jesus.T he silence is eloquent!3 3 Rich and poor W hat then of L u k e's ap p a re n t concern with poverty and w ealth?Luke's seem ing concern for the poo r is well docum ented (e g K arris 1978; E sler 1987:164-200), as also his criticism of the rich.We have already m ade reference to Luke's version of the beatitude, 'Blessed are the p o o r' (Lk 6:20) which is then contrasted with M att hew 's 'B lessed are the po o r in sp irit' (Lk 5:3 -e g Smith 1983:450).Luke is thus 3 3.1 P oor in spirit or oppressed in spirit A study of the H ebrew O ld T e stam en t's use of the term spirit o n in a construct form with various adjectives (e g 1 Sm 1:15 'pained in spirit') shows that invariably it implies a negative sense of anxiety or crisis or conflict (D om eris 1987:57-61).W hat M atthew 5:3 intend s is not the spiritu alizatio n o f poverty, but the dehum anizing effects of poverty, the loss o f self esteem , the lack o f self worth.M atthew has th ere fore extended the sense of poverty to include those people who have been stripped both of their m aterial wealth and o f their sense of dignity.He thus shows his a p p re ciation not only of the physical effects of oppression, but also o f the psychological ef ISSN 0259 9422 = HTS 49/1 <t 2 (1993)

L
iterally the verse says 'T he po o r and the context describes the oppression o f the p o o r at the h and o f the rich.T he p eo p le at Q u m ran ap p lied the sam e verse to them selves, as descriptive of th eir own sense o f oppression (4Q Ps 37:9-11).The prom ise in M atthew 5:5, if we follow ed the H ebrew text, w ould be th a t the very p eo p le w ho a re p o o r and o p p ressed will in h e rit not the e a rth (w hich w ould be D^lvi]) but or the land of Israel.The G reek used by M atthew follows the LXX and uses n p a e tq which can m ean e ith e r 'm eek' o r 'those m ade m eek ' (L iddell & Scott 1940:1459), and which carries over from the H ebrew the sense o f 'those o p pressed or poor'.Also in line with the LXX, M atthew uses not Koanoq, as the E ng lish w ould lead one to b elieve, bu t yfi for land.So the o p p ressed , and not the w ealthy Sadducees, will be heirs of the land of Israel, in the tim e of G o d 's jubilee! 3 3 .3H ungry for righteousness o r for justice?M atthew describes people hungry and thirsty for the sake of righteousness (M t 5:6).Luke, in contrast, speaks simply of the hungry.Surely here M atthew has undercut the direct econom ic im plications of the words of Jesus?I think that one has to live w ithin sight and sound o f o p pressio n to u n d e rstan d M atth ew 's a m p lificatio n of Jesus' words.It is only when one encounters people who in their search for freedom from o p p ression, hunger and th irst for ju stice, that one realizes the w ord 'rig h t eousness' is totally inadequate as a m eans to render the power of the G reek SÍKoioq.T he burning desire of the starving people is for justice!Indeed justice is the usual rendering of 5iicaioaúi/ri(Liddell & Scott 1940:429).So here and elsew here M at thew shows him self to be in touch with the reality o f the Palestinian situation and the harsh reality of R om an oppression (see D om eris 1990:71-73).3 3 .4Luke spiritualizes the word o f Jesus T he notion th at M atthew spiritualizes the words of Jesus, while Luke renders the literal w ords of his sources, is not borne out by a thoroughgoing com parison of the two gospels.T h ere are occasions when Luke has the m ore difficult version of Q, 94 UTS 49/1 & 2 (1993) such as in his ren d e rin g of Je su s' w ords on h ating o n e 's fam ily (Lk 14:26; cf Mt 10:37; for o th er examples, see E sier 1987:165-169).B ut there are several instances o f the reverse.F or example, w here M atthew has, 'I have not com e to bring peace but a sword' (M t 10:34) Luke has '1 have come to bring dissension' (M t 12:51).In the l-ord's prayer, M atthew 7:11 speaks in econom ic term s of the forgiveness of debts (M t 6:12), which Luke renders as 'forgive us our sins' (M t 11:4).L ater M at thew speaks o f G o d giving us 'good things', and Luke o f giving 'th e H oly S pirit' (11:13).In such examples, the econom ic and m