Chapter4

4.) The Poor in Luke’s Gospel

            In the introduction to this study in chapter one I noted the consensus among biblical scholars with regard to the Third Evangelist’s unique concern for “the poor.” Luke uses the term  “the poor” (ptochos) ten times, more than any other New Testament writer. I also reviewed the history of scholarship on the poor in Luke-Acts in chapter one and noted that there is no consensus on what the term ptochos refers to. In this chapter I have one main task. I will examine the eleven texts where ptochos is used in the Third Gospel in order to determine how Luke uses the term. I will show that Luke uses ptochos to refer to the restoration of Isael and the inclusion of outsiders into restored Israel. In chapters two and three I gathered evidence that can be used to help interpret Luke’s use of ptochos. It may be helpful here to review that evidence. First, I want to remind the reader that the question I am addressing is why the term ptochos is absent from Acts if Luke-Acts is one narrative and if Luke is particularly concerned for “the poor.” I am using the issue of “the poor” as a test case regarding the narrative unity of Luke-Acts. In chapter two I explored various aspects of Luke’s social world and examined his narrative world to see how Luke might be affirming or challenging the cultural context that he lived in. I discovered that in a culture where people were very concerned to protect or enhance their status-honor, Luke portrays Jesus as challenging that kind of concern and identifying it as behavior that is opposed to God’s values. Furthermore, in a social world where people found their sense of identity through drawing boundaries between people inside their social group and those outside, Jesus insisted that God’s`people must treat outsiders as if they were members of one’s own family. Especially significant in this regard was the fact that from the perspective of many of Jesus’ contemporaries in Second Temple Judaism the ultimate outsiders would be Gentiles. In chapter three I argued first that Luke portrays the mission of Jesus as the restoration of Israel and that this fact raises for the narratee the possibility that ptochos, at least in its first occurrence, might be interpreted as referring to “Israel.” Second, I attempted to show that Luke uses the story of Abraham, “the father of many nations,” in the beginning of the Third Gospel to guide his reader to see “outsiders,” even Gentiles, as a second possible referent of the term ptochos in its first occurrence in Jesus’ programatic mission statement (Luke.4:18-19). With these thoughts in mind I will turn once again to Luke’s first use of ptochos, this time to ask the question, How does Jesus restore Israel?.

4.2.) Luke 4:18-19

            In asking “how” Jesus will cleanse and restore Israel it is important to note that in the narrative world Jesus has already been publicly carrying out his mission before the Nazareth scene (Luke 4:14-16), however the narratee has not heard the details of what Jesus is saying or doing. An inclusio is formed by reference to his entry into Gallilee and  teaching in synagogues, 4:14-15, and, his statement that he must leave Capernaum for the “other cities” and his “preaching in the synagogues of Judea” in 4:43-44. Thus the narratee is led to understand that what Jesus says and does in the Nazareth synagogue, and in Capernaum, is typical of what he has been doing and saying in the other synagogues and indeed, typical of his ministry overall. In addition, it is important to note the linguistic and thematic connections between Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61 and his statement at the end of this narrative unit:

               “but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other      cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.” (4:43)

This statement parallels and reiterates Jesus’ mission statement at 4:18:

               “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has annointed me.

            To bring good news to the poor (ptochos) he has sent me: (4:18)

This parallel suggests that some kind of relationship between Jesus’ announcement of his mission to “bring good news for the poor” may also be described as preaching “the good news of the kingdom of God

            Following his programmatic statement in 4:18-19 the narratee will see Jesus involved in teaching and preaching (4:31-32, 44), casting out demons (4:33-35, 41) and healing the sick (4:38-40). How are these activities related to his mission of restoring and cleansing Israel? And, how are these activities related to the inclusion of outsiders into restored Israel? In my comments on Jesus’ reading of the Isaianic text in my last chapter, I noted that the insertion of Isa. 58:6 into the reading of Isa. 61:1-2 functions to emphasize the term “release” (aphesei). In chapter three I argued that this emphasis is significant with regard to identifying Jesus’ mission as the restoration of Israel. Green argues that the double use of aphesei in Luke 4:18-19 will serve remind the narratee of other uses of this verb in the narrative. For example, in Zechariah’s prophecy he says that John will,

               “give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness (aphesei) of their sins”         (Luke 1:77)  

This useage is widespread throughout Luke-Acts and suggests that one way Jesus restores Israel is by “releasing,” people from their sins, that is, by offering forgiveness of sins.[1]  Turner, on the other hand, claims that any supposed linguistic connection between the emphasis on “release” (aphesei), in Jesus’ Nazareth sermon and its use elsewhere in the narrative is fallacious, and, the subsequent suggestion that therefore Luke portrays Jesus as one who “releases” people from their sins is problematic from a linguistic perspective. Turner argues that; (1) for a native Greek speaker the unmarked meaning of aphesis would have been “release, freedom or the like,” (2) it is never used of forgiveness of sins in the LXX, and, (3) that it cannot carry the sense of ‘forgiveness of sins in the immediate linguistic context of Isa. 58:6 or 61:1.

               “Collocated instead with aikmalotois (‘captives’) as in Isa 61:1 it could only mean the       sort of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ one grants to prisoners, and similiarly, in the sentence       aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphsei (‘to set the oppressed at liberty’) drawn from Isa.             58:6. In both cases apheseis linguistically signifies that kind of ‘release’ that is offered to          incarcerated or oppressed people--that is, liberation.[2] 

Finally, though he acknowledges that a New Testament writer might use the phrase aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphsei (‘to set the oppressed at liberty’), metaphorically as an expression to refer to forgiveness if he viewed sin as an oppressive power from which humans need release,  Turner insists that Luke does not present sin as an enslaving power.[3] In his comments on Luke 5:17-26 Green counters Turner’s argument.

               “(1) the problem of Lukan useage [of aphiemi/aphesis] must be situated more fully           within the context of biblical useage  (and in the literature influenced by biblical useage),          since aphiemi/aphesis never otherwise occurs in the religious sense; (2) “debt” could be        used in Second Temple Judaism with reference to “sin” (cf. 4Qmess ar 2:17); (3) the          present pericopae does develop the sense of sin as an oppressive power manifest in the             physiological condition of paralysis and the sociological condition of separateness; (4) this   useage prepares for the subsequent development of “release” especially as           “release/forgiveness of sins elsewhere in Luke-Acts (cf. 23:24, where aphiemi refers to            ‘forgiveness” even though the verb is not collocated with “sins”; and (5) Luke’s version of        the Lord’s Prayer shows how closely these two, debt and sin, could be related, both requiring “release” (11:4). That this pericope is to be interpreted in relation to 4:16-30 is             also suggested by the use of “today” (semeron) in 5:26.[4]

In addition, Turner does acknowledge that conceptually “we need not dispute that Luke thought that the liberation Jesus brought included ‘forgiveness of sins.”[5] Thus it seems there is an impressive amount of material in the Third Gospel that suggests that one way of understanding Jesus’ mission is as the one who has been annointed by the Spirit of the Lord to restore Israel through the forgiveness of sins. The importance of this aspect of his ministry is emphasized at the end of the Gospel in the risen Jesus’ command that “repentance and the forgiveness (aphesin) of sins should be preached in his name to all nations” (24:47).

            In his investigation of the poor and the rich in Luke-Acts Philip Esler notes this use of aphesis amartion and asks the question:

               “Should we deduce from this pattern of useage that the ‘captives’ in Lk. 4:18 are merely   those who have given up their liberty to sin?[6]

Esler rightly answers “No,” and we will review the evidence below that supports that answer. However his use of the word merely with regard to release from sin suggests a notion of the modern dichotomy between the categories of “spiritual” and “physical,” with sin being located within the “spiritual” category. My findings in chapter two can shed some helpful light here. I showed that “sin” in Luke’s social and narrative worlds is not descriptive of a merely spiritual reality but includes a social component. The term “sinner” is used in Luke-Acts both as a factional term to designate people who are considered to “outsiders” from the perspective of a number of groups in Second Temple Judaism as well a term to describe the status of all persons who are not in covenant relationship with God whether they think they are or not. The justification for the first category of  designation was found in the purity system symbolized in the temple and grounded in particular interpretations of the law, and, in the system of rigid social stratification and concern for status-honor. Thus, when Jesus forgives people from sin his action is not merely spiritual but denotes the inclusion of “outsiders” into “Israel,” the community of God’s people. A further implication of such an inclusion is that these people must be treated as family members of by those who comprise God’s people and generalised reciprocity must be extended to them from other members of God’s community. Therefore it is incorrect to assign to release from sins a merely spiritual character.

