Sermon Tone Analysis

*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).