aterial dim ension in Luke falls away, to be replaced by a spiritual interpretation of Jesus' words.3.3.5 loike plays down conflict F urther features of Luke's style include simplifying difficult statem ents of Jesus (Lk 16:16; cf Mt 11:12).H e plays down sharp contrasts (Lk 13:20; cf Mk 10:31), and in particular the conflicts betw een Jesus and the Jewish leaders, as we have seen.He does the sam e for the conflict betw een Jesus and the disciples.So w here M atthew and Mark have Jesus rebuke P eter as 'Satan', Luke om its the incident entirely (Lk 9: 20-22; cf Mk 8:33).T o suggest that all these changes are simply the result of L uke's gentile aud ien ce, is to miss the point.Luke's audience is not only gentile, it includes those who are also cultered, refined and probably wealthy.Luke him self writes from the position o f the artisan class (R o b b in s 1991:320) and is essentially 'upw ard looking' in his orientation (R obbins 1991:323; Moxnes 1988:165).We turn now to a consideration o f what may be term ed the Lucan perspective.4. T H E LU C A N PE R SPE C T IV E T he com parison of the synoptic gospels and the gospel o f T hom as is also valuable for establishing the perspective o f Luke.This perspective, we believe, is m ore con sistent with th a t of a w ealthy G re e k o r R om an th an w ith a p o o r o r m iddle class Palestinian.Jesus, in Luke, is clothed in the finery o f R om an elegance, appearing as refined and genteel and in other ways as an educated philosopher.4.1 B anquets Jesus' debates with the Pharisees take place during meals.Indeed, three tim es Jesus dines at the hom e of a Pharisee (Lk 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), and a deb ate ensues.O ne is rem inded of the m ealtim e conversations rep o rted in the letters of Pliny.The New Standard V ersion renders Seinvov in Luke 14:12 as 'to dine', and there is indeed th at very sense of old-world elegance.T he term 5oxn is used in the New T estam ent only by Luke (5:29; 14:13).The English equivalent is reception, feast or b anq uet.The term is used by the LXX in G enesis 21:8, 26:30 and in the book of E sther (E st 1:3; 5:4, 5 passim).Levi, according to Luke, gives a grand reception for Jesus (Lk 5:29).M atthew speak m ore simply of Jesus 'reclining in the house' (M t 9:10; cf Mk 2:17).H ere lies the divide betw een the world of Luke, with its elegance, and the w orld o f M atthew and M ark, which is still in touch with the re alities of Palestinian rural existence.4.2 Luke's audienceT he purpose behind L uke's presen tatio n of Jesus is shaped by both his own social class and the social class o f his audience.T he follow ing exam ples illu strate this point.4.2.1 The lifestyle of the audience: Cellars not bushelsL u k e's audience is in dicated in the kind o f projects found in the p arab les.Luke refers to building projects (Lk 14:28-30), going to w ar (Lk 14:3 If), astute stewards w ho a re accustom ed to 'throw ing a b a n q u e t' (8oxii -Lk 14:13) and to seats of honour at weddings (Lk 14:8).H ere, as elsewhere, Luke m akes the sayings of Jesus appropriate to his audience.The lam p is not to be put under a bushel (so M t 5:15) o r in a cellar or KpvmTri (Lk 11:33).The G ospel of T hom as 33:2 has 'or in a secret p lace' which accounts in p art for L uke's version.Kpimxn does carry this general sense as well as the m ore specific sense o f a cellar (Liddell & Scott 1940:1000).If L uke in ten d ed 'cellar' ra th e r th an ju st a secret place, th en this w ould b etray his social status.42.2 Blows not slaps Luke speaks of being struck on the cheek (Lk 6:29; but cf Mt 5:39b), ignoring the im plications of the insult im plicit in being struck on the right cheek (L apide 1986: 121f; D om eris 1987:48f).N o-one with an experience o f the brutality of structural oppression would leave out such a detail.about being anxious about food, drink and clothes and a picture of the hand-to-m outh existence of the rural peasant or poor city artisan comes to mind (M t 6:25).Luke parallels this exactly (M t 12:22).But when we consider the nature of Luke's parable of the wealthy farm er, which precedes this