            Green  argues that an additional sense in which the emphasis on “release” in Jesus’ Nazareth sermon might be understood by noting words that belong to the same semantic sub-domain as ephesin such as luo.[7] Important here would be Jesus’ interaction with “a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years; she was bent over and could not straighten herself” (Luke.13:11). When teaching in a synagogue Jesus sees her, calls her and then says “Woman, you are freed (apolelusai) from your infirmity” and heals the woman (Luke.13:12). In response to the indignation of the ruler of the synagogue regarding Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath Jesus argues,

               “You hypocrites! Does not each of you untie (luei) his ox or ass....to lead it away to          water it. And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan has bound for   eighteen years, be loosed (luthenai) from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke.13:15-16)

The repeated use of luo here will remind the narratee of Jesus’ ministry of release. Thus the immediate effect is to confirm that Jesus is carrying out his Spirit-given mission. In a larger sense however, this scene functions to define more clearly who it is that Jesus releases. Jesus releases those who are bound by Satan, thus immediately suggesting that Jesus’ casting out evil spirits will be included in his ministry of release. Green suggests that Luke does not portray this woman as “possessed” by an evil spirit but rather that her condition is,

               “grounded in satanic bondage.....(which) does underscore (Luke’s) more general    perspective on the inseparability of physical malady and diabolic influence and, thus, on           the inseperability of healing and liberation.[8] 

That this is Luke’s perspective on illness in general is confirmed by the Peter’s summary of Jesus’ mission in Acts,

               “how God annointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he         went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38).[9]

Thus Jesus’ ministry of cleansing and restoring Israel involves not only forgiving people from their sins and thus restoring them to God’s community but also releasing them from the power of the devil through healings and exorcisms. Again I must point out that my investigation in chapter two cautions against viewing healings and exorcisms as merely physical. Given that sickness and possesion by spirits renders persons “unclean” from the perspective of the temple purity system and its extension into the life of Jewish people outside the temple, healing and exorcism also serves to include “outsider” into the community of God’s people.

            In the quote from Isaiah 61 Jesus also portrays his mission as “to proclaim to the blind sight” (4:18). In Lk.7:22 the narrator notes that “on many who were blind he bestowed sight” and Jesus heals one particular blind man (18:35-43). Again, I will refer to the social and religious implications of blindness in terms of “uncleaness” and therefore exclusion, or at least marginalization, within God’s covenant community. On the other hand, Green points out that there are numerous instances in Luke-Acts where language related to “seeing” represents concern with a proper understanding of God’s purposes (1:78-79; 2:9, 29-32; 3:6). Even in the episode where Jesus heals the blind man (18:35-43), his recovering of physical sight symbolizes his insight into Jesus identity, “Jesus, Son of David” and by its co-textual location is contrasted with the disciple’s lack of understanding concerning God’s purposes in Jesus’ mission,

               “But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from , and they did not             grasp what was said.” (18:34)

Similar in this regard is Jesus’ challenge to the Pharisees and scribes at table to “see” correctly, that is, from God’s perspective. Such “sight” would entail an embracing of Jesus’ New Exodus liberation of Israel where people that the Pharisees have formerly treated as “outsiders” ought now to welcomed as family members.

            To summarize, it appears that evidence from the narrative unit within which Jesus announces his mission of proclamation and release, and episodes conceptually and linguistically related to this unit, help answer the question, How does Jesus carry out his New Exodus liberation of Israel? Through his healing, exorcising and preaching forgiveness of sins, Jesus is able to restore “outsiders” to “Israel,” the community of God’s people. This has further implications for the identification of the referent of  ptochos and indeed the other terms used in the quote from Isaiah 61, “ the captives,” “the oppressed,” and “the blind.” Given that Jesus’ ministry of proclamation and release serves to restore “outsiders” to “Israel” it seems reasonable to propose here that the term  ptochos and the terms that are  co-located with it, “captives,” “the oppressed” and the “the blind” function metaphorically to refer to people who are excluded from or marginalized within  Second Temple Judaism because of sins, evil spirits and sickness. Thus, I have suggested that Luke portrays Jesus as cleansing and restoring Israel and that this “Israel” is, at least partly. comprised of people who have been “outsiders” to Second Temple Judaism.

4.3.) Luke  6:20

            Following the introduction of Jesus’ public ministry in the narrative unit from 4:14 to 4:44 Jesus continues in teaching and preaching (5:33-39), casting out demons (6:18) and healing the sick (5:12, 17-26, 6:6-10, 17). These are all activities related to his mission of restoring Israel and including outsiders into restored Israel. In addition, he has been involved in disputes with his townsfolk (4:22-30), Pharisees (5:21-25, 30-32; 6:1-5, 7-11), and their scribes (5:30-32). Finally, he has gathered a great crowd of disciples (5:1-11,15, 27-29; 6:17), twelve of whom he has named apostles. It is to the twelve apostles, a great crowd of disciples and a great multitude of the people (6:17) that Jesus says,

            Blessed are you poor (ptochoi), for yours is the kingdom of God.

            Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied.

            Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh.

            Blessed are you when men hate you...exclude you and revile you

            and cast out your name as evil on account of the Son of man! (6:20-22)

My first task is to locate this occurrence of ptochoi in its narrative context. Secondly I must ask how this use of ptochoi is related to its first useage and to ask  whether or not new information is introduced into the narrative that will alter the interpretation of the ptochos made in its first occurrence.

            Johnson locates this use of ptochoi in a unit he entitles “The Prophet’s Public Preaching” (6:17-35) thus it from separating the call of the apostles (6:12-16) and “Prophetic Wisdom” (6:36-49).[10] Danker, like Johnson locates the call of the apostles with previous disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees.[11] He labels 6:17-49 “Kingdom Candidates and Requirements.” Both Johnson and Danker base their identification of the narrative by means of their readings of Luke’s redaction of Mark. Talbert, on the other hand, labels 6:12-49, “Transcending the Times” though he sees three sub-units; the calling of the apostles, the transition to the plain and the Sermon on the Plain.[12] Green also identifies 6:12-49 as a narrative unit which he entitles “Jesus Instructs His Disciples,” and he identifies two sub-units; the calling of the twelve and the status and practices of Jesus’ community.[13] I will locate the beginning of the larger narrative unit in which this use of ptochoi is found is at 6:12 when Jesus “went out to the mountain to pray” signaling an end to the immediate dispute over healing on the sabbath between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees in 6:6-11, though I acknowledge with Danker and Green that the calling of the apostles is related to the disputes with other Jews.[14] That the unit is concerned with the way that the people of God’s community ought to live seems clear. The call of the apostles is connected to the immediately following material in that Jesus “came down with them and stood on a level place” (6:17a). The end of this unit is at 7:1, “After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people he entered Capernaum,” at which point a new scene will begin.

            Having made the interpretive decision necessary to locate this use of ptochoi within a narrative unit I can next note some of the implications of that decision. Jesus’ appointment of twelve apostles is part of the New Exodus restoration of Israel that Luke portrays Jesus as undertaking. The twelve apostles are symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel. The expectation of the restoration of the twelve tribes was widespread within Inter-Testamental Judaism.[15] The importance of the twelve for Luke’s narrative is demonstrated not merely by his narration of the appointment here but more especially by his portrayal of the necessity to replace Judas, and thus restore “the twelve,” in Acts 1:15-26. From a narratological perspective the  appointment of the twelve contibutes to Luke’s portrayal of the realization of the restoration of Israel.   

            Questions raised earlier regarding the connection between “good news to the poor” (4:18) and “the good news of the kingdom of God” (4:44) are answered here in the second occurrence of  ptochoi in 6:20 where the kingdom of God belongs to “you poor.” Thus, I can now say that the “good news to the poor” is the fact that the kingdom of God belongs to them, however this is not a new concept because Jesus already been bringing good news to the poor which is the good news of the kingdom. This has the effect for the narratee of confirming her intial impressions regardings these different ways of referring to Jesus’ ministry.

            It is the second-person plural ptochoi “you poor” that is used here in the second occurrence of the term. This leads to the the question of who Jesus is speaking to here, itself an important question concerning the referent of ptochoi. Danker views Jesus as talking only to the disciples whom he identifies as the poor and argues that the kingdom belongs to them because they are his disciples.[16] However this view founders on the fact that Jesus has been already been bringing the “good news of the kingdom” to the poor in 4:14 to 4:44, that is, to people who are not yet his disciples. The first disciples are not called until 5:10-11 and 6:27 and is signifcant that they are fisherman or tax collectors, both of which would not necessarily be economically poor but of low social status. Schotroff and Stegeman maintain that ptochoi must refer to the disciples because they have become economically poor by leaving everything to follow Jesus. They note that Luke has Peter and the sons of Zebedee bring “their boats to land, they left everything and followed him” (Lk.5:11) whereas the parallel in Mark’s Gospel does not say that they “left everything” (Mk. 1:16-20). They also mention that Levi “left everything” (Lk.5:28) but do not grapple with the fact that Levi, having “left everything, nonetheless has the resources to provide a great feast for Jesus and others (5:29) and is thus a disciple but not economically poor. The same is true of wealthy women who accompany Jesus and support him and his other followers (8:1-3). Johnson argues the disciples are the specific audience of Jesus’ sermon but the crowd, as well as the readers form the implied audience.[17] Green insists that identification of either the disciples as “the poor” and/or the crowd as “the rich” cannot be maintained given that the term “disciple” can refer to those called to leave everything but who may not yet have done so (6:17). In addition he points out that there is no distinction between the disciples and the crowd in terms of purpose in coming to hear Jesus, geographical origin or response to Jesus’ message and that in rhetorical situations a peron or group may serve as the addressee even though all present are being addressed. To the arguments of Johnson and Green I  add that Jesus’ comment, “I say to you who hear” (6:27) suggests a larger audience than the disciples. Therefore, hoi ptochoi should not be interpreted as referring only to disciples but to the apostles, the great crowd of disciples and the great multitude.

            In its first occurrence I identified the term ptochos as referring to both “restored Israel” and to “outsiders”, those excluded from, or marginalized within, Second Temple Judaism as Luke portrays it. Is there reason to change this identification? Echoes of Isaiah 61 are heard again in this second occurrence of  ptochoi. When Jesus says “Blessed are you poor (ptochoi), for yours is the kingdom of God” the narratee will be reminded of Luke 4:18/Isa. 61:1 because it is “the good news of the kingdom of God” that Jesus is bringing to “the/you poor.” When he says, “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied,” the narratee will recall Isaiah 61:6, “you shall eat the wealth of the nations,” and when he says, “Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh,” the narratee will remember Isaiah 61:2-3, “to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion--to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning.” Jesus’ allusions to Isaiah 61 in his first three blessings (Luke 6:20-21), suggest that the motifof the  restoration of Israel which established interpretive possibilities in the first occurrence of ptochos is certainly present here. This supports the suggestion that hoi ptochoi in Luke 6:20 refers to “restored Israel.” This suggestion is further strengthed by the appointment of the twelve within this narrative unit with its New Exodus restoration of Israel connotations.  

            The suggestion above does not exhaust interpretive options. Here, as in 4:18-19, ptochoi is again used as the first of a group of words that describe certain kinds of people, “you hungry,” “you who weep,” “you who are hated...excluded”. This will suggest that just as in Lk. 4:18-19, ptochoi should be interpreted in relation to these co-textual terms. In 4:18-19 the terms “captives,” “blind” and “oppressed” functioned metaphorically to refer to people excluded because of sin, sickness and evil spirits. What about the terms used here with ptochoi? Clearly the last phrase, “Blessed are you when men hate you... exclude you and revile you and cast out your name as evil on account of the Son of man!” (6:22) contains the language of exclusion and the notion of distingushing between insiders and outsiders that is a prominent part of Luke’s worlds. Related to this idea of exclusion is the fact that Jesus’ table companions have already been “reviled” in the narrative. I noted in chapter two that at Levi’s feast for Jesus (5:27-29) the Pharisees refer to the guests of the feast as “sinners,” that is, outsiders from the perspective of the Pharisees. Thus, because Jesus associates with outsiders he is hated by the Pharisees (6:11) and those who accept his invitation to “follow me” will also be excluded. Is there any reason to suggest that “you hungry” and “you who weep” do not function metaphorically to refer to outsiders? It is helpful to look to instances where the language of “weeping” and “hunger” is  referred to or occurs in the Third Gospel. Jesus heals the dead son of a widow, who is weeping, by touching the bier (7:11-17)and encounters the “sinful” woman who wipes his feet with her tears (7:38, 44). Both of these examples involve Jesus’ inclusion of “unclean” persons into the community of God’s people. The theme of inclusion of outsiders is also true of a tax collector who “beats his breast” and is justified by God (18:13-14). On the other hand, those who refuse Jesus’ announcement of good news for the poor are referred to in 7:32, “We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep,” and, in 13:28 those who refuse Jesus’ invitation are excluded themselves from the eschatological banquet. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem for its failure to receive him (19:41). Peter weeps at his betrayal of Jesus (23:28) The multitudes beat their breasts at Jesus’ crucifixion (23:48). Finally Jesus instructs instructs the daughters of Jersusalem to weep for themselves because of the consequences his execution will have for Jerusalem (23:28). I would argue that the references to “weeping’ in the Third Gospel either support or at least do not contradict the interpretation that “you who weep” may function metaphorically to refer to outsiders. With regard to “you hungry” the feeding of the five thousand (9:10-17) is itself an act highly symbolic of the restoration of Israel and inclusion into restored Israel. There is also the hunger of the lost son (15:16-17) who is received and fed by his father (16:23). Significant here is that Jesus’ audience consists of tax collectors and sinners (15:1) who are represented by the lost son, and, Pharisees and scribes (15:2) who are represented by the elder son. Clearly, this parable refers to the issue of outsiders being included into God’s community, as well as raising the question of whether or not those who consider themselves to be insiders really are. In the parable the elder son “refused to go in” (15:28). In addition, there is the story of the rich man and Lazarus who “desires to be fed” (16:19-21). Lazarus is undoubtedly economically poor however, later on in this chapter I will show that Luke highlights Lazarus’ status as a social outcast, one without family or even clothes. Finally, I will refer to “the hungry” in Lk. 1:53 in the comments below on the theme of reversal in Luke-Acts. Its seems quite valid given this brief review of how terms are used in conjunction with ptochoi in 6:20--23 to assert that there is good reason to continue with the interpretation of ptochos as referring to outsiders to whom Jesus brings good news. The good news is that they are the recipients of God’s salvation, the kingdom of God. To put it another way, in his restoration of Israel Jesus, invites these outsiders to become a part of restored Israel. To this point in the narrative the poor are outsiders because they are seen as “sinners” by those who consider themselves to be insiders and, they are outsiders because they are sick or demonized and are therefore unclean. 

            Additional light may be shed on the referent of ptochoi in 6:20 by noting that this passage contains a corresponding woe for each of the blessings:

            But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.

            Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger.

            Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

            Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers

            did to the false prophets. (6:24-26) RSV

Writing the corresponding phrases in parallel helps to demonstrate the theme of reversal:

                   Blessings                                                             Woes

you poor, yours is the kingdom of God (6:20b)          you rich...have received your consolation”(6:24) you who hunger now shall be satisfied (6:21a)  you that are full now...shall hunger (6:25a).                       you that weep now...shall laugh (6:21b)               you that laugh now...shall weep (6:25b). 

you, (who) men hate...exclude...revile...cast    you, when all men speak well of you (6:26).

...on account of the Son of man (6:22b)

The theme of reversal of fortunes is prominent in Luke-Acts having been apparent in Mary’s Song where God is the one who has “scattered the proud...put down the mighty from their thrones” (1:51b-52a) and “sent the rich away empty” (1:53b), and, he has “exalted the lowly, filled the hungry with good things” (1:52b-53a).[18] Given that I have identified ptochos as refering to outsiders from the perspective of the those of high social/religious status in Luke’s view of Second Temple Judaism, the woes of 6:24-26 and the reversal they imply would identify “you rich,” “you that are full now,” “you that laugh now” and “you, [who] all men speak well of” as being those of high social and religious status who treat “the poor” as outsiders. I showed that Luke portrays the “rich” this way in chapter two in the examination of table fellowship. In the four scenes I considered it was apparent that Luke portrays the Pharisees and scribes as one group of “the rich” that exclude the poor based on purity concerns or desire to enhance their status-honor. Especially significant is Jesus’ challenge to the dinner guests that want to increase their status-honor in 14:7-11 that when they give a dinner they should not invite “your friends, or your brothers or your kinsmen or your rich neighbors” (14:12), that is, those who are insiders within one’s family or social group. This kind of conveyed in Jesus’ teaching following the woes.