exhortation ( L ; 12:16-21), we realise that his real concern is to warn the rich against the dangers o f m ate rialism.4.2.4 O thers but not sinners A cco rd in g to M atth e w 9:10, Je su s d in es w ith 'tax c o lle c to rs an d s in n e rs ', or áfixxpTíjjXoí, implying people of bad ch aracter (Liddell & Scott 1940:77).Presum a bly M atthew m eans the lower classes including the m arginalized m em bers of socie ty, prostitutes and criminals (the DV of the Pharisees).Luke has 'tax collectors and others' (Lk 5:29).4.2.5 W ages not rations M atthew speaks of a labourer deserving his food (xpo<j)fv implying what is his due or rations Mt 10:10b).Luke has a labourer deserving of his wages ()i.ia0óq o r what is his reward Lk 10:7b).So we have two different econom ic theories here.The first is th at of the paym ent which a person needs to survive.T he second is th at of wages which are the regular reward of labour.Such is the difference betw een survival and com fortable living.4.2.6 G ardens not fields In the parable of the m ustard seed, w here the oth er gospels have 'field' (M t 13:31), 'ground' (M k 4:31) and 'tilled soil' (G Th 20), Luke has 'g ard e n ' (Lk 13:19).This typifies L uke's approach, as the fields o f rural Palestine becom e the gardens of the R om an aristocracy.4.2.7 M asters not servants In his depiction of the characters in the parables, Luke often comes close to a selfportrait.So we hear the steward protest: 'I am not strong enough to dig and 1 am asham ed to beg' (Lk 16:3b).Rich farm ers, prodigal heirs, and unrighteous judges ISSN 0259 9422 -H 75 •«//< * 2 ( W j ; with final differences betw een Luke and the o th e r two synoptic gos pels.M atthew and M ark describe the people crucified with Jesus as being o f the o rd e r of Xtigtitq which carries the sense o f revolutionaries (M t 27:38; Mk 15:27).T he sam e term is used by Jo sep h u s in a derogatory fashion to refer to the Jewish revolutionaries of his time(cf Brown 1983:371).Luke prefers the title KaKoOpyoi or com m on thieves (Lk 23:32).T hus Luke distances Jesus from such undesirables as Jewish brigands, like B arabbas (Lk 23:19), for the sake o f his R om an audience.J e sus em erges as a wise philosopher and prophet, wrongly accused and acquitted of treason, but a victim in the end of the wrath of a faceless crowd.5.CONCLUSIONW e have seen from our brief study that Luke does alter the picture of the socio-poli tical conflict of Jesus' time.In particular, he takes away much of the sense of econo mic exploitation and the structural violence exercised by the Jew ish leaders, esp e cially the Sadducees.We have reason to think th at his concern is less for the poor th an for the rich th a t they should not becom e prisoners o f th eir m aterial posses sions.Indeed, sharing wealth in the prom otion of the gospel is the Lucan ideal.Luke serves the in terests o f the gospel by m aking its m essage relevant to the w ealthy R om an elite.In doing so he d istances him self and the re a d e r from the R om an oppression of Jesus' time.For that we must read the G ospel of M ark, M at thew and the G ospel of Thom as.Luke is thus som ething of an enigm a.A man fa m iliar with the lifestyle of the R om an aristocracy, yet who sees him self in the line of the Jew ish prophets.So he challenges the claim s o f ipaterialism , like a New T es tam ent Amos.But at the sam e time he is a prisoner of his own socio-political envi ronm ent -a captive of an ideology at odds with the liberatory message of Jesus.
Jesus, at the beginning of his mission speaks o f his task: 'T he spirit of the Lxird is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.H e has .sentme to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those w ho are dow ntro d d en , to proclaim the favourable y ear of the ). * * L ater Jesus addresses the disciples with the following words: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of G od. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied...' (Lk 6:20f).'But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your com fort in full.W oe to you w ho are w ell-fed now, for you shall be hungry' (Lk 6:24f).