               “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those    who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to          you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from who you hope to receive,        what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, hoping to receive as much again.             But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.” (6:32-26).

With the references to freely lending and giving (6:30, 38) Luke begins to portray Jesus’ teaching on the the way people must relate to one another in restored Israel. Jesus’ teaching here is often characterized as focusing on the right use of possessions. However, the emphasis is not primarily on economics but on social relationships within restored Israel. Jesus’ statement that “if you love those who love you...if you do good to those who do good to you” presuppose the cultural context that I explored in chapter two of this study, especially the tendency for social units within Second Temple Judaism to act as fictive kinship groups where “love” and “doing good” are activities directed towards insiders, the members of one’s own group. Jesus is calling on his audience to behave as if all Jews, even those outside one’s social unit, are part of one’s family.

            To summarize then, when viewed from the perspective of its co-textual location and considering its continuity with the first use of ptochos in 4:18, the second occurrence of ptochoi here in 6:20 refers to “restored Israel”  and to “outsiders”, that is, people that are excluded by those of high social and religious status, because of their perceived uncleaness and/or their low social status. In addition, to “bring good news to the poor” is to proclaim and demonstrate that these outsiders are recipients of God’s salvation and thus are being welcomed into the Israel that Jesus is restoring. Finally, those who consider themselves to be be insiders are being called by Jesus to change the way they think and act and to treat those they consider to be outsiders as family members.

4.4.) Luke 7:22

            Luke’s third use of ptochos occurs in 7:22. Danker locates this in a narrative unit labeled “Jesus’ Credentials” starting from 7:1 to 8:3.[19] Green views this section as “The Compassionate Ministry of Jesus” though limits it to 7:1 to 7:50.[20] Talbert titles 7:1-17 as “Jesus and Other Religious Traditions”[21] while 7:18-50 is called “Confirmed Forgiveness.”[22] Johnson sees three different units in Luke’s chapter 7, “Two Prophetic Wonders” (7:1-17), “John, Jesus, and the People” (718-35) , and “The Friend of Sinners” (7:36-50).[23] Given that Jesus has “ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people and entered Capernaum” (7:1) and that the narrator will provide another summary of Jesus’ ministry at 8:1-3, I will locate this reference to the poor within the narrative unit of 7:2 to 7:50. Though there are a number of sub-units here, clear thematic connections unify them.

            This use of ptochos occurs in Jesus’ response to a question from John’s disciples regarding Jesus’ identity. He answers them by saying,

               “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame      walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor (ptochoi) have good news brought to them.”(7:22)

The phrases “the blind receive their sight” and “the poor have good news brought to them” are related linguistically and thematically to Jesus’ quote of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18-19 and will once again suggest for the narratee that Jesus’ mission be construed in terms of the restoration of Israel. This suggestion is strengthed by the way the narrator intervenes  before having Jesus respond to John’s disciples, “In that very hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight” (7:21). Jesus’ response contains numerous other allusions to Isaiah as well; “in that day the deaf shall hear...the eyes of the blind shall see...the poor among men shall exult” (Isa. 29:18-19), “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped...the lame man shall leap like the hart and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy” (Isa. 35:5-6), “Hear, you deaf; and look, you blind, that you may see” (42:18). Of these additional allusions to Isaiah Turner says,

               “these (with Isa. 61:1-2 itself) belong to a collection of “New Exodus” passages about       the restoration of Israel and transformation in the wilderness (and so pointedly correspond       to John’s expectation of salvation starting with the wilderness...) and show the broader   complex ideas in which the more specifically Jubilee language of of Isaiah 61 found its       place.”[24] 

However, while the restoration of Israel is a prominent theme here, once again it is not simply the restoration of Israel that is in view here but also the question of Who constitutes restored Israel? In this regard it is important to consider Luke’s treatment of John. John’s question, “Are you the one who is to come or shall we look for another?” (7:20), assumes some kind of disappointed expectation with regard to Jesus. Danker sees the problem as Jesus’ proclamation of mercy, not judgement as well as his association with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus does not fulfill John’s apocalyptic hopes and this raises questions about Jesus’ identity.[25] Green’s assessment largely concurs with Danker’s though he also argues for the signifiance of the phrase “all these things” with which the narrator describes the way John’s disciples tell him about Jesus’ ministry (7:18), maintaining that the emphasis in “all these things” will be on the stories of the centurion and widow in 7:2-17.[26] This view unifies 7:2-17 with the material following and suggests that material is important to the interpretation of “the poor” in its third occurence.

            Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion(7:2-10) and raises from death the only son of a widow (7:11-17). Issues of social status and purity are important in both these scenes. The centurion is a Gentile and thus an unclean outsider. Jesus nevertheless shows his willingness to cross Jew-Gentile boundaries by his response to the Jewish elders’ request that Jesus help the centurion, “And Jesus went with them” (7:6). It is the centurion, not Jesus, who prevents actual contact between himself and Jesus (7:6b-8). Jesus responds very positively to the centurion, praising his faith in contrast with that of Israel.

            Widows are percieved to be of low social status and to add to the predicament of this particular widow, her only son has died leaving her alone as a woman with no male to provide for her thus emphasizing her low status. Furthermore, purity issues are raised in Jesus’ touching of the funeral bier thus subjecting himself to corpse defilement. It is also significant that Jesus’ interaction with the centurion will recall Elisha’s healing of Naaman the Syrian and his interaction with the widow will recall Elijah’s healing of the son of the widow of Zarephath, which in turn will remind the narratee of Jesus’ references to Elijah and Elisha during the announcement of his mission at Nazareth (4:18-27), references which suggested that outsiders, perhaps even Gentiles, would be one referent of ptochos in 4:18.  

            As noted above John’s question assumes some kind of disappointed expectation. This lack of understanding on John’s part must be factored into the interpretation of ptochoi in 7:22. While Luke has portrayed Jesus’ mission, at least in part, in terms of the New Exodus restoration of Israel and, even though John’s saying about baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire was an important part of that portrayal, it seems clear that Luke understands the restoration of Israel differently than John does. What is the difference? A number of points suggest that the difference in understanding centers around the identity of restored Israel. Green’s argument regarding the relevance of the healing of the centurion’s servant and the widow dead son, the narrator’s emphasis on Jesus’ healings and exorcisms (7:21), as well as Jesus’ answer to John’s disciples (7:22) all suggest that the term ptochoi refers to outsiders, those who are excluded or marginalized with Judaism because of diseases, evil spirits, sin, blindness, low social status, and, at least in the background, there is the reminder that Gentiles, as those outside of Judaism, are the ultimate outsiders.

            In his comments on the use of ptochos in Lk.7:22 Tannehill agrees that Jesus’ reply to John suggests that Jesus’ work of healing is part of the good news to the poor but then appears puzzled that Jesus’ answer focuses on his ministry to the blind, lame, lepers, deaf, and dead:

               “Ending this list by referring to the poor is less strange when we recognize that in the         ancient  world most disabled persons would be unable to support themselves and would be          poor beggars.[27]

Tannehill offers no documentation that this would be true of “disabled people,” which is itself a modern term. Furthermore, his puzzlement is due to his conception that ptochos refers primarily to economic categories, an idea that, as I have argued, is not foremost in Luke’s cultural context nor in his narrative world. Once again  I would emphasize that the fact that ptochoi is used in conjunction with a number of terms; the blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf, and the dead, suggests that these terms will help interpret one another. It is important to note that Jesus’ answer to John’s disciples refers to activities that are already happening in the narrative world. This point was made clear in the narrator’s comment “In that very hour...” (7:21) which emphasizes the presence of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ ministry now.  This is important with regard to identifying the referent for ptochoi in 7:22 because it makes clear that the poor have already been brought good news. The primary way that this has happened in the narrative up to this point is through Jesus’ healing and exorcisms which restore people from their unclean, excluded status, through his association, especially his eating with, tax collectors and “sinners,” and through his challenge to “insiders” to embrace “outsiders” as family. This is not to say that economic concerns are absent. However, it does suggest that such concerns are not of primary importance up to this point in Luke’s narrative.  In this regard it is significant to note that in the following scenes which make up the larger narrative unit of 7:2-50, Jesus will place both John and himself into the category of unclean, low status outsiders from the perspective of the Pharisees by his quotation of the Pharisee’s and lawyer’s view of John, “He has a demon” (7:33), as well as their view of himself, “Behold, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (7:34). Furthermore, the last scene in this narrative unit in which Jesus encounters the sinful woman at the home of Simon the Pharisee, is one I have already examined in chapter four, noting its focus on issues of purity and insider/outsider relationships.

            To summarize then, my investigation of the third occurrence of ptochos in 7:22 confirms the interpretation that ptochoi refers to Jesus’ mission of restoring Israel. It is certainly possible that different understandings of the restoration of Israel existed in Luke’s world. In his narrative Luke portrays Jesus as restoring Israel by welcoming people exluded from full participation in God’s community because of sin, sickness and evil spirits, low status-honor and by challenging “insiders” to welcome these people. In its first three appearances ptochos has been used only by Jesus and always as one of a group of terms that help interpret it. Good news for the poor means that these previously excluded persons are extended membership into restored Israel because the kingdom of God is theirs. The good news to the poor is not that the “rich,” defined in economic categories, will share what they have with the poor, defined in economic categories. Instead, the emphasis in Jesus’ ministry of proclamation and release is that because God accepts low-status, unclean, outsiders into “Israel,” high-status, pure, insiders within Second Temple Judaism, portrayed by Luke as the Pharisees and scribes up to this point in his narrative, should embrace these people as well thus ensuring their own membership in restored Israel.

4.5.) Luke 14:13,  21

            The next two uses of ptochos occur in Lk. 14:13 and 14:21 when Jesus goes to eat at the the home of a ruler of the Pharisees (Lk.14:1-24). The beginning of this narrative unit, “one sabbath he went to eat...” (14:1), sets it apart from the precceding material regarding Jesus, Herod and Jerusalem (13:31-35). The narrator’s comment, “Now great multitudes accompanied him...” (14:25) signals the end of the focus on this sabbath meal.[28] In my examination of table fellowship in chapter two of this study I dealt with this scene in some detail however it will be helpful to review the results of that investigation here. I noted the high social status of Jesus’ host who is a ruler of the Pharisees and a house owner, as well as the concern of Pharisees to eat all meals in a state of ritual purity. Jesus heals a man with dropsy at the meal, a man whose sickness marks him as potentially impure and thus an outsider from the Pharisees’ point of view.  Jesus’ healing and “releasing”[29] of the man signals his acceptance of the man as a potential  insider from Jesus’ point of view.[30] The scene continues as the narrator notes that Jesus “marked how [the guests] chose places of honor,”(14:7) and then tells his table companions a parable which advises them to do the opposite, that is, to chose the place of lowest honor (14:8-11). I noted that verse 11 must refer to Jesus’ view of God’s value system, “For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” What does it mean to humble one’s self? For both the guests and the host[31] of the dinner the answer comes immediately in Jesus’ challenge to all present that they give dinners for “the poor (ptochous), the maimed, the lame and the blind” (14:13). Jesus’ use of these terms here will immediately call to mind the three previous occasions that he has used ptochos. The co-location of ptochous with “the blind” (tuphlos) as in 4:18-19 and 7:22 will emphasize again the restoration of Israel that Luke has associated with Isaiah 61 and other Isaianic texts.

            The people that Jesus challenges his tables companions to eat with are those who cannot  reciprocate and who are ritually unclean from the Pharisaic perspective. Jesus calls those at table with him to renounce the system of balanced reciprocity that maintains their high social status and embrace those of low social status and the impure as if they were part of one’s own family (14:12-14), extending to them general reciprocity. In humbling themselves this way they will be exalted by God at the resurrection (14:14). In this fourth occurrence of  ptochos the term is once again used in conjunction with a number of other descriptive terms; “the maimed,” “the lame,” and “the blind.” I have pointed out how this accumulation of terms suggests that they will interpret one another. In addition to being used with terms that denote both the restoration of Israel and issues of purity/uncleaness, it is clear that ptochos is used here in a narrative context that bristles with concern for issues of status-honor and insider/outsider relations.

            Ptochos will be used for the fifth time as the scene continues. In response to a comment from one of the guests, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (14:15), Jesus tells a parable. Danker and Johnson read Jesus’ parable here as refering to the “eschatological banquet” I noted in chapter two of this study that the parable fits more appropriately in Luke’s narrative as an example of a man of very high status, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many” (14: 16), who does exactly what Jesus has challenged his table companions to do.[32] Rebuffed by those he invites, persons of the same social status (14:18-20), the man sends his servant to “Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor (ptochos) and the maimed and the blind and the lame” (14:21). With that completed there is still room in his house so he sends the servant to “Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in” (14:23). Perhaps owing to their view that this parable refers to the eschatological banquet Danker and Johnson see in this phrase reference to the Gentiles[33] On the one hand, given that I am not interpreting this parable in terms of the end-time banquet I would not see a direct reference to Gentiles here. On the other hand, given that Luke is dealing here within insider/outsider relations, and given that from the Pharisees’ point of view Gentiles are outsiders, it may be possible to see the Gentiles present in this reference to the poor, though if so, that presence is in the background. I noted that this is a man that renounces the systems of balanced reciprocity and Pharisaical purity and embraces people who are most definitely outsiders from the point of view of his high status friends. Furthermore, his separation from the old systems is indicated by the fact that he is rebuffed,[34] that he responds in anger against those who reject his invitation, and by the change in the way he addresses his servant from from the third-person singular (14:21, 23) to the second-person plural, “I tell you [all] that none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet,” in 14:24, a change which allows Jesus to directly challenge his table companions through the parable to do the same as the man in the parable.

            In summary, it is apparent that the fourth and fifth use of ptochos in Luke’s Gospel have a number of features in common with the first three uses. All occur on the lips of Jesus and in every case so far ptochos is used in conjunction with other terms, “the captives,” “the oppressed,” the blind,” “you who weep,” “you hungry,” “you who are excluded and reviled,” “lepers,” “the dead,” “the maimed,” and “the lame.” These terms help interpret ptochos and I have found that in Luke’s Gospel they refer both to Jesus’ restoration of Israel and to people who are marginalized within Judaism because they are unclean from the perspective of the temple purity system. Furthermore, I have noted that  ptochos is used in narrative contexts where concerns for status-honor are paramount. The poor are those who are unable to paticipate in the system of balanced reciprocity that those of high social status use to maintain their social position and their self-identification as insiders within the community of God’s people. This is not to say that concerns with economics are absent from the narrative contexts in which ptochos occurs, only that Luke’s main focus is on the system of social stratification that characterized the ancient Meditarranean world and the temple purity system that was such an integral feature of Second Temple Judaism. A major aspect of Jesus’ restoration of Israel is his insistence that “insiders” to Second Temple Judaism extend hospitality to those outside their fictive family groups, including outsiders as members of one’s own family. Only in this way can these insiders ensure that they will be members of restored Israel. 

4..6.) Luke 16:20, 22

            Luke uses  ptochos for the sixth and seventh time in Jesus’ parable about “a poor man named Lazarus” who lay, and eventually died, at the gate of nameless rich man (16:20-22). Danker sees 16:1-31 as a narrative unit, “Urgent Appeal: Wisdom and Folly,” separating the story of the crooked steward (16:1-9), “Mammon and the Kingdom” (16:10-18), and, “The Rich Man and Lazarus” (16:19-31) into sub-units and noting thematic connections among these sub-units as well as connections with the preceding material in Lk. 15.[35]  Talbert also identifies 16:1-31 as a discrete unit, “The Use and Misuse of Wealth” and more expliticitly points out liguistic and thematic connections running through this chapter.[36] Johnson divides 16:1-13, “Possessions in Parable and Paranesis,” from 16:14-31 “The Claims of Moses and the Prophets.,” though he acknowledges the thematic connections between the two units.[37] Green entitles the narrative unit 16:1-31, “Kingdom Economics,” with sub-units, 16:1-9 “Using Wealth to Make Friends,” 16:10-13 “The Rule of Wealth,” and, 16:14:31 “Jesus’ Polemic Against the Pharisees, Lovers of Money.”[38] He also focuses on thematic and linguistic connections within the narrative unit 16:1-31 as well as its relationship to the preceeding material in Lk. 14 and 15.

            Given the close thematic and lingusitic connection between chapters 14, 15, 16 and 17:1-10 it is somewhat difficult to locate these two uses of ptochos within a narrative unit. In 14:25-35 Jesus is talking with “great multitudes [that] accompanied him.” That the disciples are present seems likely given the call, “Follow me,” and that they are “with him” on the journey to Jerusalem.  It appears that Pharisees and scribes are also present as they charge that “This man receives sinners and eats with them ” (15:1). All of chapter 15 is Jesus’ response to the charges of the Pharisees and scribes. Are the disciples present? It would seem so because in 16:1 the narrator notes that Jesus turns his attention to the disciples and addresses them from 16:1 to 16:13 without any change in location or time within the narrative. It is also apparent that the Pharisees are still present as Jesus teaches the disciples because in 16:14, “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this,” that is, they heard what Jesus has said to the disciples, and “they scoffed at him.” Jesus’ comments in 16:15-17 and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus are directed  to the Pharisees and scribes however, the disciples are also present as indicated by the narrator, “And he said to his disciples” (17:1). There will be no change in Jesus’ location or audience until 17:11 as he resumes the journey toward Jerusalem. Given that Jesus’ audience is the disciples, scribes and Pharisees from 15:1 until 17:10 and that there are no geographic or temporal changes within this discourse I will locate the six and seventh use of ptochos within a larger narrative unit that begins at 15:1 and continues until 17:10. On the other hand, there is good reason to locate the uses of ptochos in 16:20, 22 within the smaller sub-unit of 16-1-31 as the commentators above have done. The parable of the dishonest steward begins with Jesus saying “There was a rich man” (16:1) and ends with Jesus’ admonition to the Pharisees and scribes:

               “And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that    when it fails they may receive you into eternal habitations.” (16:9).

The parable of the dishonest steward parallels Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus in that the second parable also begins with Jesus saying, “There was a rich man” (16:19) and ends with the rich man in Hades. Having failed to use his unrighteous mammon to make friends with Lazarus he is not welcomed into eternal habitations by Abraham. This sort of parallel suggests that the two parables ought to be interpreted in light of one another and that the intervening material, Lk. 16:10-18 is also part of a narrative unit that begins at 16:1 and ends at 16:31. The fact that this double use of ptochos to refer to Lazarus occurs in a parable which is part of a narrative unit, 16:1-31, itself is part of a larger narrative unit, 15:1-17:10, will have some bearing on how I interpret ptochos here.

            That the referent of ptochos is Lazarus is clear; “a poor man named Lazarus” (16:20), “the poor man died” (16:22). What does it mean that Lazarus is “a poor man?” That Lazarus does not have money to buy food is also clear, thus in contrast to the first five occurrences of the term, this useage does have economic connotations. However it would be a mistake to assume that the term “poor” here is referring only to economic categories. Luke portrays the desperate situation of Lazarus in this life, and the desperate situation of the rich man in Hades, in terms of the systems of social stratification, status-honor and temple purity that we have seen are such an integral part of Luke’s narrative and social worlds. The problem for Lazarus, and the rich man, is that they live in a culture when lines are drawn between people of different status. These lines form boundaries which identify some people as insiders and others as outsiders. These boundaries become apparent as the narrator draws parallels between the rich man and Lazarus. That the rich man is a person of high status, an insider, as indicated first by what he wears, “purple and fine linen: (16:19). Lazarus, on the other hand, is covered with sores (16:20). His lack of clothing mark him him as a man who is shamed with no status-honor. Furthermore, his sores mark him as someone unclean from the point of view of the Pharisees to whom Jesus is speaking. The rich man “feasted sumptuously every day” (16:19) while Lazarus “desired to to be fed what fell from the rich man’s table” (16:21). As we have seen, eating is a highly symbolic affair in Luke’s social and narrative worlds. To host feasts is way to display and enhance one’s status-honor. That the rich man feasts daily marks him as someone of very high status. Lazarus wants to eat what the dogs would eat, “what fell from the rich man’s table” (16:21). He is portrayed as an expendable, one without status-honor. In addition, that “the dogs licked his sores” (16:21) further marks him as unclean given the negative connotations associated with dogs in the Bible. Finally, Green points out that the social distance between the rich man and Lazarus is reflected in the reference to “his gate” (16:20). The rich man has a gate indicating the possibility that he is an estate owner. Lazarus has been “thrown down” at the gate, he has no home. Thus the parallelism between the rich man and Lazarus indicate that boundaries between the two men which are based on concerns for status-honor and temple purity are the real problem. The rich man will not cross these boundaries to meet Lazarus’ need because to do so would make him unclean and would cause him a loss of status-honor. The problem for Lazarus is obvious, he dies as an outcast. The problem for the rich man is that the symbol system within which he lives his life is despised by God because under its influence he does not do what God wants him to do, with the result that when he dies he he is prevented from from joining Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom (16:23-26). The rich man continues to think of Lazarus as someone of lower status than himself even in Hades as revealed in his plea to Abraham, “send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue” (16:24). Ironically, the social distance between the rich man and Lazarus that was apparent in this life is preserved in Hades. Abraham tells the rich man that “between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (16:26). Thus, the theme of reversal that we saw in the use of  ptochos in Lk. 6:20-24, is revealed in Hades where the rich man who, “in [his] lifetime received [his] good things,” is “in anguish in these flames” while Lazarus who “[in his lifetime received] evil things,” “is comforted here” in Abraham’s bosom (16:24-25). In examining the parable of the rich man and Lazarus then, it is apparent that Luke portrays Jesus as focusing on the Pharisees’ concern for status-honor and temple purity which keep insiders, like the rich man, from crossing boundaries and extending general reciprocity to low status, unclean, outsiders like Lazarus. This is precisely the problem that the Pharisees must overcome if they are to be a part of restored Israel.

            This kind of concern is apparent as well when the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is considered within its larger narrative context. I have already mentioned the parallel between the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the parable of the dishonest steward however it will be helpful to make a few further comments on the parable of the dishonest steward. It is important to note Jesus’ differentiation between two “ages” with “the children of this age” (16:8) contrasted with the “children of light” in this parable. The term this age here should be contrasted with that age, that is, the age to come, as it is in Lk. 18:30 and 20:34-35. This age has been characterized by Jesus already in the narrative as evil (Lk. 7:31; 9:41; 11;29-32).[39] Thus in contrasting the “children of this age” with the “children of light” (16:8) Jesus makes the point that the children of this age know how to use the systems of this age, as is demonstrated by the dishonest steward. He knows how to make friends for himself so “that people may receive [him] into their houses” when he loses his position as steward (16:4). Green comments on the idea of “making friends.”

               “Jesus’ counsel to “make friends” draws on social conventions deeply embedded in the    Greco-Roman world, whereby friendship and economic considerations were inseparable     ...Using money to make friends, then, refers simply to the social reality: The exchange of     money created, maintained, or solidified various forms of friendship.[40] 

However, while Jesus’ teaching draws on social conventions that are easily recognized by his contemporaries, the narratee will remember Jesus’ challenge to his Pharisee host at table that he ought to give banquets for those who cannot repay him (14:1-24). The children of light ought to operate in terms of God’s values rather than the systems of this age but, they do not necessarily do so. In Luke’s narrative the Pharisees would see themselves as children of light, they believe that they are “Israel.” However, to operate in terms of God’s values would be to use unrighteous mammon, that is the wealth of this age, not to increase or maintain one’s status-honor, but to cross the social boundaries which are so much a part of this age and extend general reciprocity to those outside one’s social unit, or as Jesus says “to make friends for yourselves...so that you may be received into eternal habitations” (16:9). Therefore, when read in light of their co-textual relationships, the two parables under examination here show Jesus teaching his disciples, and the Pharisees and scribes who are listening, that concerns to maintain or increase ones status-honor have no place in restored Israel. If they want to be children of Abraham they must act as children of Abraham, crossing the boundary lines that separate them from outsiders, and treating such people as family. To refuse to do so will demonstrate that they are not children of Abraham and have no place in restored Israel.

5.7.) Luke 18:22

            The eighth use of ptochos occurs in a dialouge between Jesus and a rich ruler (Luke 18:22).  The ruler asks Jesus what appears to an appropiate question, “Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life.” Jesus’ response is abrupt, focusing immmediately on the way the ruler addresses him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone?” (Luke 18:19), and only then turns to the subject of the ruler’s question, “You know the commandments....” (Luke 18:20). When the ruler assures Jesus that he has always observed the commandments Jesus responds by inviting the ruler to enter restored Israel, “Sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor (ptochois), and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Luke 18:22). To identify the referent of ptochois here I must first situate this scene within a narrative unit and ask how its location influences its intepretation. Secondly, I must consider how this use of ptochois is in continuity with, or not, of previous useages of the term.

            Danker  locates this scene within a larger narrative unit extending from 17:11 to 18:30 entitled “Third Phase of the Journey to Jerusalem.” This larger unit is divided into a number of smaller units with 18:1-30 entited “Preparation for the Kingdom” and !8:8-27 labeled “Rid of Excess Baggage.”[41]  Danker sees this unit as attack on “the last bulwark of the self-made religious man, namely, material goods.”[42] Johnson locates the present scene within a narrative unit entitled “Entering the Kingdom” (Luke 18:15-34). He emphasizes the contrast between the rich ruler and the children being brought to Jesus in the immediately preceeding scene (Luke 18: 15-17) noting that “the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is ‘made up of’ just such helpless, useless types as children: the poor, the lame, the blind, the sinners.”[43] Green views this scene as part of a larger unit extending from 17:11 to 19:27 which he calls “Responding to the Kingdom.” He identifies 18:9-19:27 as “How to Enter the Kingdom”with the present scene entitled “The Problem of Wealth and Power.”[44]

            Luke does provide geographical markers that help situate this scene. On his way to Jerusalem, Jesus is met by ten lepers as he enters a village which is between Samaria and Gallilee (Luke 17:11-12). This village is apparently the geographical context in which the material from 17:11 to 18:30 occurs. Following this in 18:31-35 Jesus takes his disciples and travels on, approaching Jericho. On this basis it might make sense to locate Jesus’ encounter with the rich ruler within the narrative unit from 17:11 to 18:35. On the other hand, the motif of the presence of the Kingdom of God and various responses to it help tie together the larger segment from 17:11 to 19:27. In addition, throughout this larger narrative unit in which Jesus’ encounter with the rich ruler occurs there is a preponderance of material that will bring to mind for the narratee issues of social status, purity and insider/outsider relations. Jesus heals ten lepers as he enters the village, people who would be excluded from the life of God’s community on the basis of purity concerns (Luke 17:12-14). He commends one of the lepers for returning to praise God for his healing. The narrator informs the narratee that this leper was a Samaritan, a double outsider (Luke 17:16). Jesus tells a parable about an unjust judge who is hounded by a widow seeking justice (Luke 18:1-8). The narratee, as a cultural insider, is aware of the low social status of widows. Social status is again evident in the following parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector (18:9-14). In keeping with the way Luke has Jesus stand ordinary social/religious conventions on their head, it is the low-status tax collector rather than the high-staus Pharisee that is justified by God. Once again, in the next scene people are bringing infants, that is, people of very low social status to Jesus (Luke 18:15). Jesus, in contrast to the disciples, freely accepts these low-status people and rebukes the disciples saying, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God (Luke 18:16). This will recall for the narratee the parallel ways that Jesus announced his mission.     

            “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has annointed me.

            To bring good news to the poor (ptochos) he has sent me: (4:18)

            “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other       cities also; for I was     sent for this purpose.” (4:43)

In addition, the narratee will remember Jesus’ proclamation,

            Blessed are you poor (ptochoi), for yours is the kingdom of God (6:20).

The fact that Jesus identifies the kingdom as belonging to “you poor” and to “children” suggests that both terms have the same referent. The emphasis that Luke has placed on the inclusion of those considered to be outsiders with Second Temple Judaism previously in the narrative is continued here and sets the stage for Jesus encounter with the rich ruler.

            The narrator’s designation of the man as a “ruler” identifies him as a person of high social status. The ruler’s own estimation of his high status is indicated in the way he greets Jesus, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18). As noted above, Jesus reply is abrupt and does not, immediately, address the question regarding eternal life, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone?” (Luke 18:19). Why does Jesus respond in this manner? Previously in the narrative Jesus was asked the same question by a lawyer who addressed him as “Teacher.”

               “And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do     to inherit eternal life” (Luke 10:25).

 Jesus’ answer to the lawyer in that case demonstrates that he is not offended by being addressed as “Teacher.” Green points out that the difference between the lawyer’s address and that of the ruler is the modifier “good.”

               “the ruler is engaged in a word game deeply rooted in concerns with status. According to   this linguistic system one commendation deserves another. Thus, even in the way the ruler             addresses Jesus he signifies his committment to a particular set of conventions, [and] his        identity            within a particular social group...”[45]

The ruler sees himself as an insider, a person of high social status. Jesus signals that such assessments, from God’s point of view, are at best, meaningless however, he does not reject the man but instead invites him to become a part of restored Israel.

               “And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me”           (Luke 18:22).

What does the term (ptochos) refer here? Up to this point in the narrative the term has been used primarily to refer both to Jesus’ mission of restoring Israel and to those who are included in restored Israel, especially persons considered to be outsiders within Second Temple Judaism. In addition, in the story of Lazarus, while issues of separation to due to concerns for status honor and purity were certainly prominent, the term carries economic connotations. I think the current useage can carry all these connotations. When Jesus calls on this man to sell all he has and distribute it to the poor he is not dealing only or even primarily with economic issues. Luke portrays Jesus as continuing his declared mission. Throughout the narrative that Jesus has invited both insiders and outsiders within Second temple Judaism to be a part of restored Israel. The rich ruler is an insider. Given the background of what has occurred so far in the narrative it would be a mistake to see Jesus as simply instructing this man to renounce his wealth. Rather, Jesus is calling him to renounce the system of social stratification by which he uses his wealth to maintain or increase his status honor and by which he separates himself and treats many Jews as outsiders and, to join the community of Jesus’ followers, that is, restored Israel. In order to follow and declare himself part of restored Israel, he must be willing to use his wealth in order to treat people that he considers to be outside his social/religious group as if they were members of his family.    

5.8.) Luke 19:8

            The term “the poor” (tois ptochois) is used for the ninth time in the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus. Johnson joins the immediately preceeding scene concerning a blind beggar with the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 18:3-19:10) and entitles the section “Saving Faith--Again.” He sees both scenes answering the question raised in 18:26, “Those who heard it said, ‘Then who can be saved?”[46] Danker identifies 18:31 to 19:27 as a narrative unit which he calls “Final Phase of the Journey to Jerusalem.” As noted above, Green views this scene as part of a larger unit extending from 17:11 to 19:27 which he calls “Responding to the Kingdom.” He titles the story of Zaccheaus, “Who is a Son of Abraham?”[47] Though there are geographical markers; “And taking the twelve, he said to them, ‘Behold we are going up to Jerusalem” (18:31),  “he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem” (19:28), which suggest that Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus be seen within a narrative unit starting at 18:31 and ending at 19:27, there are clear connections with material in the larger narrative unit of 17:11 to 19:27. Perhaps most important are the parallels between Zacchaeus and the rich ruler. Both are “rulers,” both are “rich.” With regard to my investigation in this chapter there are two points I want to focus on in Luke’s portrayal of Zacchaeus. First, unlike the rich ruler, Zacchaeus does treat the poor as if they were members of his own family, “Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, ‘Look, half of my possessions I give to the poor (tois ptochois) (Luke 19:8). Here again, my question is, who are the poor to whom Zacchaeus gives half of his possessions? I see no reason to change the assessment of the referent of the term tois ptochois. The term is used in the context of Jesus’ restoration of Israel and refers especially to the followers of Jesus, people who, in large part, would be considered outsiders within Second Temple Judaism.

            The second point is that the story of Zacchaeus helps identify the referent of the term ptochos because Luke portrays Zacchaeus himself as one of “the poor.” This can be seen in the way that Jesus speaks to Zacchaeus,

               “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for I must stay at your house today” (Luke         19:5)

               “Today, salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the      Son of Man came to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:9-10).

The double use of today, will remind the narratee of Jesus’ statement following his reading of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at Nazareth, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21).[48] The emphasis there was on the reality that Jesus’mission of bringing good news to the poor as already occuring. Zacchaeus is a recipient of that good news, he is one of “the poor” to whom Jesus’ mission is directed. Furthermore, Jesus identifies Zacchaeus as a “son of Abraham” not because of his ethnic background but because he has aligned himself with God’s purpose, the restoration of Israel announced by John and Jesus. Even though he is “rich” economically (Luke 19:2), Zacchaeus is “poor” in the sense that Luke has used the term so far in the narrative. He is an outsider, a person of low social status within Second Temple Judaism. This is seen in his designation as a tax collector (Luke 19:2), in the crowd’s refusal to grant him access to seeing Jesus, (Luke 19:3), and in the crowd’s assessment of him as a “sinner” (Luke 19:7). By using his wealth to treat outsiders as part of his own family Zacchaeus demonstrates that he is a son of Abraham and Jesus acknowledges him as a member of restored Israel.

5.9.) Luke 21:2-3

            Luke’s tenth use of the term I am investigating occurs in the context of his critique of the temple system. Having arrived in Jerusalem “he entered the temple” (Luke 19:45). Luke frames the temple scene with references to Jesus’ teaching; “and he was teaching daily in the temple” (Luke 19:47), “And every day he was teaching in the temple” (Luke 21:37). After public debate and confrontation with the chief priests and the scribes Jesus describes a “poor widow” contributing to the temple treasury (Luke 21:1-4).

               “He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor       (penikran) widow put in two coins. And he said, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor (ptoche)      widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but      she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had” (Luke 21:1-4).

This occurrence of ptoche is unique among the other nine occurrences in that Jesus uses a second word penikran to describe the widow. Given that Jesus’ description of the widow is concerned with her contribution of money to the temple treasury as well as the contributions of rich people to the treasury, it is clear that Luke is at least referring to economic categories in Jesus’ description of the widow as “poor.” However, while the entire narrative unit between 19:47 and 21:37 takes place in the temple, “one day” (Luke 20:1), the narrator separates Jesus’ debates with the priests and scribes, and Sadducees (Luke20:1-20:44), from comments that he makes to his disciples, “in the hearing of all the people” (Luke 20:45). It is in this latter sub-unit (Luke 20:45-4), that Jesus’ description of the widow occurs. Significantly, also included in the sub-unit is Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes.

               “And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the marketplaces and the best seats in       the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widow’s houses and for a             pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation” (Luke 20:45-47)

Jesus’ critique of the scribes is grounded within his mission to restore Israel. As a “cultural center” within Second Temple Judaism the temple symbolizes Israel’s relationship with God. In Jesus’ view the temple system is fatally corrupted. Hiscriticism of its personel is focused on their concern to maintain or increase their own status honor. Three main areas of public life are mentioned; the marketplace, the synagogue and feasts. The concern of the scribes regarding status honor is seen in their clothing, “long robes,” their love of salutations, and their desire for the “best seats in the synagogue and places of honor at feasts. While they are concerned to increase their own status honor they are not interested in the situation of persons outside their own social unit. They “devour widow’s houses.” The reference to “widows houses” provides a direct linguistic and thematic connection to Jesus’ dscription of the “poor widow” who is supporting the temple cult out of her poverty. Thus, Jesus depicts the dilemma of the poor widow not simply in economic terms but in terms of her position as a low status, outsider within Second Temple Judaism.  The temple system which ideally ought to be focused on the God who cares for the widow, the orphan and the alien, is instead exploiting such people in order to enhance the status honor of its personnel.

5.10.) Conclusion

            In this examination of the term ptochos in the Third Gospel I have argued that the term must be interpreted in the light of a number of different factors. First among these is the citation of, or allusion to Isa. 61 that is seen in the first five occurrences of ptochos. The prominence of Isa. 61 in Luke’s Gospel is related to his effort to portray Jesus’ mission as the restoration of Israel. Equally important however, is the way that ptochos is co-located with a variety of terms; “the captives”, “the blind,” “the oppressed”, “you who hunger,” “you who mourn,” “the lame,” “lepers,” “the deaf,” “the dead,” “the maimed.” These terms also help the reader interpret ptochos in Luke’s narrative. Taken as a group they refer to people who are excluded or marginalized within Second Temple Judaism due to their low social status or their state of “uncleaness” accrding to the temple purity system. A third factor which intersects with the second is the way that Jesus actually carries out his mission, that is, the way that he restores Israel. Through the double use of the term “release” in Jesus’ announcement, Luke characterizes Jesus as the one who releases people from sin, sickness and demonic oppression. In all of these actions, and in his willingness to accept, even eat with, tax collectors and “sinners,” Jesus is involved in restoring outsiders into Israel.  I have argued that Luke does not use the term ptochos to refer primarily to economic categories. While economic concerns are certainly present in Luke’s use of ptochos, such concerns are related to issues of social relationships within restored Israel. Through this examination of the use of ptochos in the Third Gospel I have more fully established the first foundational argument of my thesis. I have show that ptochos is a bi-referential term. It refers to Jesus’ mission of restoring Israel and to his effort to include outsiders into restored Israel.

----

[1]               Thus: aphesis -- Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:27; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10;43’ 13:38; 26;18; aphiemi-- Luke 5:20, 21, 23, 24; 7:47 (2x), 48, 49; 11:4 (2x); 12:10; 17:3, 4; 23:34; Acts 8:22

[2]               Turner, Power from on High, p. 223-224

[3]               Turner, Power from on High, p. 223-224

[4]               Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 241

[5]               Turner, Power from on High, p. 223-224

[6]               Philip Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.181, Esler’s suggestion that “release for captives” refers to Jewish slaves that become Christians and whose Christian communities would then free finds no support in Luke-Acts.

[7]               J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 487-489, “luo-to release from control in a variety of circumstances; political domination, sickness, sin.”

[8][8]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, 521

[9]               Of course, I am assuming here that Luke-Acts is one narrative.

[10]             Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 100-116

[11]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 136

[12]             Talbert, Reading Luke, pp. 68-77

[13]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 257-280

[14]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, pp. 134-136;  Green, The Gospel of Luke, p.259

[15]             E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 95-106

[16]             Danker, Jesus and the New, p. 139

[17]             Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 106

[18]             eg. Lk. 14:7-24; 16:19-31; 18:9-14; 22-24

[19]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 156-172

[20]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 281-315

[21]             Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 78-83

[22]             Talbert, Reading Luke, pp. 84-89

[23]             Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, pp. 116-129

[24]             Turner, Power From On High, p. 230

[25]             Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p. 163

[26]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 295

[27]             Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, p. 128

[28]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p,. 267;  Green, The Gospel of Luke, 539; and, Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 231, all identify Lk.14:1-24 as a discrete narrative unit though each comments separately on various sub-units. 

[29]             See Chapter 4

[30]             The issue of healing on the Sabbath points out the importance of Sabbath keeping as another boundary marker for some Jewish groups distinguishing insiders and outsiders. See Dunn

[31] Green notes the structural parallelism between Jesus’ remarks to the guests;

                                Verses 7-11                                           Verse 12-14

                                Jesus                                                       Jesus

                                When                                                     When                    

                                Do not                                                    Do not

                                But when                                               But when

                                Then you                                               Then you

This feature indicate that Jesus’ comments are all directed to all persons present.

                [32]Examples of “eschatological banquet” reading. Explain problematic view of God --Green, see Richard L. Rohrbaugh, “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations,” ed. Jerome Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991), p. 138-145

[33]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p,. 271;  Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 232

[34]             Explain

[35]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 279-286

[36]             Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 153-159

[37]             Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 243-256

[38]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 586-610

[39]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 593

[40]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 593-594

[41]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. ix

[42]             Danker, Jesus and the New Age, p. 187

[43]             Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 280

[44]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 652

[45]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 655

[46]             Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 286-287

[47]             Green, The Gospel of Luke, p. 666

[48]             And earlier in the announcement of the angel regarding Jesus’ birth, (Luke 2:11).